Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

actprompt

like 0

(a), Section 5 r/w 27 of the Arms Act. The gist of theprosecution case relevant for the purpose of this proceedingmay be stated thus: With the growth of industry, commerceand trade in and around the city of Mumbai which generatessubstantial quantity of wealth, there has been increase oforganised activities by gangs of anti-socials to extractmoney from affluent sections of society like developers,hoteliers and other businessmen by putting them in fear ofdeath and then to demand substantial sums of money commonlyknown as "Khadani" i.e. protection money.One such gangwas operating in the city under Amar Naik @ Bhai, who dieda couple of years before the decision in the case at anencounter with the police.The prosecution alleged that inpursuance of a criminal conspiracy between 15.1.1994 to16.5.1994 the accused persons and others of the gangembarked upon preparatory acts like procuring theinformation about the names of the builders of M/s KalpataruConstruction Company which was engaged in developing aproperty at Pali Hill, named Nakshatra Building.PW-7Sudhir Tambe was the Senior Vice-President of the companywith its head office at Nariman Point.He used to sit inthe head- office.PW 6 Pachapur, Civil Engineer, was anemployee of the company who used to remain at the site tosupervise the construction.As the prosecution story runs,on 15.4.1994 between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon while PW 6was on duty at the construction site, accused no.3, NitinVasant Venugurlekar armed with revolver and accused No.4Rajindera @ Rajan Mahadeo Margaj armed with a chopper andaccused no.5 Jayendra @ Jai Anandrao Jadhav also armed witha chopper visited the site of Nakshatra Building; theythreatened the workers at the site, forcibly brought PW 6Pachapur in a room on the ground floor and man-handled him.Accused no.3, pointing a revolver at him demanded the name,address and telephone number of the builders.PW 6disclosed the name of PW 7 Tambe and gave his telephonenumber to them.The accused then asked him to go to theoffice of the builders at Nariman Point and make thearrangement for a telephonic talk with Tambe.PW 6 rushedto the office and told Tambe of what had happened at theconstruction site.This was followed by telephonic callsfrom the accused who wanted to speak to Tambe.Attemptswere made by PW 6 and PW 7 to avoid any discussion with thegangsters.Two or three days thereafter when the accusedgot Tambe on the telephone he (Tambe) gave them some othertelephone numbers and asked them to contact those personsincluding one D.N.Ghosh, the Security Contractor.Eight/tendays thereafter again a telephone call was made to theoffice of Tambe which was received by PW 6 who was informedby the person making the call that they could not get D. N.Ghosh on the telephone numbers furnished by Tambe.Thereafter PW 6 handed over the receiver to Tambe.Thisincident was followed by several threats given by thegangsters to workers and also repeated telephone calls madeto the Head Office of the company to contact Tambe.Thestaff of the site office absented from work resulting invirtual closure of construction activity.On 11.5.1994 thedeceased Sanjay Patil telephoned to Tambe and warned himthat he is wasting time and should meet him without furtherdelay.After some days there was one more similar call fromSanjay Patil and he asked Tambe that he should talk to Bhaiand saying so he handed over the receiver to another personwho gave his identity as Amar Naik (since deceased), whotold Tambe that he should pay Rs.10 lacs.The later pleadedhis inability to pay such a heavy sum and after somediscussion agreed to pay Rs.5 lacs.He was asked to come toNakshatra Building site on 16.5.1994 along with money.Inthe meantime Tambe informed all the happenings to the Addl.Commissioner of Police Mr.Sanjeev Dayal and the then Dy.Commissioner of Police of Zone VII Mr. Rajanish Shethwithin whose jurisdiction Khar Police Station fell.On 16.5.1994 at about 12.00 noon the deceased SanjayPatil telephoned Tambe and inquired from him as to what hewas going to do about the payment and then Tambe repliedthat he will be leaving office at about 2.00 p.m. for PaliHill.Sanjay Patil cautioned him that he should not makeany haste and he should wait for his call so that he willtake necessary instructions from his boss i.e. Amar Naik.At about 2.00 p.m. on that day there was a telephone callfrom Sanjay Patil telling that Tambe should not meet him atthe Nakshatra Building site but instead he should meet himnear the Ceaser Palace Hotel.This telephonic conversationwas tape-recorded.Tambe was instructed on telephone thathis man shall carry a white plastic bag containing theamount of Rs.5 lacs and shall wait near the entrance gate ofCeaser Palace Hotel and the person coming to collect thesaid bag will introduce himself as Me Rawanacha Manus Hai.Tambe informed to the DCP all these happenings and handedover the tape in which the telephonic conversation wasrecorded by him.The DCP had made the arrangements to keepa regular watch near the building site.PW 1 Sunil Deshmukhwas deployed to wait in cognito near the gate of the CeaserPalace Hotel and to carry the white plastic bag containingbundles of papers which would give an appearance like thebundles of currency notes.The other officers, who werealso in cognito, had taken their position at strategicpoints near the hotel.At about 4.05 p.m. Sunil Deshmukhnoticed that one red coloured Maruti van halted in front ofthe Ceaser Palace Hotel.He noticed three persons gettingdown from the said van.Those three persons were coming inhis direction, and the van went ahead 50 to 60 feets andhalted there.The deceased Sanjay Patil and the accusedno.7 Bapu Sidhram Gaikwad got down from the said van andaccused no.6 Mohamed Ismail was sitting on the driver seatin the van.Heenquired from PW1 about his identity and when PW 1 repliedthat he has been sent by Tambe Sahib.PW 1 Sunil Deshmukhthen asked that person who are you (Tum Kaun Hai) and thenthe accused no.2 Umesh Bhatt told him that Hum Rawan KeAadmi Hai.L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J J U D G M E N T D.P. MOHAPATRA,J This appeal, filed by accused no.1 Babu KuttanRamkrishna Pillai and accused no.2 Umesh @ Babu PurshottamBhatt of TADA ACT Spl.Thereafter accused no.1 Babu Kuttan extendedhis hand towards PW 1 who delivered the bag to him.At thisjuncture the police officers who were standing nearby incognito rushed to the place and surrounded the threepersons.When the police officers were trying to overpowerthem the deceased Sanjay Patil @ Avinash Amanna and theaccused no .7 Bapu Sidhram Gaikwad came forward withrevolvers in their hands and threatened the police party bysaying they should leave their men or else the policemenwill be killed.Saying so they fired in the direction ofthe police party.At this point PW 1 took out his revolverand pointed it in the direction of the accused and told themwe are all policemen and you should throw away yourrevolvers else we will fire.Even then the accused personsfired some rounds in the direction of the police party, thenPW 1 and one other officer tried to rush towards them butthey sat in the said Maruti van and sped away from theplace.After the situation calmed down, the police drew thepanchnamas Ex.22 in presence of some witnesses andconducted personal search of the three culprits.On suchsearch accused no.1 Babu Kuttan Pillai was found to possessthe plastic bag containing the paper bundles (Art.1),accused no.2 Umesh Bhatt was found to possess a big Rampuriknife which was hidden at the waist under the pant by leftside.After completion of investigation the police submittedthe charge-sheet.The three persons at the spot wereremanded to the police custody.Subsequently, the otheraccused persons were also arrested.They were put to testidentification parade.The learned Trial Judge onappreciation of the evidence on record convicted accusedno.1 Babu Kuttan Ramkrishna Pillai and the accused no.2Umesh @ Babu Purshottam Bhatt for the offence punishableunder section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencedeach of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years andto pay a fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine toundergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.Theywere also convicted under Section 120 B of the IPC but noseparate sentence was passed.They were acquitted of theother offences with which they were charged.The remainingaccused persons i.e. accused nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7 wereacquitted of all the charges framed against them.1 and 2, have filed this appeal assailing the judgmentpassed by the Designated Court at Brihan Mumbai,convicting/sentencing them as above.On a reading of the judgment under challenge, we findthat the learned trial Judge has considered the entire caseled by the prosecution in great detail and after discussingthe charges framed against the appellants under sections3(2), 3(3) and 3(5) of TADA Act, rejected the prosecutioncase on that count.Thereafter the learned trial Judge inparagraph 17 onwards considered the question of what offencewas made out against the appellants.After a detaileddiscussion of the relevant evidence placed by theprosecution and after examining it in the light of thecontentions on behalf of the defence, the learned trialJudge believed the testimony of PW 1- Sunil Deshmukh, PW 7 -Tambe and PW 9 - L.J. Kamble and came to hold that theappellants are guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracypunishable under section 120-B and the offence of dacoitypunishable under section 395 IPC and convicted themthereunder and imposed the punishment as noted earlier.We have perused the evidence of these witnesses.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

05.09.13 Item No. 44 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 44And In the matter of: Arabinda Das & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Ms. Ratna Ghosh For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hogalberia Police Station Case No. 133 of 2013 dated 06.03.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioners are the brothers-in-law and the parents-in-law of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners 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 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT R.K. Chowdhry, J.For offences under the last three countsthey were tried by jury and for that under the first with the aid of assessors.The appellants have been sentenced to 3 years' R. I. each under Section 120B, I. P. C. They have also been sentenced to 2 years' R. I. each under Section 161, I. P. C., plus a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in the case of Chari and of Rs. 5,000/- in the case of Vaish.By notification No. 223 of the Government of India in the Department of Supply, dated 25-2-1943, the Deputy Iron and Steel Controllers in various States were authorised to exercise the powers of the Controller.Each State was allotted a quota of the commodity., and the Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, referred to hereinafter as the D. I. S. C., distributed that quota to the stock holders of the State.The first D. I. S. C. in Uttar Pradesh at Kanpur was Sri B. D. Talwar P. W. 31, and the appellant Chari was Assistant Iron and Steel Controller under him.Chari took over as D. I. S. C. from Sri Talwar in the afternoon of 31-12-1945, and held that office until 20-9-1946, when he suddenly left Kanpur without waiting for his leave to be sanctioned by the Controller at Calcutta after handing over charge to Sri.There was an association of stock-holders of iron and steel at Kanpur known as the U. P. Registered Stock-holders Association.Chari was ex officio chairman of the Association.The railway administration was the main source of supply of scrap iron, and for U. P. it was the railway yard at Alambagh.The office of the D. I. S. C. at Kanpur consisted of various sections.The appellants have been convicted for having accepted illegal gratifications in return for favours shown in a number of instances by misuse of Chari's powers as D. I. S. C. of issuing written orders for purchase of iron and steel and for purchase of scrap iron and also his powers of issuing orders for release of material as Chairman of the Stock-holders' Association at Kanpur.Written orders are also said to have been forged to appear as if issued before the aforesaid dates of decontrol, and before the date on which directions were issued in the Conference at Calcutta and both the appellants are said to have been in criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offences.Vaish is said to have accepted illegal gratification in two instances and to have abetted acceptance of illegal gratification by Chari.They made a number of seizures of articles and documents from the residence and office of Chari and from dealers in Kanpur and in various other districts, and L. S. Darbari submitted a charge sheet against the appellants on 2-3-1949 after necessary sanctions under Section 197 Cr. P. Code, and Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, had been obtained.Chari admitted having issued after return from the Calcutta conference licences ante dated as anterior to 23-3-1946 but pleaded that he did it so as not to appear to have disregarded the directions given by the Controlled at the said Conference.The other antedatings were denied.The statement of B. D. Soni P. W. 10, Superintendent Stock-holders' Association, to whom Chari addressed the said orders, that these priorities greatly disturbed releases appears therefore to be quite correct.Chari's defence relating to the pieces of furniture was that "he had given permission to Sher Singh Arora to keep these articles in his office so, that they may serve as advertisement and people may sit on them, because he had told me that he manafactured them.He had written in bold letters, thereon that they have been manufactured in his firm.Arora therefore supplied the revolving chair from his own Kanpur office.That explains why the revolving chair bore the aforesaid inscription.If advertisement had been the object, the inscription would much rather have been on the pieces got specially manufactured at Delhi.Moreover, it would be a strange phenomenon for a D. I. S. C., to lend his office to serve as an advertisement base for the goods of a firm, to say nothing of its being against officers conduct rules.In default of payment of fine, the defaulter is to suffer, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.One of these was the civil supplies section which prepared and issued written orders, or licences, for sale of iron or steel by the stock-holders Association at Kanpur in compliance with the orders of the D. I. S. C. on applications of persons for such licenses.Control on scrap Iron lasted till 31-12-1945, the date on which Talwar handed over charge to Chari.With effect from 1-1-1946, scrap iron was decontrolled, vide the General Authorisation Order, Ex. P301 dated 12-12-1945, issued by the Controller along with the letter Ex. 302 of even date to theRailway Board and all Regional D. I. and S. Controllers.With effect from 1-4-1946, iron and steel was decontrolled, vide the letter Ex. P308 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Industries and Supplies to the Provincial Governments and Chief Commissioners.Mr. E. G. Spooner P. W. 1, the Iron and Steel Controller, held a conference of the Deputy Regional Iron and Steel Controllers at Calcutta on the 25th and 26th of March, 1946, in which it was decided that although iron and steel was to be decontrolled from 1-4-1946, no further licences were to be issued in respect of that commodity, and oral instructions were given accordingly to all the D. I. S. Cs., Including Chari.Both the appellants denied the various charges levelled against them.Examination of the proceedings in the Sessions Court after commitment discloses that the record was received in the Court of the Sessions Judge on 12-5-1952 and on 30-6-1952 and he issued orders that prosecution witnesses be summoned from 25-8-1952 and the defence witnesses from 10-9-1952 onwards, that the accused's counsel be informed to produce them on 25-8-1952 and that 10 jurors be summoned.On 21-7-1952 Chari endorsed a note on the order sheet that he had received information fromhis counsel about his presenting himself in the Sessions Court on 25-8-1952, that he shall, present himself on that date and subsequently during the trial, and that no notice be issued to the sureties.On 24-7-1952 an application along with the list of defence witnesses was sent to the Committing Magistrate.On 14-8-1952 two applications were filed on behalf of Vaish, one for summoning certain defence witnesses and the other for requiring a prosecution witness, the Secretary, Iron and Steel Controller's office Calcutta, to produce a register.On the motion of the public prosecutor and by an order dated 16-8-1952 the Sessions Judge adjourned the sessions trial sine die, and on 29-8-1952 he transferred the case to the Court of Sri B. N. Chaudhari Additional Sessions Judge.On the same date the Additional Sessions Judge ordered summoning of prosecution witnesses from 3-11-1952 and defence witnesses from 18-11-1952 and also the summoning of jurors who had been selected already.Not only was the Sessions Court ready to commence the trial but the accused had appeared before it and witnesses for the prosecution and defence, the latter at the instance of the accused themselves, and jurors had been summoned.I propose to examine the ten instances on which the convictions are based in the order in which they have been dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.I am considering for the present the charges in respect of which there was jury trial, leaving consideration of the charge of criminal conspiracy to the end.At the same time the payment of bribe was also settled.In the next place, the deception was practised by Chari to derive benefit to himself for, as seen already, he did it to wrest the bribe of Rs. 8,000/- from Sheo Karan Das.The remaining charges against Chari need a more detailed examination.And the first in importance is the one of bribery.The charge under Section 165, I. P. C., in respect of acceptance of furniture by Chari seems to be wrong.The allegation being that the same was accepted as a motive or reward to grant licences and expedite supply of material, the proper section was 161, I. P. C. That presumably is why the offence under Section 165, I. P. C., is not one of those for which there has been any conviction.In regard to the payment of Rs. 10,000/- in two instalments, the cash book Ex. P. 290 containing entries about the sums and seized from the house of Sher Singh Arora by S. I. Anwar Husain P. W. 8 on 16-9-1946 does not appear to afford the requisite corro-boration.Arora's statement is that he got the furniture except the revolving chair from the firm at Delhi for Chari at Chari's request and supplied the revolving chair out of his own office furniture, and that when he demanded the price Chari said he would compensate him in other ways.Leaving the revolving chair, the rest of the furniture was worth Rs. 425/-.Chari compensated Arora by granting him licences Exhibits P. 281, 282, 284,.It had been marked on one piece."This defence was based on the legend appearing on the back of only one piece, as admitted: "Manufactured by the National Cycle Manufacturing Co., Kanpur".This was the name given to the branch office in Kanpur of a company in Delhi, manufacturing conduit pipes and articles, like tubular furniture made therefrom styled the National Conduits, and of which Arora was the Managing Agent.The seized furniture was tubular furniture.It is proved from, the statement of Arora, supported as it is by the statements of Nanak Chand Tandon P. W. 50, his local manager, Jagmohan Bansal P. W. 15 manager of the Delhi firm and Baboo Lal Vaish P. W. 46Delivery Clerk in the Central Goods-shed Kanpur, and a number of documents proved by them, that the pieces of furniture other than the revolving chair were got manufactured by Arora in the Delhi firm and received from there, and that the revolving chair was supplied by Arora from his own office.Those pieces were however not seized from the office, but from the residence of Chari, as testified to by the aforesaid police officer and Sri Bal Govind Singh P. W. 16, the Additional City Magistrate who supervised the seizure.The seizure was made from a building known as the Ayodhya Bha-wan part of which served as Chari's office and part as his residence.Cross-examination of the Magistrate made it all the more clear, while the statement of the police officer was not challenged in cross-examination.The list Ex. P. 17 is also corroborative of the statements of these two witnesses about the furniture in question having been seized from the residential portion of the building since the articles seized were all house-hold effects.Emplacement of furniture in the residence could hardly make for advertisement.Certain statements appearing in the evidence of Sher Singh Arora and his local Manager Nanak Chand Tandon were drawn upon by the learned counsel for Chari.Arora's statement in the Sessions Court was that his manager knew how the said inscription was painted on the back of the chair, but his statement in the court of the Committing Magistrate was that he had got it painted.Nanak Chand Tandon also stated at the trial that Arora had asked him to have it done.That was more natural, and that was also the earlier version of Arora himself before the Magistrate.It appears to have been the merest slip on the part of Arora therefore to have said at the trial that his Manager knew how the inscription was painted.Reference was also made to the statement of Tandon that Arora had asked him to have 'Presented by National Cycle Manufacturing Co.' painted but the painter had inscribed 'Manufactured by Nation Cycle Manufacturing Co.' instead.This was evidently mere embellishment.Another statement appearing in Nanak Chand Tandon's cross-examination and referred to by Chari's learned counsel was that the revolving chair was given by Mr. Arora to Chari for his office.It does not appear that the said inscription was put at the back of the chair on Chari expressing his desire, after having been presented with the other furniture specially ordered for him from Delhi, that he also required a revolving chair.That wish of Chari was complied with by Arora having taken to him a chair, as it was, from his own office.There was nothing strange therefore that such a witness should have readily given in to the suggestion in cross-examination that the inscription was made for the sake of advertisement.And a reference to the quota register Ex. P. 62 shows that these licences, bearing numbers 3,61,717 and 3,61,721, also appear under a date that was tampered with.Both the appellants have of course denied receipt of the amounts.Prosecution evidence in support of this charge under Section 161, I. P. C., against the two appellants consists of the statements of Brahma Swarup Gupta P. W. 11 himself and his partner Sat Narain who was examined under Section 540, Criminal P. C.Being bribe-givers themselves, both these witnesses were accomplices and their testimony required independent corroboration.These stray entries could be made at any time.Accomplice evidence in this instance therefore lacks corroboration.The aforesaid charges of bribery cannot therefore be said to have been brought home to the appellants.(4) Banwari Lal Saraswat : The prosecution case relating to this instance is that in return for granting a number of licences for purchase of iron and steel Chari was given by Banwari Lal Saraswat P. W. 2 a secondhand refrigerator worth Rs. 1,200/- on or about29-3-1946 and D. C. Orient ceiling fans worth about Rs. 300/- in the last week of August 1940 as bribe, and that he antedated the licences Exhibits P. 110, P. 109 and P. 94 from 29-3-1946 to 23-3-1946 and thereby committed forgery.This charge of forgery is against Vaish also.The crucial question, both for the charge, under Section 161 and that under Section 467, I. P. C., is whether the refrigerator and the fans were accepted by Chari as illegal gratification.It is also the prosecution case, as admitted by Banwari Lal Saraswat P. W. 2 and testified to by two employees of the Electric Supply Co. at Kanpur, L. N. Shukla P. W. 20 and A. " Maul P, W. 21, that early in May 1946 the refrigerator developed some defect, but the same could not be repaired in the U. P. Electric Supply Co.The prosecution case is that the refrigerator was thereafter given by Chari for repair to K. S. Reuben P. W. 29, a mechanic, at the suggestion of Banwari Lal Saraswat.That may be so, but the crucial question is whether it had been given to Chari by Banwari Lal as bribe or whether Chari had taken it on hire from him.Corrobaration for that evidence was sought to be found in the letter Exhibit P24 dated 6-5-1946 which Chari wrote to the Electric Supply Co. Kanpur for the repair of the refrigerator because in this letter he described the refrigerator as "my personal one." That is however a description which even a person who had taken the refrigerator on hire could have used in order to impress upon the Electric Supply Co. that the work required their special attention.It appears that the Electric Supply Co. had at the same time been requested telephonically by Banwari Lal Saraswat for the repair of the refrigerator, and Exhibit P. 25 dated 7-5-1946 is the reply which the company sent to Banwari Lal Saraswat.That did not however detract from the defence plea that the fans had been taken on hire.There is no doubt that a suspicion arises that the refrigerator ,and the ceiling fans may have been accepted by Chari as illegal gratification in view of the fact that he had granted licence for a large quantity of the commodity in favour of Banwari Lal Saraswat, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof.I am therefore of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 161, I. P. C., against Chari.That being so, the charge of forgery by antedating licences should also fail since the element of gain to Chari is wanting.The other appellant Vaish could not possibly be held to be guilty of the offence under Section 467 I. P. C. even if that charge stood established against Chari since there was no allegation, much less proof, that there was payment of any illegal gratification to Vaish.The charge relating to this instance therefore fails against both the appellants.Kali Charan was the Munim of those firms and Bulaqi Das Goel P. W. 13 and Ram Saran Das P. W. 47 were some of the proprietors of the firms.These applications, which are said to have been presented to Chari on 30-3-1946, are alleged to have been been typed at Agra on 29-3-1946 by one S. V. Shastri, an employee in the said firms.At the same time, the aforesaid sums of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 100/- are said to have been paid to Chari.According to Kali Charan payment of bribe was settled at Rs. 40/- per ton and Rs. 100/-represented part payment of bribe relating to the corrugated sheets, the rest having been promised to be paid later.Chari is said to have asked Kali Charan to change the date of the applications to 19-3-1946, but Kali Charan said that this could not be done as the proprietors were at Agra.The balance of Rs. 700/- payable to Chari in respect of the corrugated sheets was however not sent to him.Both the appellants denied the charges.Both Kali Charan and Bulaki Das admit that they maintained account books in which all the expenses of the firms were recorded; but none of those books of account was produced.One of them, a rokar 'bahi, is said to have been seized by L. S. Darbari.Kali Charan admitted that there was no entry in the books of account relating to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,100/- and both he and Bulaki Das professed ignorance as to whether the travelling expenses of Kali Charan and Shastri (the latter is also said to have come to Kanpur with Kali Charan) were entered in the books of account or not.It follows that as Chari derived no advantage, and as the antedating cannot be said to have necessarily caused loss, damage or injury to anybody else, the charge of forgery also fails.On this finding, failure of charge against Vaish follows as a necessary consequence.The application Exhibit P. 52 is said to have been presented to Chari for the licence on 3-4-1946, but it is said to have been antedated to 23-3-1946 at the instance of Chari.The charges against Vaish were of forging the licence and abatement of acceptance of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1000/- by Chari.Here again the accomplice evidence of Ram Sarup Nigam and Raj Bahadur suffers for want of independent corroboration.Raj Bahadur admits that account books were maintained, but the same were not produced and there was no explanation for their non-production.Rat Bahadur stated that Ram Swarup Nigam had told him that the amount was being paid out of the income of his Zamindari and it was therefore not entered in the books of account.Besides this statement being unworthy of reliance on the very face of it, it is inadmissible being hearsay.The prosecution produced two witnesses, Yamin Khan P. W. 33 and Mohammad Hanif P.W. 53, who stated that they had also paid bribes to Chari, and that they were able to do so by Ram Swarup Nigam acting as the go-between.The evi-dence of these two witnesses besides being unsupported by any documentary evidence, cannot be said to be corroborative of the payment of the alleged bribe by Ram Swarup Nigam himself since they speak of payment of certain bribes which had nothing to do with the alleged payment of bribe by or on behalf of Ram Swarup Nigam.The charge in res-pect of payment of Bribe therefore fails and, as a necessary consequence also the charge of forgery against both the appellants.The licence was granted in favour of the firm Shambhu Dayal Deep Chand of Baraut in the district of Meerut of which Kapur Chand Jain (P. W, 7 was a partner and Jagdish Prasad P. W. 9 this manager.The licence' was granted on the application Exhibit P. 296, Kapur Chand Jain profess-ed to have seen Chari on the 20th and 22nd of March 1946 when Chari is said to have asked him to apply with the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or some other gazetted officer.He then returned, to Baraut and got the application typed by Jagdish Prasad.He then saw Char with the application on 29-3-1946, and, according to the witness, payment of bribe to Chari at Rs. 50/- per ton was then settled and the witness was asked to see Chari at his house in the evening.The antedating of the order passed by Chari on 23-3-1946 and of the licence issued on foot of that order is no doubt clear in view of the dates of the aforesaid recommendations, but here again no advantage was derived by Chari since bribe is only said to have been settled but not paid.For reasons al-ready recorded, the charge of forgery against both the appellants therefore fails.He left the application with Chari and got intimation slips subsequently but no licence.In view of the date of the Magistrate's re-commendation there is no doubt that Chari antedated his order and the licence but here again as there was no allegation, much less proof, of payment of any bribe, the charge of forgery against both the appellants fails.(9) Gauri Shanker Goel: In this instance lalso the only charge is of forgery of the licence Exhibit P. 82 against both the appellants.Gauri Shanker Goel P. W. 63 professes to have taken his, application Exhibit P. 82A with the recommends tion of the Magistrate Sri G. S., Churamani P. W. 45-dated 27-3-1946, and a few days later he professes to have received the licence in a registered cover.Gauri Shanker Goel says that bribe was demanded from him but he paid none because he was a poor man.In this instance also therefore although Chad did antedate his order and therefore the licence the charge of foregery cannot be said to have been made out because there is no evidence of Chari having derived any benefit.The charge of forgery against Vaish also fails not only because of that charge filing against Chari but also because Vaish appears to have prepared the licence in compliance with the order of Chari.(10) Bhagwan Das : This was the only, instance of grant of licence for purchase of scrap iron which was decontrolled from and on 1-1-1946 The charge against Chari was that in return for a bribe of Rs. 400/- paid to him on 3-1-1946, by Bhagwan Das P. W. 60, proprietor of the Kanpur Iron Manufacturing and Supply Co. and Manager of his father's firm Baldeo Das Daya Ram, Chari antedated the licence Exhibit P. 278 as having; been ordered to be issued prior to the control.The charge against Vaish was that he had also received a bribe of Rs 100/- on the same date from Bhagwan Das and committed forgery by preparing the aforesaid licence.The prosecution proved the antedating from the evidence of A. K. Sinha P. W. 30, a clerk in the office of the D. I. S. C. at Kanpur according to whom the last written order passed by Chari's predecessor was Exhibit P. 272 dated 31-12-1945 That according to the testimony of A. K, Sinha and the other prosecution witnesses, was the date on which Talwar handed over charge to Chari late in the afternoon after which no work was done that day in the office.The charge in question therefore fails against both the appellants in this instance also.From what has gone before, therefore, it appears that the charges against Chari in respect of offence punishable under Sections 161 and 467, I.P.C., have been brought home to him only in the 1st and 2nd instance, and no charge has been brought home to Vaish in any of the 10 instances.As regards the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, I. P. C. the conspiracy is said to have been formed by Chari with Vaish and others, meaning presumably the other employees in his office.None of the charges has however succeeded against Vaish.The other employees in the office would also appear to have done their part of preparing the licences under the orders of Chari who was their superior officer.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is further alleged that present applicant, Jai Prakash Soni and Patwari Bhagchand Kourav send this case to the Board of Revenue, Gwalior.Complainant also alleges in the FIR that his sister's name recorded in Khasara No.236/1, but in this area, a land recorded is a temple land, he has neither donated for any temple nor constructed any temple.The applicant and other person Jai Prakash Soni and village Patwari Bhagchand Kourav hatched the conspiracy and recorded wrong name in the revenue record by playing fraud.Actual place of incident is village Chichali where the land is situated.(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, inten- tionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay.A cheats.(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article.A cheats.(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, inten- tionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article.A cheats.(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it.A cheats.(e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money.A cheats.(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money.A not intending to repay it.A cheats.(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery.A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has 9 performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money.A cheats.(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats."(Delivered on 03.04.2019)2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that Dhannalal Soni lodged a written report to the Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur on 25.04.2017 and also lodged FIR in Police Station Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the applicant with two other persons namely; Bhagchand Kourav and Jai Prakash Soni alleging in both the complaint that the land situated in Khasara No.236 area 1.40 acares recorded in the name of of his mother Makkhan Bai and after the death of Makkhan Bai, the names of her five sons namely Dhannalal Soni 2 (complainant), Tekchand Soni, Vijay Soni, Subhash Soni and Poonam Soni and two daughters; Asha Soni and Vimla Soni were jointly recorded in the revenue record along with other co-owners Jai Prakash Soni and Omkar Singh Soni.Lateron Jai Prakash Soni and Omkar Singh Soni sold out their share to some person and only share of complainant-Dhannalal Soni, his brothers and sisters remained.Lateron, Dhannalal Soni came to know that Jai Prakash Soni, Village Patwari Bhagchand Soni and present applicant Hemraj Kourav under conspiracy got recorded the name of present applicant in place of complainant Dhannalal Soni and his brothers in the area 0.121 Hectare.He has not sold any land to present applicant.Dhannalal Soni filed the appeal against the order of mutation before the Court of SDO (Revenue) Gadarwara, case is pending there.Police Station Narsinghpur after registering the Crime No.0/17 send the FIR to Police Station Chichali District Narsinghpur where Crime No.102/2017 was registered against the applicant and other accused.During investigation revenue record Khasara No. 236/1 and 236/2 and other 3 revenue records were seized and sale deed, on that basis the name of present applicant were recorded in the revenue record was also seized.Being aggrieved by this criminal proceedings, the applicant filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.on the ground that he had purchased a part of the land which falls 1/6th [0.09 hectare] share of the total land with the consent of sons of Pannalal i.e. Vijay, Tekchand, Subhash and Bablu on 20.02.1995 and on that basis, applied for recording the name in the revenue record.Thereafter, mutation was done vide order dated 17.05.1995 and in the year 2000, the land was diverted for the commercial purpose and constructed a Hotel thereupon.After a lapse of 19 years complainant Dhannalal, out of greed challenged the mutation order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure-D-4) before the SDO Gadarwara on 25.2.2014 which is still pending and on 27.04.2017 i.e. after a lapse of 23 years, lodged a complaint before the Police Station Narsinghpur and send a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur.Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case whereas, he has not committed any offence.The dispute between the applicant and complainant Dhannalal is purely of civil nature.Applicant purchased the land near about 23 years ago and complainant remained silent for a period of 23 years.Complainant- Dhannalal can file a civil Suit for declaration of their title and to declare the sale deed and mutation order as null and void before the trial Court but he 4 has filed criminal complaint for blackmailing the applicant.The ingredients of Sections 420 and 409 of IPC prima facie has not made out against the applicant.Most of the purchaser got mutated their name in the revenue record.The complainant lodged a forged and fictitious complaint and prayed to set aside the criminal case and criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State vehemently opposes the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is prima facie material collected during investigation against the applicant and on that basis, the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and prayed to dismiss the petition.Heard counsel of both parties and perused the case diary of Crime No.102/2017 registered at Police Station Chichali District Narsinghpur.It is not disputed that the Makkhan Bai is the wife of Pannalal Soni, they have five sons namely Dhannalal Soni, Vijay, Tekchand, Subhash and Bablu and two daughters Asha Bai and Vimla Bai.After the death of Makkhan Bai and Pannalal, the names of the aforesaid legal heirs were jointly recorded in the revenue record.The name of Jai Prakash Soni and other persons were also recorded in the revenue record jointly.Complainant alleged that he and his brothers have not put their signature on the sale deed nor they have given their consent for mutation.It is also undisputed fact that complainant has not filed any Civil Suit for declaration of their title and declaration of sale deed and mutation order as null and void.Complainant Dhannalal further alleged in the FIR and in the statement recorded during investigation that the name of his sisters Asha and Vimla remained in the revenue records and his share is separated as Khasara No.236/1 and also mentioned in the FIR that person who purchased the piece of land constructed their house and some have not constructed the house.In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he also stated that his sisters Vimla and Asha in the year 2012 sold out the plot to one Rashid Khan by registered sale deed but did not obtain consent of the complainant and his brothers.In the same manner, Jai Prakash Soni, who recorded as co-owner also sold the land to Hari Om Choudhary and not obtain the consent of Complainant-Dhannalal and his brothers.The complainant further stated that the land comes in the share of Pannalal, father of complainant, is .70 decimal.After the death of Pannalal, five brothers and two sisters succeeded ten decimal land equally falls in the share of each successor.He further stated that his sister sold out the land but he has not raised any objection because she might have sold his own share.Complainant Dhannalal and his brothers denied for the signature.Thereafter, applicant got mutated his name in the revenue record.This is purely a civil dispute.The complainant lodged a complaint against the applicant after a lapse of 23 years.It is contended by the Senior counsel for the applicant that NTPC in the year 2012 had acquired some land for set up Super Thermal Power Project near Chichli as a result of rise in the price of land complainant out 7 of greed had challenged the mutation order after a lapse of 19 years in order to create pressure on the applicant.The allegations made in the FIR and the criminal case appears to be of civil nature.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

Petitioner is a medical practitioner having a degree of MBBS and Master of Surgery (MS).According to him, he is specialized in Minimal Access Surgery and vide certificate dated 14.11.2014 the Association of Minimal Access Surgeons of India (FMAS) has certified that he has been qualified in the art and science of minimal access surgery.As per the allegation in the FIR, on 07.03.2018 complainant Shambhu Dayal Agrawal, R/o D/120, Awas Nagar, Dewas came to M.Y Hospital, Indore for treatment of his daughter viz. Ku.Divya Agrawal, aged 21 years as she was suffering from pain-2- MCRC No.38710/2019 in her abdomen.They met the present petitioner who is posted in the surgery department of the M.Y Hospital, Indore.After preliminary examination of Ku Divya, petitioner advised for a minor operation and told that the operation theater of MY Hospital is contaminated and supporting staff is no competent hence it would be better to take admission in Medi Care Hospital, Old Palasia Indore for which the expenses would be Rs.30,000/- for operation.The petitioner further assured that he is performing such type of operations regularly.On his advice, the complainant has admitted his daughter in Medi Care hospital and after pathological test on 30.05.2018 performed the operation.After two days of the operation, the health condition of Ku.Divya has started deteriorating.The complainant met the petitioner and requested him to examine his daughter further.He again called him in his clinic on 04.06.2018 and again he demanded Rs.70,000/- for another operation and when he objected Ku.Divya has been forcibly discharged from the hospital by the petitioner.On 06.06.2018 the complainant admitted his daughter in Choitram Hospital and came to know that the petitioner has committed negligence in the operation by putting two clips at a wrong place in her liver.Hence, another P.T.B.T operation was conducted in Choitram Hospital for which he spent further Rs.1,00,000/-.The complainant has further alleged that although the petitioner is a surgeon of breast cancer, however, to extract money from him he has negligently performed the surgery of gall bladder of his daughter and left her to die and still she could not recover.According to the petitioner, Ku.Divya informed him regarding her stomach ache because of which she was unable to eat properly for a long time.He examined her medically and also gone through the previous reports and after clinical diagnosis, he found that she is suffering from chronic cholecystitis with cholelithiasis commonly known as swelling infection in gall bladder because of stone.He explained them regarding the disease, about the treatment i.e. laparoscopy cholecystectomy operation and also advised for some tests to be conducted before such operation.The complainant has agreed for operation and signed the consent letter for operation.On 30.05.2018 she was admitted in Medi Care Hospital and on 31.05.2018 near about 7 hrs.she was shifted to operation theater and operation was started.During operation swelling in gall bladder was seen and small contracted thickened gall bladder was stuck with callous triangle in the stomach.It was also found by him that calloos triangle was completely frozen and artery of the liver was not normal.He performed cholecystectomy very cautiously and carefully and applied abdominal drain on sub haptic region.As there was no bleeding and Billary leakage, the port side was closed and at around 8.30 hrs.she was shifted to the recovery room in stable condition.On 01.06.2018 petitioner again visited the hospital and examined the patient and found her in stable condition and the abdominal drain output was minimal.She did not make any complaint of stomach ache or fever to him.However, on 02.06.2018 she started vomiting during the night and after receiving information he immediately rushed to the hospital without any delay and advised for some tests and sonography.(Passed on 21.01.2020 ) Petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking quashment of an FIR registered against him at Crime No.277/2019 in Police Station Palasia, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 336, 337, 338, 308 & 384 of the IPC.Facts of the case in short which led to the registration of FIR against the petitioner are as under:Based on the complaint made by the complainant, the Police investigated the matter and recorded the statement of Ku.Divya and other witnesses and after completing the investigation Challan has been filed on 19.06.2019 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 336,After examining the report it was found that she had an injury on bile-duct.Looking to the serious condition of the patient he requested Dr.Vinit Gautam, G.I. Surgeon to visit the hospital for-4- MCRC No.38710/2019 an examination of the patient.Vinit Gautam visited the hospital and informed that there is a bile-duct injury which is the common and post-operative complication of laparoscopy cholecystectomy and is curable.He suggested for percutaneous transhepatic billary drainage (P.T.B.D) and since the facility of P.T.B.D was not available in Medi Care Hospital, therefore, the petitioner referred and she was shifted to Choitram hospital on the same day.Thereafter he is not aware of the condition of the patient and on 04.09.2018 the complainant filed a complaint against him before the Chief Medical Officer, who constituted a panel of doctors to enquire about the allegations.The said panel of doctors submitted a report (Annexure P/5) in which she was not found guilty.Later on 19.06.2019 in the police station, Palasia Indore complainant filed the FIR against him.Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a qualified surgeon having a degree of MS from Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore in general surgery.He has also passed fellowship in the minimal access surgery examination held at Banaras Hindu University, Varansasi on 10th August, 2014 and has been awarded the certificate in the 9 th International Congress of AMASI held on 14.11.2014 in Dubai.Looking to the clinical diagnosis of the patient the petitioner has rightly operated with due care and precaution.As of today, he has performed more-5- MCRC No.38710/2019 than 300 surgeries of similar nature.There was no irresponsible or wrongful act on the part of the petitioner while treating the patient.The complainant himself decided to admit his daughter in Medi Care Hospital.He has not produced any material before the Police to show that he contacted the petitioner in MY Hospital for the operation.A panel of doctors has examined the patient and submitted the report in favour of the petitioner.The patient suffered the type-4 bile-duct injury after the operation which is very common in such operations.NCT of Delhi and others, 1998 (8) SCC 557 as below -4............................................offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not.It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC.Because of the foregoing discussion, no case is made out for quashing of the entire FIR filed against the petitioner at this stage except charge under section 308 of IPC.Hence, FIR registered under

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

This petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') has been preferred by the petitioners seeking the following relief:Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order sheet of trial Court dated 21-04-2014 has been perused which is as follows:^^jkT; }kjk ,-Mh-ih-vks-A vkjksih Jherh deys'k exjS;k LFkk;h gkftjh ls ekQA vkjksih fodkl vk;Z lfgr Jh lkSjHk feJk vf/koDrkA vfHk;kstu lk{; vuqifLFkrA vkns'kkuqlkj lk{kh dks rkehy tkjh ughaA vr% vkns'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh vko';d :i ls dh tkosA izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu lk{kh dzekad 1 O;ogkj U;k;k/kh"k ds in ij inLFk gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa ekuuh; jftLVkj tujy egksn;] e0iz] mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds ek/;e ls vkgwr fd;k tkosA cpkoi{k vf/koDrk }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd bl izdj.k ls lacaf/kr ,d vU; ifjokn fodkl vk;Z cuke Jherh lfjrk yafcr gS vkSj mlh ds lkFk gh bl izdj.k esa Hkh rkjh[k is'kh fu;r dh tkosA izdj.k vfHk;kstu lk{; gsrq mDr izdj.k ds lkFk fnukad 29-05-2014 dks is'k gksA^^ Further on perusal of order sheets dated 07-03-2014, 29-05-2014, 23-06-2014 and 16-07-2014 it seems that continuous adjournments have been given by writing the order-sheets in same fashion.Perusal of these order-sheets also shows that there is no progress in the trial.For the forgoing reasons, trial Court is directed to take steps for securing the presence of witnesses and after recording the evidence, matter be finally decided as soon as possible, preferably, 3 MCRC.No.7426/2014 within a period of 12 months.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 391 of 2009 under Section 295-A IPC pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Meerut.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the journalists and presently posted as Sr. Editor and ?Executive Editor of magazine "India Today"; that the complainant/opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 295-A IPC read with Section 153-A, 504 IPC on the allegation that in the issue dated 11.9.2002 of the India Today magazine (Hindi Edition), a photograph of Lord Ganesha was printed as advertisement of ICC Championship Trophy to be held in Sri Lanka in the year 2002, showing Lord Ganesha holding a cricket ball.It was alleged in the complaint that the cricket ball has been made out by cow hide and publication of said photograph has hurt the feeling of complainant and other sections of Society, as no Hindu takes leather shoes, wallets etc. near religious places; that in support of complaint the complainant recorded his statement as well as statement of one Puneet Sharma, Advocate, and thereafter, the Magistrate, vide order dated 24th December, 2002 took cognizance in the matter under Section 295-A IPC only and summoned the accused;It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as soon as the applicant came to know about the summoning order he moved an application/objection on 15th February, 2003 but the matter was adjourned on various dates due to various reasons.Ultimately, said application/objection of the applicant was rejected on 1st October, 2005 and the accused was directed to appear.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

As per prosecution case, on 27.4.2012 at about 15:30 pm complainant Sundar was going to Sanwar Market in goods carrier bearing registration no. MP28 L 0528 09 which was being driven by the applicant.The vehicle was crowded with the passengers more than the existing capacity.Heard on IA No.835/2019 which is an application for grant of bail.However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has completed sufficient period in custody, therefore, the revision may kindly be heard finally.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is finally heard.This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge to 2 nd Additional Judge, Chhindwara in criminal appeal No.28/18 rejecting the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Chhindwara in criminal case no. 2752/12 whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 337 (24 counts) and 338 (2 counts) of the I.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- (24 counts) and undergo R.I for 6 months with fine of Rs.100/- (2 counts) respectively with default stipulations.The applicant being driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently.Resultantly, the vehicle got turned turtle, because of which, the passengers sustained injuries including the complainant.The matter was reported to the Police Station Lavaghoghari, District Chhindwara where FIR was registered at Crime No. 75/12 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC.The matter was taken into investigation and after completing all due formalities, challan was filed before the court concerned.Learned trial court framed the charges for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC.However, learned trial court on appreciation of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned earlier.Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal bearing no. 28/18 before the appellate court which was also dismissed.Hence this revision.She has not narrated any other injury on her person.While Dr. Shikhar Surana (PW-9) has stated that on 30.4.2012 he took x-ray of right shoulder of Sanarwati and found fracture of clavicle bone and fractures on 2nd, 3rd, 4th,, 5th and 6th ribs.Similarly, another injured Ramdas (PW-6) has stated that in the incident bone of his hand was broken and Dr. Shikhar Surana (PW-9) has stated that on 27.7.2012 after x-ray examination he found fracture of radius bone of Ramdas (PW-6) but he has not disclosed duration of the aforesaid bone injury.However, he has stated that there was no callus present.It means the bony injury was fresh injury while x-ray was taken after four months.Hence, it cannot be said that the aforesaid bony injury was caused at the time of incident.Therefore, the finding of both the courts below being a pervert require interference of this court.In the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the applicant be modified.In view of this court, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant has substance.

['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']

Brief facts necessary for determination of this application are that:-In September, 1985 applicant was posted in Electricity Distribution Division-III, Ghaziabad as Junior Engineer.At that time Chief Engineer (Hydel) was his appointing authority.The case was investigated.The matter along-with necessary documents was placed before the Chief Engineer (Hydel) seeking sanction for prosecution of the applicant, who refused to grant sanction vide his order dated 29.09.1987 (Annexure-2).Meanwhile the Act of 1947 had been repealed and substituted by Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988').The matter was again put up before Chief Engineer (Hydel) for sanction, who again refused to grant sanction vide his order dated 27.10.1989 (Annexure-3).On completion of investigation charge-sheet No. 6 dated 10.10.1994 has been filed.Heard Shri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.06.1995 (Annexure-6) whereby charges have been framed against the applicant with further prayer for quashing of all proceedings of Special Trial No. 353 of 1994 (State of U.P. Versus Indra Kumar Adhlakha) pending in the court of 14th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.On 11.09.1985 one Shri Babu Khan son of Shri Latif Khan made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad about demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- by the applicant and others.On that information, a trap was laid and allegedly the applicant was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification from the aforesaid complainant.Consequently, a first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 247/85 under Sections 161, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1947).The case commenced before the District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad as Special Trial No. 353 of 1994 (State versus Inder Kumar Adhalkha & others) under Sections 161, 120-B of IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1947, which has ultimately been transferred to 14th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.The applicant filed an application claiming his discharge and also submitted written arguments as per direction of the Court.Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking reliefs as stated above.The application is devoid of merits and liable to be quashed.I have considered the above referred rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Consideration implies application of mind.The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it.On the basis of above referred cases it is settled legal position that when once on certain material the Sanctioning Authority decides not to grant sanction, certainly on the same material, the Sanctioning Authority cannot change its opinion.Perusal of the record reveals that on 12.1.2017 following order has been passed:The sanction order dated 20.1.1993 (Annexure-4) passed by the Governor of U.P. reads as under:M ikoj gkml lsDVj&9 uks,Mk] xkft;kckn esa dk;Zjr FksA fnukad 11&9&85 dks ckcw [kWk ¼f'kdk;rdrkZ½ iq= Jh yrhQk [kkW }kjk ftykf/kdkjh xkft;kckn dks fn;s x;s vius f'kdk;rh i= esa dgk x;k Fkk fd fnukad 10&9&85 dks fnu esa djhc ,d cts Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk voy vfHk;Urk ,oa Jh vkj0ch0flag voj vfHk;Urk mudh QSDVjh lqijQwM ,.M vk;y izksMDVl eerk czkUM Mh&61 lsDVj 10 uks,Mk xkft;kckn ds ifjlj esa vk;s vkSj ekfyd Jh ckcw [kkW ls fctyh dk fcy ekWxk vkSj dgk fd QSDVªh esa yksM vf/kd gS Jh v/ky[kk us viuh dkih esa dqN fy[kk vkSj Jh ckcw [kkW dks crk;k fd blesa fctyh dk yksM vf/kd gksus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gS rFkk Jh ckcw [kkW ls gLrk{kj ds fy;s dgk] ysfdu muds euk djus ij Jh v/ky[kk us dgk fd QSDVªh dk ekfyd gksus ds ukrs mUgsa gLrk{kj djus iMs+xs rnksijkUr Jh ckcw [kkW us viuh fVIi.kh ,d ehVj 15 ,p0ih0 2 ehVj 15 ,p0ih0 3 ehVj 2 ,p0ih0 fy[kdj ogkW vius gLrk{kj cukdj rkjh[k Mky nh nksuks voj vfHk;Urk QSDVªh ls pys x;s vkSj pyrs le; Jh v/ky[kk us dgk fd og Jh vkj0ch0flag ls muds ?kj ij feys 'kke dks Jh ckcw [kkW Jh flag ls ugha feys vkSj blds ctk; og viuh QSDVªh igqWps rks muds lqijokbtj Jh eksrh flag us crk;k fd ykbueSu Jh jke fd'kksj lDlsuk vius nks gsYijks ftuesa ,d ljnkj flag isVªksy eSu Fkk ds lkFk vkdj QSDVªh dks ykbudkV x;s vkSj pyrs le; Jh ljnkj flag dg x;k gS fd Jh ckcw [kkW voj vfHk;Urk Jh v/ky[kk ls rFkk lk{kh Jh djrkj flag] fuoklh cjksrk] Fkkuk lkykjiqj uks,Mk xkft;kckn rFkk Jh eksrh flag fuoklh bVSyh Fkkuk [ktuh tuin xksj[kiqj tks QSDVªh esa lqijokbtj Hkh Fkk ds lkFk fnukad 12-9-85 dks lka;dky 6-30 cts Jh ckcw [kkW dks QSDVªh esa Vªsi vk;ksftr fd;k vkSj muds dk;kZy; ij Jh ckcw [kkW ls 1500@& dks ?kwl xzg.k djrs gq;s Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk voj vfHk;Urk dks jaxs gkFkks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA 2&% vkSj pwWfd mDr dk;kZsa ls ,slk vijk/k curk gS tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&2 lu~ 1947½ dks /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu n.Muh; gSA 3&% vkSj pwWfd bl ekeys esa miyC/k lHkh vfHkys[k fooj.k ,oa lk{; ij lko/kkuh iwoZd fopkj djus ds mijkUr rFkk ekeys dks lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ks dks ns[krs gq;s jkT; ljdkj dk ;g fopkj gS fd Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk o Jh vkj0ch0flag voj vfHk;Urk ,oa Jh ljnkj flag isVªksy eSu dks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 rFkk /kkjk 161 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 120&[k vkSj Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 5 ¼2½ ds v/khu l{ke U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr fd;k tk;A 4&% vkSj pwWfd 'kklu ds vkns'k la[;k&1631ch&2@93&23&306bZ@85 fnukad 17 vizSy 1993 }kjk v/;{k@lfpo ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼ty fo/kqr½ mRrj izns'k jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn y[kuÅ ls vis{kk dh x;h Fkh fd 20 ebZ 1993 rd mDr Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk Jh vkj0ch0flag voj vfHk;Urk ,oa Jh ljnkj flag isVªksy eSu ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh iwoZ eatwjh ns vkSj mDr izkf/kdkjh fofufnZf"V vof/k esa Hkhrj iwoZ eatwjh nsus esa foQy jgs gSA 5&% vkSj pwWfd Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 fujLr gks pqdk gSA 6&% vr,o vc Jh jkT;iky ,rn~ }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼mRrj izns'k la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 1991½ mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k&4 lu~ 1991 }kjk ;Fkk la'kksf/kr Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&49 lu~ 1988 dh /kkjk 19 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼?k½ ds v/kkhu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s mDr vijk/kks ds fy;s vkSj mi;qZDr dk;ksZ ds lEcU/k esa fof/k ds vU; micU/kks ds v/khu n.Muh; fdUgh vU; vijk/kksa ds fy;s mDr Jh ljnkj flag] isVªksy eSu dks vfHk;kstu djus vkSj mDr vijk/kksa dk fdlh vf/kdkfjrk ;qDr l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk laKku djus ds fy;s iwoZ eatwjh iznku djrs gSA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] ¼ch0ds0prqosZnh½ izeq[k lfpoA"1&% ;g fd vfHk;kstu i{k lrdZrk vf/k"Bku ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 161 ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk&5 mi /kkjk&2 ds v/khu ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k gSA 2&% ;g fd ?kVuk fnukad 12-9-85 ls lEcfU/kr gSA 3&% ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) fnukad 29-9-87 dks eq[; vfHk;Urk ^ty fo|qr^ m0iz0jk0fo0 ifj"kn y[kuÅ ,oa fnukad 27&10&89 dks eq[; vfHk;Urk ^^ty fo|qr** m0iz0jk0fo0 ifj"kn us vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk&6 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 esa vfHk;kstu ds fy;s iwoZ Lohd`r nsus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA ;s vfHkys[k i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA 4&% ;g fd Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk&19 dh mi/kkjk ^^1** ds [k.M ^^?k** v/;kof/kd la'kksf/kr ds v/khu egkefge jkT;iky ds vfHk;kstu ds fy;s viuh Lohd`r iznku dh gSA 5&% ;g fd jkT; ljdkj dh vfHk;kstu ds fy;s iwoZ Lohd`r fof/k fo:) ,oa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds fo:) gSA jkT; ljdkj us iwoZ Lohd`r vf/kfu;e la[;k&2 lu~ 1947 dh /kkjk 5 ¼2½ ds v/khu Lohd`r iznku dh gS blh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&6 ds iwoZ Lohd`fr ds fy;s 'kfDr dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gSA 6&% ;g fd jkT; ljdkj dh iwoZ Lohd`fr o"kZ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e la[;k&49 ds v/khu iznku dh x;h gS tc fd jkT; ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk&19 ds vUrZxr /kkjk&2 ¼2½ o"kZ&1947 ds vUrZxr iwoZ Lohd`fr iznku djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS lu~ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e esa jkT; ljdkj dsoy /kkjk&7]10]11]13 vkSj 15 ds vUnj gh vfHk;kstu ds fy;s Lohd`r nsus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA 7&% ;g fd bl izdkj egkefge jkT;iky us vfHk;kstu ds fy;s iwoZ Lohd`fr nsrs le; vius foosd dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k gS vkSj fof/kd n`f"V ls iwoZ Lohd`fr fof/k fo:) ,oa nks"kiw.kZ gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij orZeku esa vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh dks lapkfyr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd iwoZ Lohd`r nks"kiw.kZ gksus ,oa fof/kd izfdz;kvks dk ikyu u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDrx.k dks mUeksfpr djus dh d`ik djsaA fnukad& 13&3&95 vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk&f'ko dqekj xqIrk ,MoksdsV xkft;kcknA"The impugned order dated 7.6.1995 (Annexure-6) passed by the trial court reads as under:Þeqdnek iqdkjk x;kA pktZ ij cgl lquhA miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izFke n`"V;k vkjksi curk gSA eqyfteku bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk ljnkjflag o juohj flag U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vk;sA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 161] 120¼[k½ Hkk0na0la0 ,oa 5¼2½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjksi xfBr fd;k x;k ftlls vfHk;qDrx.k us bUdkj fd;k rFkk fopkj.k fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dks i=koyh okLrs lk{; fnukad 10-7-95 dks is'k gksAßOrder Date :- 31.8.2018 Israr/Ravi Prakash

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 3 B) The F.I.R., complaint, registered with Narsi (Namdeo) Police Station vide C.R.No.12/2016 under Section 498 (a), 323, 494, 504, 34 of I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set aside.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that, applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent no.2 i.e. complainant, and applicant nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of respondent no.2; while the rest of the applicants are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant.It is alleged in the FIR that, the complainant went to reside at village Atharwadi, though applicant no.1 is serving at Thane.It is alleged that, applicant no.1 did not take respondent no.2 at Thane and ask her to ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Reserved on : 17.04.2017 Pronounced on : 20.04.2017 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):1. Heard.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.This Application is filed with the following prayer:::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::It is alleged by the complainant that, all the accused persons used to harass and ill-treat respondent no.2 for fulfillment of illegal demand of Rs.70,000/-.There are also allegation of instigation.It is submitted that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as it is, an ingredient to constitute an alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 504 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted.Only with a view to harass applicant no.1 and his relatives, respondent no.2 has lodged the First Information Report.It is further submitted that, so far as applicant no.4 - Ramkishan Natha More, applicant no.5 Ashok Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More are concerned, there are no allegations against them in the proceedings instituted under the Domestic Violence Act. It is further submitted that, ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.The complainant started residing with her parents since 18th September, 2013, till date.The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our attention to the grounds taken in the application, and also annexures thereto and submits that, the application deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::5052.2016 Cri.On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for respondent - State, relying upon the investigation papers and the allegations in the FIR, submits that, there are serious allegations.It is submitted that, though the marriage of applicant no.1 with respondent no.2 is subsisting; still applicant no.1 has performed marriage with applicant no.8, and therefore, there are allegations in the FIR, which would attract ingredients to constitute offence under Section 494 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected.The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that, applicant no.1 with the consent and connivance of the other applicant nos.2 to 7 got married with ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 7 applicant no.8, though the marital tie between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is intact/in subsistence.Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 at length.We have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR, and we are of the opinion that, except applicant no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More, case of the other applicants deserves no consideration.So far as applicant no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More are concerned, there are no allegations either in the complaint instituted under the Domestic Violence Act by respondent no.2, and also in the complaint ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 8 filed on 21st November, 2013, before the District Women and Child Development Officer i.e. Women Grievance Redressal Cell.Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, there are omnibus and general allegations against the aforesaid two accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::So far as other accused i.e. applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 are concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned APP appearing for respondent - State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 that, during subsistence of marital tie between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, there is an allegation in the FIR that, applicant no.1 has performed second marriage with applicant no.8 - Prajawati.Unless the investigation is taken to the logical end, the truth will not surface on record.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::5052.2016 Cri.In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the application to the extent of applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 andHence their application stands rejected.In the light of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the FIR vide Crime No. 12/2016, registered with Narsi [Namdeo] Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent of applicant no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More, stands quashed and set aside.This order will not preclude the applicants, ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 10 whose applications stands rejected from availing of an appropriate remedy in case the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, files report under Section 173 [2] of the Criminal Procedure Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Originally, in this case, there were fiveaccused, including these appellants.(a)The accused and the prosecution party belong to PaanangulamVillage in Tirunelveli District.There is a temple in the said village, knownas "Muppidari Amman Koil".The villagers use to organize annual festival in thetemple, known as "Kodai" festival, during summer season.Thedeceased Kanthan, one Ramamoorthy Reddiar and P.W.14 were the leaders of thevillage, who organized the said festival.On 12.08.1997, these accused came tothe temple and wanted the deceased and others to play songs, through speakers,relating to their communal leader.The deceased and others declined.This occurrence isprojected to be the motive.(b)P.W.1 is the wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the daughters of thedeceased.P.W.20 is the mother of the deceased.On 20.08.1997, at about 10.30p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.20 and the deceased were in their house at PaanangulamVillage, Singikulam Main Road.At that time, suddenly, all the five accused,including the absconding accused Murugesan, came to the house and knocked at thedoor.P.W.20 opened the door.All the five accused trespassed into the houseof the deceased.At that time, the 1st accused/1st appellant - Pool Pandi andthe absconding accused Murugesan and the 4th accused Ramiah, were all armed witharuvals.The 2nd accused/2nd appellant - Murugan and the 3rd accused/3rdappellant - Raju did not possess any weapon.On entering into the house, the1st accused/1st appellant shouted as to where the deceased was.P.W.1 attemptedto intervene.Immediately, the 1st accused/1st appellant cut her with aruval,on her right hand and caused simple hurt.The deceased was sleeping in theroom.All the accused went near him.The 1st accused/1st appellant attacked himwith aruval on his hip, left forehand and on the head below the left ear,repeatedly.The absconding accused Murugesan cut him on his chest and rightshoulder.P.W.20 tried to intervene.But, the 2nd accused/2nd appellant pushedher down and stamped her on her chest, causing simple hurt.The 3d accused/3rdappellant attacked the daughters of the deceased with hand and caused simplehurt.The deceased died instantaneously.All the accused, thereafter, fled-away from the scene of occurrence.(c)P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased.At the time ofoccurrence, he was at his home.On hearing the alarm raised, he rushed to thehouse of the deceased and came to know about the occurrence.Then P.W.1narrated to him the entire occurrence.P-23 is the FIR.Then, P.W.17 forwarded Exs.P-1 and P-23 to the court,through P.W.18, a Constable attached to the said police Station.Then he handed overcopy of the FIR to P.W.21, the then Inspector of Police, attached to NanguneriPolice Station.(e)Taking-up the case for investigation, P.W.21 proceeded tothe place of occurrence at 4.30 a.m. on 21.08.1997 and prepared Ex.He also prepared Ex.P-29Rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest onthe body of the deceased between 5.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-28Inquest Report.During inquest, P.W.21 examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.W.20 andrecorded their statements.Then, he recovered bloodstained brick piece (M.O.3)and sample brick piece (M.O.4), from the place of occurrence, under Ex.P-4Mahazar, in the presence of witnesses.Thereafter, he forwarded the body forpostmortem.P.W.15 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to lungs,shock and haemorrhage.Ex.P-22 is the postmortem certificate.According tohim, these injuries could have been caused by weapon like aruval.(g)As soon as P.W.1 made the complaint under Ex.P-1, she wassent with a police memo to the Government Hospital at Nanguneri, for treatment.P.W.15 examined her at 6.30 a.m. on 21.08.1997 and found an incised wound 6 x 1x/12 cm, over medial aspect of right palm.(i)Continuing the investigation, P.W.21 forwarded the materialobjects, collected from the scene of occurrence, to Court.When they were brought to the police station, at 2.30 p.m., on04.09.1997, the 1st accused/1st appellant gave a voluntary confession, in whichhe disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval and on the same date, at3.30 p.m., the absconding accused Murugesan gave a voluntary confession, inwhich he disclosed the place where he had hidden another aruval.Ex.P-27 is the Serological Report.As per the Chemical AnalystReport, bloodstains were found on two aruvals and no bloodstain was found on the3rd aruval.As per the Serological Report Ex.P-27, bloodstains are of humanorigin but, result of grouping test remained inconclusive.P.W.21 collectedmedical records, examined the doctor and finally laid charge sheet against allthe five accused, on 08.09.1997, under Sections 147, 148, 449, 352, 323, 324,109 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded tothem.The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged.(iii)The conviction of the 1st appellant/1st accused (Pool Pandi)under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC is hereby confirmed.However, thepunishments imposed thereunder shall stand modified, as under:(c)For the offence under Section 449 IPC, he shall undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, indefault shall undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment.The sentences areordered to run concurrently.(d)The fine amounts, if any, already paid by him as per thesentence imposed by the trial court shall be adjusted towards the fine amountsnow imposed.Excess fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to him.(iv)It is stated that the 1st appellant/1st accused (Pool Pandi) ison bail.The bail bonds executed by him shall stand cancelled.The trial courtis directed to take necessary steps to secure his presence and commit him tojail to undergo the sentences imposed on him.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.78/1999 on the fileof the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for Communal Clash Cases,Southern Districts at Madurai.Initially, the case was on the file of theII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.364/98 andcharges were framed by the same court as against all the five accused, asunder:The 3rd accused was one Murugesan andthe 5th accused was one Ramiah.The 4th accusedwas one Mr.Ramiah.By judgment, dated 30.09.2004, the trial court acquitted the4th accused Ramiah from all the charges framed against him.However, the trialcourt convicted these appellants and sentenced them as detailed hereunder:The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.On 12.08.1997, suchfestival was celebrated.The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.P.W.6 reduced the same into writing, as acomplaint.Then taking the complaint, P.W.1 and P.W.6 went to Nanguneri PoliceStation.(d)At 3.00 a.m., on 21.08.1997, when P.W.17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Nanguneri Police Station, was on duty, P.W.1presented the complaint to him.On the said complaint, P.W.17 registered a casein Crime No.359/1997 under Sections 324, 302 IPC.(f)P.W.15 Dr.Christopher Dass, was the Civil Surgeon, attachedto Nanguneri Government Hospital, at the relevant point of time.On 21.08.1997,at about 1.00 p.m., he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.Henoticed the following external injuries."(1)Incised wound over upper part of chest obliquely placed, 4 cm belowthe upper end of sternum, measuring 27 x 12 x 31/2 cms.On the right side ofsternum, it measured 18 cm.Part of right lung has come out through the lowerpart of the wound.(2)Incised wound 18 x 10 x 6 cm on the right side of right upper armexposing muscles and fractured end of upper part of humerus.(3)Incised wound 4 cms distal to left wrist and muscle was hanging looselyfrom skin, from the lateral aspect.Cut ends of metacarpal bones and tendonsseen.(4)Incised wound 12 x 6 x 2 cm over posterior aspect of left fore armexposing muscles.(5)Incised wound 20 x 4 cm over left side of abdomen, maximum depth 3cm onthe upper part, wound present transversely.(6)Incised wound 3 x 11/2 x 1/2 cm over left side of fore head."P.W.15 opined that the injury sustained by P.W.1 issimple in nature.(h)P.W.20 was also sent for treatment, with a police memo.At08.15 p.m., on 21.08.1997, P.W.20 appeared before P.W.15, for treatment.Onexamination, P.W.15 found a brownish contusion 6 x 3 cm over upper part ofchest.P.W.15 opined that the said injury is simple in nature.On 28.08.1997, theaccused 1, 2 and 4 and the absconding accused Murugesan surrendered before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.At 4.15 p.m.,the 4th accused Ramiah gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed theplace where he had hidden another aruval.In pursuance of the confessions, therespective accused took the police and witnesses to the respective places andproduced the weapons (M.Os. 1, 2 and 5 Aruvals) and P.W.21 recovered the same inthe presence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and returned to the police station.(P.Ws.12 and13 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, in anymanner).P.W.21 forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand andhanded over the material objects to the Court.On such examination, the Chemical Analyst submitted a reportunder Ex.4.Based on the above materials, the learned II-AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, framed charges against all the fiveaccused, as detailed in the 1st paragraph of the judgment.All the accusedpleaded innocence.Therefore, they were put on trial.Before the examinationof witnesses commenced, as we have already pointed out, the accused Murugesan(the 3rd accused, as per the original array of parties) absconded.The trialCourt, therefore, split-up the case against him as S.C.No.8/2003 and maderearrangement of the parties and proceeded with the trial.During trial, toestablish the charges against the accused, on the side of prosecution 21witnesses were examined and 37 Exhibits were marked, besides 6 M.Os.5.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 20 are injured eye-witnesses.P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence.These witnesseshave spoken to about the participation of all the five accused in the crime.P.W.4, has spoken to about the motive occurrence, which took place on12.08.1997. P.Ws.14 has also spoken to about the motive occurrence.P.W.5 isthe son-in-law of the deceased.He has stated that he saw the accused 1 and 2somewhere near the place of occurrence with weapons.P.W.6, the brother of thedeceased, has spoken to the fact that he drafted Ex.P-1, as dictated by P.W.1.P.W.15 has spoken to about the postmortem conducted by him on the body of thedeceased and his opinion regarding the cause of death.The other witnesses are officialwitnesses.6.When the above incriminating materials in evidence were putto the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied thesame as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses or markany documents.Considering the above materials, the trial court acquitted the4th accused Mr.Ramiah, holding that his presence in the occurrence place itselfhad not been proved.However, the trial court found the appellants/accusedNos.1 to 3 guilty on various offences and accordingly punished them as detailedin the 2nd paragraph of the judgment.7.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellantand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we havealso perused the records, carefully.8.As we have pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 20 are the eye-witnesses and they are inmates of the house.The foremost contention of thelearned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence would not havehappened in the house of the deceased at all.According to him, the deceased,besides being a drunkard, had a number of enemies in the village and while hewas fully drunk elsewhere, he was done to death by unidentifiable persons.Later on, according to the defence, the dead body was brought to the house ofthe deceased and then the prosecution story has been built-up.In ourconsidered opinion, this defence taken has not even been probabilized by theaccused.Except making a vague suggestion to the witnesses, nothing more havebeen brought on record to doubt the fact that the occurrence had taken placeinside the house of the deceased.Apart from that, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.20 havecategorically stated about the occurrence.The bloodstained brick piecerecovered from the place of occurrence would also go to prove that theoccurrence had taken place only inside the house of the accused.Thus, in ourconsidered opinion, the prosecution has clearly proved that the occurrence wasonly inside the house of the deceased.In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel for the appellantssubmitted that P.W.1 has admitted, during cross-examination, that after theoccurrence, she was at the place of occurrence continuously, as she was full ofgrief and she has further stated that from a local telephone booth, message waspassed on to the police, immediately after the occurrence and thus police cameto the place of occurrence, in a short while.After the arrival of the police,according to the learned counsel, the FIR could have been concocted and,therefore, no importance could be attached to the same.But, the main contention of the learned counsel that police would havearrived at the scene of occurrence, immediately on receiving the telephonemessage, needs serious consideration.We have perused the evidence of P.W.1, onthis aspect.Of course, P.W.1 has stated so.Such a rustic village womancannot be expected to be meticulous to speak about the time of arrival of thepolice.From the evidence of P.W.15, it could be seen that P.W.1 went to thedoctor on 21.08.1997 at 8.30 a.m. Had it been true that the police arrived atthe scene of occurrence, immediately after the occurrence, as suggested by thedefence, in all probabilities, P.W.1 would have been sent to the hospitalforthwith.Prompt lodging of the FIR, in this case,guarantees, to some extent, the truth of the contents in the FIR.According to the learned counsel, P.W.1, during cross-examination, hasadmitted that police sniffer dog was brought to the place of occurrence.When aspecific question was made to P.W.21, on this aspect, P.W.1 has stated thatpolice sniffer dog was never brought to the place of occurrence.So faras the 1st accused is concerned, in our considered view, the prosecution hassucceeded in proving his participation in the crime.It has been establishedthat he trespassed into the house, caused murder of the deceased and caused,voluntarily, simple hurt on P.W.1, with dangerous weapon.Therefore, the 1staccused alone is liable to be punished under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC.Nowturning to the quantum of punishment, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, weare inclined to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life and a fine ofRs.1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.For the offence under324 IPC, we are inclined to impose the punishment of rigorous imprisonment forthree months and a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for twoweeks and for the offence under Section 449 IPC, we are inclined to impose apunishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, indefault two weeks rigorous imprisonment.21.We make it clear that any of the observations, in respectof the alleged involvement of the absconding accused Murugesan, made in thisjudgment, shall not be used against him or shall not be treated as a findingregarding his involvement, when Mr.(a)For the offence under Section 302 IPC, he is sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.(b)For the offence under 324 IPC, he shall undergo rigorousimprisonment for three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in defaultshall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.1.The District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Communal Clash Cases for Souther District at Madurai.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District.3.The II-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.4.The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.5.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 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 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 2830 of 2015 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows.The petitioners are the accused in this case.A warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioners.They appeared before the learned trial court on 18.03.2017, prayed for bail and were in fact released on bail.But, on the very same day, without supplying copies of prosecution papers, charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Framing of charge without supplying copies to the accused is absolutely bad in law and needs to be forthwith set aside.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in his usual fairness, submits that framing of charge in a criminal trial cannot take place without supply of copies to the accused.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 / de facto complainant submits that the proceeding before the learned trial court is stalled because of the pendency of this application and as such, the revisional application ought to be disposed of at the earliest.I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and have perused the revision petition.It is not denied by the learned advocates for the State and the private opposite party that charges were framed in this case without supply of copies of prosecution papers to the accused.Framing of charge against an accused without supply copies of documents on which the prosecution relies, as contemplated under Section 207 or 208 of the Code, to the accused is not at all tenable in the eye of law.In view of the above, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order so far as the framing of charges and the fixing of dates for evidence are concerned.I remand the matter back to the learned trial court to commence the proceeding afresh from the stage of supply of copies to the accused.It is expected that copies of necessary documents shall be supplied to the accused at the earliest and the proceedings shall be commenced therefrom.With these observations, the revisional application and the connected applications are disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Jay Sengupta,J.) SB

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.The petitioner is detained in District Jail, Pauri (Garhwal) under the order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated 2-7-1982 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The petitioner made his representation against the order of detention on 9-7-1982 to the Home Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh through the Superintendent, District Jail, Pauri.The State Government reported the approval of the order of the District Magistrate and also sent the grounds of detention and other particulars to the Central Government on the same day (12-7-1982).Both the representations of the petitioner were received by the-State Govt. on 13-7-82 and were sent to the District Magistrate.Moradabad on 14-7-1982 for his comments.The Advisory Board considered the case of the petitioner on 2-8-1982 and 10-8-1982 and submitted its opinion to the State Government on 16-8-1982 that there was sufficient cause for detaining the petitioner.A third representation on behalf of the petitioner was submitted by Sri D.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 12-7-1982, which does not appear to have been considered by the State Government till now.The order of detention of the petitioner is based on four grounds, which are as follows:(1).On 5-3-1982 at about 6 P.M. you and your companion Gulfam armed with knives surrounded Dr. B. N. Gupta resident of Mohalla Faizganj and Krishna Avtar Mehrotra in front of Ansar Inter College on Prince Road, P.S. Mughalpura in the city of Moradabad and you told, Dr. Gupta that even though he obtains the support of the Police or court of law, you would take possession of his land in Guinya Bagh at the point of knife.As he (Dr. Gupta) was the only Hindu resident of Faizganj he could not dare remain in possession of his land in Guinya Bagh with the support of Mehrotra : Your companion Gulfam told, Dr. Gupta that he should quietly leave Moradabad otherwise he would tear his stomach with Ms knife and give the incident a communal colour and the Holi of the current year would be played with blood.The aforesaid incident created a sensation and people of both the communities began to collect.(2) Case Crime No. 761/81 under Section 147/323 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali was pending against you in the Court of 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad.On 23-6-1982 you threatened Sri Laxmi Narain Sharma Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the prosecution, in the verandah of the court while he was preparing the case and said that if he took much interest in the case you would kill him and the consequences would be serious.You also told the people present at the tea shop that there was no need to be afraid of the Police dogs but to confront them if necessary.It was mentioned in the document containing the grounds of detention that the petitioner may make his representation to the Home Secretary through the Jail authorities and the petitioner made such a representation, which was considered and rejected by the State Government as mentioned above.Copy of report No. 31 dated 5-3-82 P.S. Mughalpura.Order sheet dated 23-6-1982 of the Court of 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 761/81 under Section 147/323 I.P.C.. P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad.Letter of the L. I. U. No. LIU/MD/ C-l/82 dated 30-6-1982,It is true that it is not mentioned in the aforesaid list that a copy of the report of Laxmi Narain Sharma Assistant Public Prosecutor made to the 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad on 23-6-1982 was also supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention, but in the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad it was stated that a copy of the said report was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention, The record of the District Magistrate relating to the case of the petitioner, which was produced before us, also shows that a copy of the said report was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention.Two other documents received by the petitioner were obviously a copy of the grounds of detention and a copy of the order sheet dated 23-6-1982 of the Court of 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate in case No. 761/81 under Section 147/323, I.P.C. The third document received by him must, therefore, have been the copy of the report of the Assistant Public Prosecutor dated 23-6-1982 made to the 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, as stated by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit.In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that a copy of the said report of the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not supplied to him along with the grounds of detention cannot be accepted.which were before the District Magistrate when he passed the order of detention, were not supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention but were supplied to him on 13-8-1982, about a month after he had applied for them, but, in our opinion, the non-supply of these two documents did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as his right to make an effective representation against the grounds of detention was not affected.It was stated in the report of Laxmi Narain Sharma Assistant Public Prosecutor dated 23-6-1982 made to the Court:

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

They originally hail from Rajasthan State.The accused 1 and 2 are the husband and wife residing in Kanchipuram.They also hail from Rajasthan.A3 is their son.A1 to A3 came to Checkpettia in order to attend the very same function.When the talks were going in the presence of elders in Checkpettia, the accused persons demanded 8 kilos of silver, 3/4 kilo of gold and a cash of Rs.75,000/- as Sridhana.P.W.1 was prepared to give 1/2 kilo gold, 6 kilos silver and a cash of Rs.55,000/-.This was agreed upon by the parties.The betrothal was held.On that day, the jewels as well as one portion of cash were given.On 14.12.1985, the marriage was held in a Kalyana Mandapam at Hassan attended by the relatives of both the families.Apart from that, several other jewels and household articles were given at the time of marriage.After the marriage was over, P.W.1 gave Rs.1,500/- towards the rent charges for the hotels where the relatives of the accused stayed.The accused demanded another Rs.1,500/- to be paid to the other hotels where some more relatives stayed.But, P.W.1 did not accept to give the said amount.The accused family having aggrieved over the same, however went back to Kanchipuram along with the bride.(2) After a few days, i.e. on 20.12.1985, P.W.4 Sajanraj, son of P.W.1, P.W.17 Dineshkumar along with other relatives went to the house of the accused in order to take the deceased to their house at Hassan for celebrating other connected functions.At that juncture, the first accused wanted Rs.10,000/-. P.W.4 contacted P.W.1 through phone and informed this.As directed by him, P.W.4 obtained Rs.10,000/- as loan from P.W.21 Manikchand, brother of the first accused and handed over the same to the first accused.(3) The deceased was staying for 10 days in P.w.1's house attending other functions.Then, after finishing other functions, P.W.1 sent both of them to the house at Kanchipuram.Three months later, i.e. on 26.3.1986, the deceased Prabhat Kumari phoned to P.W.1 and told him that she was ill-treated by the accused in their house and she was compelled to do all the household works treating her as a Servant-maid and that A1 sold her Ottiyanam weighing about 150 grams.Within a few days, both A3 and deceased came to attend a function at Bangalore and then came to Hassan.She told P.W.1 that the accused complained that the bangles that she was wearing are the old pattern and so, they should be remodelled.Accordingly, the four bangles worn by the deceased were handed over to the Goldsmith P.W.3 and the same was remodelled and then they were handed over to the deceased.In the month of September, the deceased got conceived.Therefore, P.W.1 sent P.W.4 to bring the deceased to Hassan.The accused persons sarcastically remarked that how could P.W.1 incur the delivery expenses when he was not even able to pay the rental charges for the hotels at the time of marriage.On Deepavali day, the deceased gave birth to a female child.Therefore, P.W.4 and P.W.8 went to Kanchipuram to see the child.At that point of time, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-, since they had spent money towards the hospital charges for delivery.P.W.8, in turn, told them that they would not give any money as they were not allowed to take the deceased for delivery to Hassan.Though the wife and child were not allowed to accompany P.W.8 to Hassan on 28.1.1987, some time later, the wife and child were sent.On 14.2.1987, A3 came to Hassan and asked P.W.1 to send his daughter and granddaughter with him.He also demanded Rs.50,000/- towards the expenses for delivery.He also intimidated that unless the amount is given, they would not treat the deceased properly.The deceased also told the witnesses about the ill-treatment suffered at the hands of the accused.However, A3 was pacified and the wife and child were sent along with him.15 days later, P.W.1 received the phone call from the deceased requesting him to send Rs.50,000/- as quickly as possible, since she was being cruelly treated by the accused persons.Then, P.W.1 said that he would try to mobilise the fund and send the same.(4) P.W.10 Santhi was working as a Servant-maid in the house of the accused at the relevant period.P.W.14 Jagadeesan is a Tailor who used to come to the house of the accused and stitch the clothes in the house itself.On 21.3.1987 at about 2.30 P.M., P.W.14 was stitching in the sewing machine, P.W.10 servant-maid came to the house.At that point of time, one Kutty (P.W.22), the daughter of A1 cried saying "save, save" (........................................................................) and rushing down from the upstairs.Then, P.W.10 and P.W.14 enquired P.W.22, who in turn said that her sister-in-law, viz., the deceased was found hanging in the upstairs.Then, all of them went to the upstairs and found the room locked from inside.They saw through the window that the deceased was found hanging from the fan.Then, A1 along with P.W.13 Baskaran, working in the Goldsmith shop in the opposite side came there and broke open the door and went inside and untied the rope and put the body on the cot.(5) On 21.3.1987 P.W.1 received a phone call from P.W.11 Ukkamchand that the deceased died due to heart attack.He contacted P.W.21 and confirmed the death of the deceased.Then, after instructing that the dead body should not be removed till they come, P.W.1, his wife P.W.8, his son P.W.4, P.W.2 and P.W.15 came to Kanchipuram.When A1 was questioned regarding the cause of death, he said that she died due to heart attack.In the meantime, P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sivakanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram received an intimation from the Inspector of Police stating that there is a suspicion over the death of Prabhat Kumari and asking him to take further action.Accordingly, he went to the house immediately and enquired the relations gathered there and they informed that the death was due to heart attack.Then, P.w.1 and P.W.11 were taken to the local Police Station.When he was asked whether the body could be removed for cremation, P.W.1 did not object to the same, since he was deeply worried over the death of the deceased.P.W.8, who went inside the room, was able to find some injuries on the body.Even though she objected to the removal of the body, the people gathered there pushed her aside and removed the body for cremation.(6) On 23.3.1987, P.W.9 Dr. Subramaniam was approached by P.W.21, the brother of A1 for the issue of the medical certificate over the death of Prabhat Kumari stating that she died due to heart attack.P6 certificate, death was registered in Ex.P5 register and Ex.P7 death certificate was obtained from the Municipality.(7) Unable to find out the real truth of the death of the deceased, as Kanchipuram is the new place for P.W.1's family and they are not well versed in Tamil, they came to Hassan on 25.3.1987 and sent telegrams to the Chief Minister of the State and the Home Minister of the Centre.On 28.3.1987, he sent complaints to various officials through registered post.He sent Ex.P2 to the Director General of Police, Chennai.The cot M.O.5 also was recovered.M.O.1 fan through which she hanged herself was recovered.The trouble started in this case even on the date of marriage.The marriage was held on 14.12.1985 at Hassan.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.The bolt of the door of the said room which was locked from inside was broken by the accused persons and others by applying the physical force and untied the rope and put the dead body on the cot.The reason of the death of the deceased was informed as the deceased died due to heart attack.On the orders of the High Court on the petition filed on behalf of the parents of the deceased, the investigation was taken over by C.B., C.I.D. After finishing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against all the respondents(A1 to A3) for the offences referred to above.During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.26 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked.On the side of the defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.Challenging the same, the State has filed this appeal.Besides this, P.W.1 also has separately filed a revision before this Court.In the light of the above principles, we have to see the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused in order to find out whether they are correct or not.Before dealing with the same, it would be worthwhile to refer to the various facts, which led to the acquittal.Let us refer to them at the outset:(1) P.W.1 Lakpath Raj staying along with his wife P.W.8 and children is doing business at Hassan in Karnataka State.He has got three sons and three daughters.Prabhat Kumari, the deceased is the eldest daughter aged about 20 years.Since P.W.9 earlier treated the deceased at the time of delivery, he gave Ex.P6 certificate to the effect that the death was due to heart attack without even examining the dead body.On the basis of Ex.On 12.7.1987, he recovered Exs.Then, further investigation was taken up by P.W.26, the CB CID D.S.P. and the case was altered into Section 304B I.P.C. Again, P.W.26 came to the house and recovered the wooden portions (M.Os.6 to 10) from where the bolt was broken under mahazars Exs.After finishing the investigation, P.W.26 filed the charge sheet for the offences referred to above.(8) According to the accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they were not responsible for the death of the deceased and the body was taken to grave yard only on the statement of P.W.1 saying 'no objection' and they have registered the death of the deceased with the Municipality on the basis of Ex.P6, the Doctor's certificate stating that the deceased died due to heart attack.But, P.W.8 would state that all the three demanded the amount.This is a vital contradiction.(5) The marriage was finalised and fixed by one Lal.That list was not produced.(7) According to P.W.8, she saw injuries on the neck.But, the same was not informed to P.W.1's husband.(8) P.Ws.10, 13 and 14 though would state that they went to upstairs and saw the dead body of the deceased found hanging from the fan, they did not give the statement to the police immediately and they gave the statement only after six months.(9) Ex.P6 certificate issued by P.W.9 Doctor would show that the deceased died only due to heart attack.There is no post-mortem certificate giving the reason for death.(10) The letter Ex.P1 and Exs.D1 and D2 written by the deceased did not contain the reference about the torture at the hands of the accused.On going through the reasonings, it is obvious that the trial Court has misread the evidence and given importance to the very insignificant aspects for concluding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt.On going through the records, it is noticed that the above reasonings are not only perverse but also the important materials available on record have been totally ignored.Let us now first go into each one of the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquittal.The first reasoning is the delay in launching the complaint.According to P.W.1, he did not give a complaint to local police, since he was unable to converse with the local Police Officers in Tamil.It is his specific assertion that when he wanted to say something to police, they did not understand the same and on the other hand, they said that they could not do anything.Thereafter, he sent a detailed report on 28.3.1987 addressing to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu State and also to the Governor, Chief Minister and other high officials of the State Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and the Central Government, New Delhi.Merely because the complaint was sent after three or four days through telegram and registered post, it cannot be stated that P.W.1 gave a false complaint against the accused.In fact, from 25.3.1987 onwards, P.W.1 and his relative P.W.15 have been consistently pursuing for the action to be taken against the accused by sending telegrams and registered complaints to the various officials including the Head of the Police of Tamil Nadu.The very fact that he sent registered complaints not only to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka Governments but also to the Central Government itself would show that his attempt to pursue the action through the local police on the very same day did not fructify as the local police were reluctant to take action against the accused.Under those circumstances, the delay cannot be said to be an unexplained delay.The second reasoning is that there is no reference about the dowry demand in Ex.P2 complaint.The reading of Ex.P2 in entirety would go to show that the deceased was tortured on several occasions by the accused and her husband used to beat her to get money from her house and that he used to threaten that he would do away her, if she does not bring Rs.50,000/-.It is also mentioned in the complaint that the parents of her husband never used to provide food and she used to starve for several days without sufficient food.These things would show that there was a demand of money and also there was a torture.The third reasoning is that there is no explanation as to why child was delivered at the husband's place.This reasoning is without any basis.There are materials to show that the accused persons declined to send the deceased to the house of her parents for delivery despite the request made by the parents of the deceased through P.W.4, the brother of the deceased to send her to Hassan for delivery.Even in the complaint Ex.P2 give by P.W.1, it is specifically mentioned that as per the customs prevailed in their community, viz., Jain Community, the first delivery would take place at the parents' house of the bride, but the accused persons refused to send her to parent's house and she was retained in Kanchipuram itself.P.W.4, the brother of the deceased would also state in his deposition that as instructed by P.Ws.1 and 8, parents of the deceased, he went to Kanchipuram and requested the accused persons to send her with him to Hassan for delivery and at that time, the accused persons abused his father P.W.1 stating that he did not even to pay the rental charges of the hotel rooms for the stay of their relatives at the time of marriage and how could he bear the expenses for delivery and so saying P.W.4 was sent back without allowing the deceased to go to Hassan for delivery.When this evidence is available, the trial Court is quite wrong to observe that there is no explanation and as such, this finding ignoring the relevant materials given by the trial Court is perverse.The next reasoning is relating to the contradiction with regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused.But, on going through Ex.P2 complaint and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 8, there is no contradiction.As per Ex.P2, the deceased told P.W.1 that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-.When P.W.4 and P.W.8 went to Kanchipuram to see the child, the accused persons demanded amount of Rs.50,000/-, since they had to incur expenses for delivery.Only in that context, P.W.8 would state that since the deceased was not allowed to go to Hassan for delivery, the delivery expenses need not be incurred by them.Furthermore, when A3 came to Hassan to take back the wife and child, he reiterated his demand of Rs.50,000/- towards the delivery expenses.Therefore, there is no contradiction with regard to the demand ofRs.50,000/-.One other reasoning is non-examination of one Lal, who has finalised the marriage.The fact of the marriage is not disputed.Moreover, the marriage was held at Hassan in the bride's place and both the families attended the same.So, the non-examination of one Lal, who has finalised the marriage proposal, would not be relevant in this case.The trial Court found fault with the prosecution that a list of Sridhana articles was not produced.This is yet another irrelevant reason.According to P.W.1, at the time of betrothal and marriage, though more Sridhana articles and cash were demanded, ultimately, the matter was settled among the parties to agree with the terms of the marriage proposal in regard to the Sridhana articles.Accordingly, jewels, cash and household articles were given to the bridegroom's family by the bride's family.The details of the household articles, jewels and cash which were handed over to A1 at the time of betrothal and marriage are spoken to by P.W.1, P.W.4, son of P.W.1, P.W.8, wife of P.W.1, P.W.11 Ukkamchand, resident of Kanchipuram, P.W.16 Annaraj Jain of Hassan.The evidence relating to this adduced by them have not been seriously disputed in the cross-examination of the accused.It is the specific case of P.W.1 that a list of Sridhana articles was prepared and the list is available.However, during the course of investigation, the list was not seized and therefore, the same was not produced.Under those circumstances, we cannot expect the prosecution to produce the list, which has not been seized.Moreover, the availability of the list is not disputed by the accused.The next reasoning is that P.W.8 did not tell P.W.1 about the injuries found on the body of the deceased.This reasoning also, in my view, would not be a valid one, since when the dead body was kept in the room, P.W.8 alone was allowed to go inside.In the meantime, the relatives of the accused family took P.w.1 to the Police Station.In the Police Station, P.W.1 could not do anything as he was not able to converse with the Police Officers in Tamil.At the time when the dead body was removed, P.W.8 cried and said that she could also be burnt along with the dead body and asked the crowd not to remove the dead body.However, she was pushed aside by the relatives of the accused and then, the body was removed.In such a situation, P.W.8 could not give any details about the injuries to P.W.1 since she was in the grief and shock.After cremation was over, when P.W.1, P.W.8 and others came back to Hassan, P.W.1 sent telegrams and complaints mentioning about all the details to the police.In Ex.P2, it is specifically mentioned that certain injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the body was burnt abruptly to destroy the evidence by the accused persons.So, in the light of this evidence, this reasoning also has to be held improper.Next reasoning is that P.W.10, P.W.13 and P.W.14, who stated that they saw the deceased found hanging from the ceiling fan, did not make immediate statement.It is the specific case of P.W.1 that on the date when they came to Kanchipuram on hearing the news of death of the deceased, he met the police, but the police said that they could not do anything.P.W.23 Sub Inspector of Police also did not give the details as to whether they examined these persons.When the investigation was taken up by the C.B.,C.I.D. Inspector, a thorough probe was made and these people, who are residents of Kanchipuram gave statements giving the above details.Admittedly, they did not have any interest in the people who are residing in Hassan nor had any animosity against the accused persons.It is not that these witnesses gave contra statements initially and further statements were made by them contradicting the earlier statements.When they were interrogated, they gave a clear version stating that they saw that the deceased was found hanging from the fan.Therefore, this reasoning also, in my view, cannot be accepted.The next reasoning is that Ex.He was only giving some treatment at the time of delivery of the child for chest pain and only on the request of A1, Ex.P6 certificate was issued thinking that death would have been due to heart attack.Therefore, the contents of Ex.P6 certificate has not been proved through P.W.9 and when P.W.9 himself would give out the circumstances under which Ex.P6 certificate was issued, it cannot be held that the deceased died only due to heart attack.It is true that the dead body was not available for post-mortem.But, in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.10, 13 and 14 and without allowing the police to conduct post-mortem and hurried cremation done on the same day, would show that the death was not due to hear attack.It is true that the prosecution has to prove the reason for the death.In this case, we have no medical evidence to show that death was due to hanging.But, the fact remains that the accused persons tried to get a false certificate Ex.P6 from P.W.9 Doctor in order to show that the deceased died only due to heart attack.This act of the accused in obtaining false certificate from P.W.9 hurriedly and the evidence of P.Ws.10, 13 and 14 to the effect that they saw the dead body of the deceased found hanging would clearly show that the death could not have been due to heart attack but only due to hanging.The trial Court would observe that there is no reference about the torture in Exs.It is true that Exs.D1 and D2 would not relate to the torture.Those letters would refer about mere enquiries.But, Ex.P1 letter would clearly indicate that she must have informed P.W.1 about the sale of Ottiyanam given to the deceased at the time of marriage and about the same P.W.1 should not write any letter.This shows that out of fear for A1 she must have written that letter.Let us now go into the other evidence available on record.After marriage was over, P.W.1 gave Rs.1,500/- towards the rent charges for the hotels where the relatives of the accused stayed.When the accused demanded another Rs.1,500/- for making payment to other hotels where some more relatives stayed, P.W.1 did not accept to give the same amount.This is the first grievance for the bridegroom's family.Relating to the refusal to make payment towards the rental charges number of witnesses would speak.P.W.1, P.W.2, his relative, P.W.4, son of P.W.1, P.W.8, wife of P.W.1, P.W.11 Ukkamchand of Kanchipuram, P.W.15 Giwerchand, brother of P.w.8 and P.W.17 Dinesh Kumar of Bangalore, all would speak about the said aspect of the evidence.Some days later after the marriage, P.w.4 along with P.W.17 Dinesh Kumar of Bangalore went to the house of the accused to bring the deceased to their house at Hassan for celebrating other necessary functions.At that time, A1 wanted Rs.10,000/-.A1 stated that unless the amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid, he would not allow the deceased to go along with them to Hassan.This is purely due to the non-payment of the rental charges for his relatives stayed in some of the other hotels.Ultimately, P.w.4 obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- from P.W.21 Manikchand, brother of the first accused and handed over the same to the first accused.This aspect of the evidence is being spoken to by P.W.4, son of P.W.1, P.W.15 Giwerchand, brother of P.W.8 and P.W.17 Dinesh Kumar of Bangalore.Though P.W.21 became hostile, the other witnesses, namely, P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W.17 would state that they came to the house of the accused and the first accused demanded money of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, the said money was obtained as loan from P.W.21 and the same was handed over to the accused.Apart from these witnesses, P.W.11 Ukkamchand of Kanchipuram would state that P.W.4 came to his shop and informed about the demand made by the accused and through the phone kept at the shop of P.W.11, P.w.4 contacted P.W.1 and obtained the instruction to get the loan from P.W.21 and gave it to the first accused.Both these incidents would show that the first accused wanted P.W.1 to pay more amount towards the rental charges and when the same was not accepted, A1 did not allow the deceased from the bridegroom's house to the bride's parents' house at Hassan till the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid.After finishing functions, the deceased and A3 were sent back to Kanchipuram.On 26.3.1986, i.e. three months later, the deceased for the first time phoned to P.W.1 and told that she was ill-treated by the accused persons in their house and that A1 sold her Ottiyanam weighing about 150 grams.Later, she also wrote a letter Ex.P1 stating that P.W.1 should not write any letter regarding the Ottiyanam, which was sold.After some months, the deceased and her husband (A3) came to attend a marriage.On the way to Kanchipuram, they came and visited P.W.1's house.At that time, the deceased complained to P.W.1 that the accused persons did not like the pattern of the bangles and they should be re-modelled.Accordingly, the bangles were given to Goldsmith P.W.3 and after re-modelling, they were given back to the deceased.At that time itself, she told P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8 that she was treated badly by the accused persons.In the month of September 1986, P.W.1 received information that the deceased got conceived.Therefore, P.W.4 was sent to Kanchipuram to bring the pregnant deceased to Hassan for delivery.At that juncture, the accused persons did not allow the deceased to go to her parents' house making a sarcastical remark that P.W.1 would not be able to bear the delivery expenses, since he was not able to pay the rental charges for the hotels at the time of marriage.After getting the news that child is born, P.W.4 and P.W.8 went to Kanchipuram to see the child.At that time, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-, since they had paid hospital charges for delivery.P.W.8 replied that they would not bear any charges, since they were not allowed to take the deceased for delivery to Hassan.Though initially the daughter and the child were not sent, after two months, they were sent to Hassan.At that time also, she told P.Ws.1, 4 and 8 and others about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused persons in regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/-.On 14.2.1987, A3 came to take the wife and child back to Kanchipuram.At that time also, A3 reiterated the demand of Rs.50,000/-.According to the witnesses, A3 threatened P.W.1 and others that unless the amount is given, the deceased would be continued to be ill-treated.But however, A3 was pacified and the wife and child were sent along with him.15 days later, P.W.1 received the phone call from the deceased requesting him to send Rs.50,000/- as quickly as possible, since she was being cruelly treated by the accused persons.From these, it is revealed that the deceased was not allowed to go to Hassan for delivery and even after delivery, she was not allowed to P.W.8 and P.W.4 to Hassan.At that time, they demanded Rs.50,000/-, since they incurred hospital expenses.Even when A3 came to Hassan, he reiterated the said demand.At last, 15 days prior to her death, she insisted P.W.1 that he must send Rs.50,000/- immediately as she was being subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused.The evidence of P.W.4, P.W.8 and P.W.1 would give two aspects of the matter: (1) The demand made by the accused persons that P.W.1 should pay Rs.50,000/- which was incurred by them towards medical expenses, or otherwise the deceased would be continued to be ill-treated.(2) The deceased told P.W.4 and P.W.8 when they came to see the child that she was ill-treated by the accused persons.Similarly, she told the other witness P.W.15 also regarding the ill-treatment.As noted above, just few days prior to her death, she phoned up to P.W.1 that she was being ill-treated and unless the amount is sent, the same would not be stopped.These things would make it obvious that she was continuously ill-treated by the accused persons from the beginning over the non-payment of the amount of Rs.50,000/-.The second aspect of the evidence is that P.W.10 Santhi, the Servant-maid working under the accused and P.W.13 Baskaran working in a Goldsmith shop in the opposite side and P.W.14 Jagadeesan working as a Tailor saw the deceased found hanging in the room in the upstairs of the house.According to them, on hearing the cry of P.W.20, sister of A3, they rushed to the upstairs and saw through window the deceased found hanging from the ceiling fan.Then, A1 with the help of P.W.13 broke open the door and went inside and untied the rope and put the body on the cot.Though the statements of these witnesses have been recorded only when the C.B., C.I.D. took up the investigation, even the first investigation conducted by P.W.25, the D.S.P. would show that P.W.25 went to the spot and prepared observation mahazar and recovered the bent bolt bracket attached to the broken door.Then, again P.W.26, the D.S.P., CB CID on taking further investigation recovered the broken door under Ex.These things would show that the deceased was found hanging inside the room and only after breaking open the door, which was locked inside, the accused and others went inside and took the body outside of the room.The fact that P.W.10 was working as a Servant-maid in the house of the accused during the relevant time was not challenged.Similarly, P.W.13 was working as a Goldsmith in the opposite side and P.W.14, a Tailor used to stitch clothes in the house of the accused.There is no reason as to why they speak falsehood with reference to the fact that the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan.According to prosecution, the death was informed by P.W.11 Ukkamchand of Kanchipuram.No intimation was sent by the accused to P.W.1's family.When P.W.1 received a phone call from P.W.11, he contacted P.W.21 for verification and P.W.21 confirmed that the deceased died.Thereafter, P.W.1 and others came to Kanchipuram.It is true that P.W.1 did not raise any objection when the body was removed for cremation.But in this context, we have to see the real situation.When such is the case, there is no reason as to why the Sub Inspector of Police did not choose to register the case for suspicious death.P.W.23 did not state that he has obtained any statement in writing either from P.W.1, P.W.8 and other relatives or from the neighbours to find out as to what really happened.The way in which the cremation was hurried would show that P.W.23 did not take interest in finding out the truth with regard to the cause of death.In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that he contacted the police at the Police Station for taking action, but they said that they could not do anything assumes importance.Under those circumstances, for the reasons best known to P.W.23, the body was not allowed to conduct post-mortem and the arrangements were made for early cremation in the presence of the Police Constables.In the light of the said situation, the efforts were taken by P.W.1's family by sending complaints after complaints to the Officers concerned and ultimately, they obtained orders from this Court for investigation by the C.B., C.I.D.Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses referred to above, both torture and the death of the deceased due to hanging have been clearly established.Even according to prosecution, A1 earlier demanded Rs.10,000/-, since the rent charges were not given for the stay of his relatives at Hassan at the time of marriage.Secondly, the deceased was not allowed to go to Hassan for delivery.Delivery of the child was arranged by the accused family at Kanchipuram.Towards the expenses of the delivery of the child, they demanded Rs.50,000/-.Since Rs.50,000/- was not paid, the accused ill-treated the deceased which resulted in the commission of suicide.But, on the other hand, there are materials to show that there is a cruelty, which resulted in the suicide, which would attract Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C.The other charges like Sections 203 and 417 I.P.C. against may not be made out for the following reasons.43. A1 was charged for the offence under Section 203 I.P.C. for having given wrong information with regard to the death of the deceased to the Sub Inspector of Police.There is no record to show that P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police did not say that A1 gave the false information.Similarly, P.W.9 Doctor stated that P.W.21, brother of A1 gave the information that the deceased died due to heart attack and obtained the certificate from him.Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police, as discussed above, would clearly indicate that he did not choose to take immediate action, despite that he received information from the Inspector of Police that there is a suspicious death.In fact, P.W.23 admitted in his examination that he did not personally interrogate the relatives of the deceased.It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that he contacted the police to take action, but the police said that they could not do anything at their stage.It is also the case of P.W.8 that despite her objection, the body was removed by the relatives of the accused by pushing her aside, that too when the Police Constables were standing there.These things would show that the accused persons tried to hush up the matter and hurriedly removed the body for cremation with the help of the local police to avoid the post-mortem in order to escape from the penal action.Expecting some action that might be taken by P.W.1's family, P.W.9 was approached and he was given false information and on that basis, certificate was obtained and on the strength of the said certificate, they were also be able to get Ex.All these things have been done so hurriedly.Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. are independent and constitute different offences.Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498A and may also, if a course of conduct, amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman expecting to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide.The child was born in November 1986 and the death of the deceased took place on 21.3.1987 when she was living with the other accused.This Court by the judgment dated 4.2.2002 allowed the appeal against acquittal filed by the State through Public Prosecutor, Madras convicted the respondents 1 and 3 (A1 and A3)for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C. and sustained the acquittal in favour of the 2nd respondent (A2).The matter was directed to be posted on 18.2.2002 directing A1 and A3 to be present before this Court to hear them in regard to the question of sentence.Accordingly, on 18.2.2002, A1 and A3 were present.It was informed before this Court that Mr. A. Natarajan, the learned counsel who argued the matter earlier on behalf of the accused, gave a change of vakalat on the instruction of A1 and A3 for Mr.Karuppan, the learned counsel who has entered appearance on their behalf.Karuppan, who appeared before this Court on behalf of A1 and A3, the convicted accused, requested two days' time to file their statement with regard to the question of sentence.Accordingly, the matter was directed to be posted on 21.2.2002 and A1 and A3 were directed to be present on that day.He would further submit that the accused would also file an affidavit requesting to show leniency in the sentence without prejudice to his submissions in support of the plea for re-hearing the case.Accordingly, the accused were permitted to file affidavit giving the statement in regard to the question of sentence.On 22.2.2002, as permitted by this Court, an affidavit sworn to by A3 on behalf of both the accused was filed giving various circumstances for showing leniency while imposing sentence upon both the accused.Mr. Karuppan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would request some more time to file another affidavit giving his grounds of arguments for re-hearing the case.Accordingly, on 27.2.2002, the affidavit was filed on behalf of the accused making various grounds and requesting this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the State and acquit the accused or direct re-hearing preferably by another Bench.Karuppan after filing this affidavit wanted to argue the matter on merits before this Court.Accordingly, he was permitted to argue.The letters Exs.D1 and D2 written by the deceased were in Hindi.The copy of the Hindi version was not served to the accused.The matter was posted for final disposal before Bakthavatasalu, J. It was adjourned several times.In default, he has to undergo R.I. for two years.The trial Court is directed to allow P.W.1's legal representatives to withdraw the said amount.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

3 CRA No. 2452/2007In brief the prosecution case is that on 25.01.2006 at about 11:00 pm at Motilal Nagar, PS Nishatpura, Rijwan Khan (PW-9) heard the noise of a quarrel outside his house.He came out from his house and saw that the appellants and other co-accused were assaulting Akram Bhaijan with their knives and abusing him.The appellants were annoyed with Akram.They suspected that, Akram had informed the police (mukhbiri) about their profession.They inflicted blows of their knives on his head, chest, stomach, back and legs.They intended to kill Akram.Rijwan (PW-9) went there to rescue Akram, but the appellant Shaukat assaulted him with a knife on his left palm.Khalid, Mohd. Azam and Javed also came to rescue Akram.Akram fell down due to fatal injuries.Then appellants fled away.The persons who were present there brought him to Hamidia Hospital, where doctor declared him dead.Then, an FIR was lodged by Rijwan (PW-9) at police station, Nishatpura.To establish the crime against them, the prosecution is based on the testimony of eye-witness Rizwan (PW-9) who is an injured eye-witness.He deposed that at the time of incident on 25.01.2006 at about 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm, he was present at his house.He heard noise of a quarrel outside and came out.He saw that all the appellants had surrounded Akram (since deceased) and were abusing him.They were armed with knives and told Akram that he was the informant of the police against the appellants.The appellants inflicted blows on him using their knives.He sustained several injuries on his stomach, head, back, leg, chest, etc. He fell down on the ground.Rizwan (PW-9) reached there to rescue Akram.Appellant Shaukat assaulted Rizwan by knife.Rizwan sustained injuries on his left palm.On hearing the hue and cry, Azam, Khalid, Javed and other persons also came there and tried to save Akram and Rizwan from the appellants.Then, the appellants ran away from the spot.Akram and Rizwan were brought to the police station and on the advice of the police, they were brought to 7 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 Hamidia Hospital.(08/05/2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-Criminal appeal No. 2452/2007 has been preferred by appellant Sahib @ Afzal challenging the conviction; Criminal Appeal No. 2004/2008 has been filed by Mohd. Sohel, Mohd. Shaukat, Soyeb, Sharafat and Shahjad Khan challenging the conviction; and Criminal Appeal No. 582/2010 has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of appellants Sahib @ Afzal and Majid from the charges under Section 147, 148 and 302 r/w Section 49 of IPC.2 CRA No. 2452/2007Appellant Sahib @ Afzal and Majid have been convicted and sentenced as below :Appellants Mohd. Sohel, Mohd. Shaukat, Soyeb, Sharafat and Shahjad have been convicted as under :Appellant Mohd. Shaukat has been further convicted as under:The police registered crime under Section 302/149 and 324 of IPC against all the appellants and other accused persons.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against them under the same provision before the concerned Court.After committal of the case learned trial Court conducted trial and held that except the accused Sahib @ 4 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 Afzal and Mazid @ Chhotu, all the appellants are liable for committing the murder of deceased (Akram) in furtherance of their common object to kill Akram.They are members of unlawful assembly to cause death of Akram.At the time of occurrence, they were armed with deadly weapons (like knife).Hence, they have committed offence of rioting and armed with deadly weapon and caused death of Akram which is punishable under Section 148 and 302/149 of IPC.At the same time, the appellants Mohd. Shaukat has voluntary caused simple injuries to witness Rijwan (PW-9) by his knife.Hence, he was convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively.The respondents Mohd. Sahib @ Afzal and Mazid were convicted only under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced as mention above.4 CRA No. 2452/2007The appellants have challenged the aforesaid findings on the grounds that learned trial Court has committed an error while convicted them on weak type of evidence.There were many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the versions of the prosecution witnesses.The testimony of all the eye witnesses is entirely unbelievable.The trial Court has failed to see that there was a sudden quarrel which was not a result of pre-meditative act.5 CRA No. 2452/20075 CRA No. 2452/2007CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 The appellants were not the hardened criminals.The learned trial Court ought to have acquitted them.The prosecution has not proved the seizure of the knives.The medical evidence has also not established that the appellants had a common intention to commit murder of the deceased.The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not corroborated by any other independent witnesses.Hence, evidence of prosecution is tainted.Many illegalities and irregularities were committed by the Investigating Officer.It was also alleged that defence ought to have been accepted in favor of appellants.Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellants are liable to be acquitted.State has challenged the acquittal of the appellants Mohd. Sahib @ Afzal and Mazid from charges under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC on the grounds that the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the entire evidence in proper prospective.The findings of trial Court are illegal and liable to be set aside and have prayed for conviction of the respondents Mohd. Sahib @ Afzal and Mazid for rioting with deadly weapons and murder of Akram under Section 148 and 302/149 of IPC.We have heard all the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.6 CRA No. 2452/20076 CRA No. 2452/2007CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010Whether the appellants are rightly convicted under the charges levelled against them.Doctors declared Akram dead.Police also came there.Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/26 has been lodged by Rizwan (PW-9).The testimony of Rizwan (PW-9) is also corroborated by the other eye-witness, Mohd. Azam (PW-10), Khalid (PW-11) and Javed (PW-13).All the eye-witnesses strongly proved their presence at the scene of occurrence.7 CRA No. 2452/2007S.R.Yadav (PW-20) Inspector deposed that on the same day, he received information about the incident.He reached Hamidia Hospital and lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/26 as narrated by Rizwan (PW-9).Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/26) was received by Inspector R.S.Rai (PW-17).He deposed that FIR Ex. P/34 was registered by him on 26.01.2006 at 1:00 am under Section 302, 149 and 324 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants.Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/26 and FIR Ex. P/34 also corroborate the testimony of Rizwan and other eye-witnesses.Both the documents clearly establish the involvement of all the appellants.The promptness in lodging the FIR by names of the assailants and all the material facts mentioned in FIR itself indicate the truthfulness of the 8 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 incident.It prevents the possibility of false implication of the appellants in the concocted story.There is no material contradictions and omission in the testimonies of eye- witnesses.There is no inconsistency between their testimonies and with the FIR which inspires confidence and establish that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy.Hence, it it not liable to be disbelieved.8 CRA No. 2452/2007It is also pertinent to mention here that the Rizwan (PW-9) is injured eye-witness.The testimony of injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value."The injuries found on the person of who was injured in the same occurrence lends assurance to his testimony that he was present at the time of the occurrence along with the prosecutrix.The evidence of an injured witness is entitled to a greater weight and the testimony of such a witness is considered to be beyond reproach and reliable.Firm, cogent and convincing ground is required to discard the evidence of an injured witness".Dr. Pravendra Malik (PW-14) examined Rizwan (PW-9) on the date of incident at about 11:00 pm.He found an incised wound of about 2.5 x 1 cms on his left palm and internal tissues were visible from the cut.Rizwan was not 9 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 able to move his ring finger and little finger.9 CRA No. 2452/2007As per Dr. Pravendra Malik, all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object.In his cross-examination, he strongly denied that the injuries were caused by broken glass.The evidence of Dr. Pravendra Malik is corroborated by the testimony of other eye-witnesses particularly the testimony of Rizwan (PW-9).Dr. J.K.Chourasia (PW-12) also corroborated the testimony of Dr. Pravendra Malik.Hence, it is properly believed by the trial Court.Dr. J.K.Chourasia (PW-12) also examined the injuries of deceased Akram on the same date of incident at around 11:20 pm at Hamidia Hospital.Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) conducted autopsy of the deceased Akram and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :(i) Abrasion on left forehead obliquely of 6x0.5 cms.(ii) Incised wound on mid forehead of 3x0.1 cms.(iii) Long incised wound on the forehead of 5x0.3 cms extending towards left auxillary region of 1x0.5 cms.below and similar to injury No. (v) of 10 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 1.5 x 3 cms.Main artery was cut.10 CRA No. 2452/2007(vii) Stab wound below injury No. (vi) on the stomach of 1x0.2 cms and 10 cms depth.(viii) Stab wound radial to injury no. (iv) of 1x0.3 cms and depth of 7 cms.cutting the main artery.(ix) Stab wound of 8 cms lateral to injury no. (5) on the stomach of 1x0.3 cms and depth of 14 cms penetrating the intestine.(x) Stab wound on the stomach lateral to injury No. (viii) of 1x0.3 cms on the stomach and 7 cms in depth cutting intestine.(xi) Stab wound lateral to injury No. (x) on the stomach of 1.2x0.3 cms cutting the intestine and spleen.(xii) Multiple stab wound on left back : 7 in number.(xiii) Stab wound on the right side of back of 1.2x0.3x7 cms deep rupturing the lung.(xiv) Long lacerated wound on the right shoulder of 5x1 cm.(xv) Stab wound on the right chest of 1.3x0.2 cms penetrating the chest rupturing the lung.(xvi) Stab wound near injury no. (xv) of 1x0.2 cms and 7 cms.deep penetrating the chest.(xvii) Stab wound on right side of back of 15x0.3 cm and 8 cms deep penetrating the diaphragm and large intestine.(xviii) Stab wound on right side of chest 1.3 x 0.2 cms.and 7 cms deep penetrating the stomach.(xix) Stab wound 6 cms.below injury No. 16 of 13x0.3 cms penetrating the 11 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 stomach rupturing the large intestine.(xx) Stab wound 4 cms below injury No. 16 penetrating the stomach of 1.2x0.2 cms, 6 cms deep (xxi) Incised wound on the right knee 1x0.2 cms.11 CRA No. 2452/2007(xxii) Incised wound below 4 cms of above wound of 1x3 cm.(xxiii) Lacerated wound on the right ankle of 4x1 cms x bone deep.(xiv) Lacerated wound on right side of head 5x1 cms.(xvi) Incised wound on left parietal region of 3.5x0.5 cms.Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) opined that deceased died due to excessive bleeding from several fatal wounds and coma.All the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and pointed objects and were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature within 24 hours from postmortem.He also found cut impression on the clothes of the deceased.Parallel to the injuries found on the body of the deceased.Inspector S.R. Yadav (PW-20) stated that on 27.01.2006, he recorded the memorandums of the appellants Mohd. Shaukat, Mohd. Sohel and Mohd. Soyeb as Ex.P/6, Ex.P/7 and Ex.According to their memorandums, he seized a knife from the house of the appellant Mohd. Shaukat.Similarly, he recovered another knife from the possession of appellant Mohd. Sohel and a knife was 12 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 recovered from the possession of appellant Mohd. Soyeb.Different knives were seized form the possession of Mohd. Shaukat, Mohd. Sohel and Mohd. Soyeb vide seizure memo Ex.P/13 and Ex.12 CRA No. 2452/2007Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) examined all the six knives which were hard, sharp and pointed objects.He deposed that he took a picture of the aforesaid weapons.The injuries mentioned in his postmortem report (Ex.P/36) and cut marks found on the clothes of the deceased can be caused by the aforesaid weapons.His report Ex.P/38 has also supported the prosecution case properly.It is important to mention here that learned counsel for the appellants has not cross-examined Dr. Ashok Sharma (Pw-19) nor he has challenged the doctor's opinion.In our considered opinion the testimony of Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) has duly corroborated the direct evidence.There is no reason to disbelieve the opinion of Dr. Ashok Sharma which has further corroborated by other evidence on record and doctor's opinion.All the weapons were sent for FSL examination by S.R.Yadav (PW-20).In the FSL report (Ex.P/40) blood stains 13 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 were found on the soil collected from the spot and clothes of the deceased and particularly all the six knives as Article-E, F, G, H, I & J all were blood stained, which were recovered from the appellants.In four knives as Article-E, F, H & J, the expert confirmed that human blood was present on it.Due to the technical reason that spots of blood were disintegrated and quantity of blood was not sufficient.Origin of blood was not confirmed in FSL report.13 CRA No. 2452/2007In case of State of Rajasthan Vs.Teja Ram & Ors.[(1999) 3 SCC 507], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :"Failure of the Serologist to detect the origin of the blood, due to disintegration of the serum in the meanwhile, does not mean that the blood stuck on the axe would not have been human blood at all.Sometimes it happens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to hematological changes and piasmatic coagulation that a Serologist might fail to detect the origin of the blood.Will it then mean that the blood would be of some other origin? Such a guess work that blood on the other axe would have been animal blood is unrealistic and far fetched in the broad spectrum of this ease.The effort of the criminal court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts.Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity no benefit can be claimed by the accused.It cannot be said that in all cases where there was failure of detecting the origin of the.blood the circumstance arising from recovery of the 14 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 weapon would stand relegated to disutility."14 CRA No. 2452/2007As the recoveries of the bloodstained gunny bag, dumb-bell, tie, etc. were made on the basis of the disclosure statement of the 15 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 appellant himself, the chain of circumstances is therefore complete."15 CRA No. 2452/200716 CRA No. 2452/2007All the eye witnesses have clearly identified them by their names.They have also established their active involvement with the crime along with the other appellants.Police has also seized knives from their possession, as per their memorandums.Blood stains were found on their knives.In our considered opinion, plea of alibi which was 17 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 taken by them is purely an afterthought.All the eye witnesses have not accepted that at the time of the incident appellant Afzal and Majid were not present on the spot.It is also important to note that Rizwan (PW-9) is an injured eye witness.No suggestion has been given to him about "not presence of the appellants Sahib @ Afzal and Majid" on the spot or with regard to their plea of alibi.Similarly, no suggestion has been given to the other eye witnesses nor they accepted the absence of the aforesaid appellants from the spot.It is apparently clear that the story of defence witnesses is after thought.It is made during the stage of defence evidence.On the aforesaid reason we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid defence version in favour of the appellants Sahib @ Afzal and Majid.17 CRA No. 2452/2007This Court has consistently taken the view that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.This power of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal was formulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227] and Nur Mohammad v. Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 151].18 CRA No. 2452/2007In our opinion, learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting Sahib @ Afzal and Majid form the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.Accordingly, CRA No. 582/2010 filed by the State for convicting Sahib @ Afzal and Majid is hereby allowed.Their acquittal from the aforesaid charges is hereby set aside.They are also convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and are awarded sentence as follows :19 CRA No. 2452/2007

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

The facts as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, is that on 28.09.1998 at about 3:40 a.m., information was received by the Police Post, Turqman Gate, which was recorded vide DD No.3 to the effect that Sayara Bano (wife of Rizwanuddin), was admitted in the hospital by one Kayamuddin with burn injuries.Investigation of the case was marked to SI Subodh Kant who went to LNJP Hospital along with HC Anil Dutt and Constable Surya Kant and collected the MLC of the deceased.At the Police Post, SI Surya Kant met Smt. Rauf Nisha, mother of the deceased, and recorded her statement at about 8:30 a.m. In her statement, mother of the deceased informed that Sayara Bano (deceased) was her eldest daughter and was married about eighteen (18) months ago to Rizwanuddin.After her marriage, deceased used to come to her parents house almost every Sunday and would complain that her mother-in-law, Rehmat taunted her on small things and would say "Tumne Dahej Me Diya Kya Hai, Kabare Ka Maal.Itwar Bazar Ka De Diya Hai, Jo Is Ghar Me Rakhane Layak Hi Nai Hai".Mother of the deceased informed the police that Rizwanuddin used to come late after consuming liquor almost every day and would beat Sayara.Mother of the deceased also stated that she along with her Jethani-Smt.Salma (wife of Iqbal Ahmed), had gone to meet the mother-in-law and husband of her daughter with a view to advice them and talk to them about the grievance of Sayara, however, both of them misbehaved, abused and told them that in case she wanted her daughter to be happy, she should meet the requirements of her in-laws and pay Rs.25,000/-.Mother of the deceased also informed the police that Fifteen (15) days prior to her death, Sayara had come to her house weeping and told them that she was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law as the payment of Rs.25,000/- was not made till then.Thereafter, mother of the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant along with Miraz, (son of her sister) and had met the appellants and assured them that Rs.25,000/- would be paid soon and left her daughter in her in-laws house.The mother of the deceased had learnt about the admission of her daughter in LNJP Hospital in a burnt condition at 3:00 a.m. from Papo, sister of Rehmat, and she reached the hospital at about 3:30 a.m. where she found her daughter lying in the hospital with burn injuries.Whenever, my daughter used to come to our house on Sunday, she used to complain that her husband came too late and used to consume liquor and that her mother in-law used to taunt her with regard to dowry.I had once gone to the house of appellants with my Jethani and on other occasion, I visited the house of appellants with my nephew Miraj.In your statement Ex.PW-4 deposed that it was incorrect that deceased, Sayara never told in front of him that her in-laws used to harass her and used to say that she does not know household work and that she had not been taught to do domestic work or that she was taunted as to what type of junk she had brought in dowry.It was incorrect that Sayara never complained to him that her husband used to consume liquor and come late in the night.PW-4 had not stated in his statement to the police that deceased, Sayara, used to complain that she was not at liberty to go anywhere as she liked.She had also not stated about the incident of Bakr Id as well as sending meat etc. PW-4 deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that any sum of Rs.25,000/- was given by his Khala to any of the in-laws of deceased, Sayara Bano.It was further incorrect that no demand was made at any time of Rs.25,000/- by Rizwanudddin.It was incorrect that deceased, Sayara, was never harassed or taunted in her in-laws house by any of her in-laws.It was also incorrect that mother-in-law and husband were not responsible for the death of deceased in any manner.13. PW-5, Salma Begum, deposed that for two-three months after her marriage, Sayara Bano, did not tell them anything but later she informed that her husband, Rizwanudin, used to come to his house after consuming liquor (daily) and beat her and that she was sick of her life.Deceased Sayara Bano also used to tell her that her mother-in-law harassed her and taunted her by saying that her father had given junk in the dowry.On one occasion, she had gone to the in-laws of Sayara Bano alongwith her Deverani and there the mother-in-law of Sayara Bano had misbehaved with them and had demanded Rs.25,000/- from them.14. PW-5, in her cross-examination deposed that in fact, deceased, Sayara Bano, had visited her house on the date when the incident took place.i.e. on 26.10.1998 and left her house at 9:00 p.m. They had tried to stop her but she stated that she was in a hurry and had to reach home at the earliest, because if she would reach her home late, a quarrel would take place at her home.As per PW-5, on that day deceased, Sayara Bano had come to her house as a function was being held in connection with the fixing of the date of the marriage of her son.PW-5 deposed that she used to accompany her devarani, sometimes, when they visited her daughters matrimonial home.Latest she had visited the matrimonial house of her daughter about 15 days/one month prior to the incident.At that time the mother of Rizwannuddin, namely Rehmat, met them.PW-5 further deposed in her cross-examintaion that Arif was residing next to the house of Rizwanuddin on the first floor.The stairs of Rizwannuddin and Arif were common upto first floor and thereafter the stairs were different for going to the second floor.When she last visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, appellant, Rehmat, had misbehaved with them and Sayara Bano and her Nanad quarreled with each other on account of cooking of the food.The appellant, however, never demanded any money from them when they visited the matrimonial house.On the last occasion, Sayara Bano told them that her mother-in-law was demanding Rs.25,000/-.PW-5 deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that she had never visited the house of the appellant 15 days/one month prior to the incident or that the appellant had never misbehaved with them.It was further incorrect to suggest that deceased, Sayara Bano never told them that her mother-in-law was demanding Rs.25,000/-.It was further incorrect to suggest that she was deposing falsely.It was also incorrect to suggest that no demand of Rs.25,000/- was made by Rizwanuddin or his mother.15. PW-8, (father of the deceased-Intzar Ahmed) deposed in his examination-in-chief that deceased, Sayara Bano, was his daughter and was married to Rizwanuddin.As per PW-8, Rizwanuddin and his mother, Rehmat, started harassing and beating his daughter, Sayara Bano, after months of the marriage.On every Sunday, when his daughter, Sayara Bano visited his house, she complained that her husband used to daily consume liquor and beat her under the influence of liquor.His daughter also told him that the accused persons used to taunt her that they have been given junk (kabarh) in dowry.PW-8 also deposed that his wife, Rauf Nisha and his bhabhi- Salma Begum, also went to the matrimonial house of the deceased.Both his wife and bhabhi tried to make the accused persons understand not to make such high demands and harass Sayara Bano, but they reiterated that their demands have to be fulfilled.Thereafter his wife and bhabhi were turned out from the house.This whole incident was narrated to him by his wife and bhabhi.Thereafter, he went to Bhavnagar, in connection with his work.He had not stated in his statement, Ex.PW-8/A, to the SDM that his wife, Rauf Nisha and his bhabhi, Salma Begum, went to the matrimonial house of the deceased.It was further incorrect to suggest that his daughter was never taunted or beaten regarding the dowry items brought.It was incorrect to suggest that Rizwanuddin never gave any beatings or harassed his daughter under the influence of liquor.It was incorrect to suggest that he was deposing falsely.19. PW-10, S.I. Champat Singh, deposed that on 28.9.98 he was posted in District Crime Team.He inspected the spot and got the place of occurrence photographed.At the spot, he found one stove containing kerosene oil, one plastic can of white colour which was without kerosene oil and smell of kerosene oil was coming.Besides this, burnt clothes and burnt match-sticks were found present there.The kerosene oil can was lying at a distance of one foot from the stove.The stove, kerosene oil can, burnt clothes and burnt match sticks were lying in open space.The plastic can was lying at a distance of about 1/1 ft. from the wall of open space.The piece of cloth having the width of 3"x1" was found lying unburnt while its corner were found burnt and the said piece of cloth was having smell of kerosene.The cloth was of Mehroon colour (dark red colour).I also visited the room and kitchen situated on the 2nd floor.I cannot say which articles were lying in the kitchen.It is incorrect that I had never visited the spot.It is incorrect that the stove, cloth, plastic can and match sticks were not found at the spot.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.PW-4 has stated in his examination-in- chief that whenever Sayara Bano visited her parental house, she used to complain that her in-laws were harassing her and taunting her that she does not even know house hold work and what type of junk has been brought in dowry.PW-4 has stated that about 3/4 months prior to the death of Sayara Bano, he also came to know that Rizwanuddin had demanded Rs.25,000/- which amount had been duly paid in the house of the appellant, but he did not know as to whom the said amount was delivered.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-4 went back on his statement regarding the payment of Rs.25,000/- in terms of dowry.However, this statement of his does not water down the portion of his evidence wherein he has clearly stated that Sayara Bano used to remain upset on account of the continuous harassment received by her at the hands of the appellant.Appeal No.1/2001 was filed by the husband of the deceased.Appeal No.2/2001 has been filed by the mother-in-law of the deceased.By a common judgment dated 09.12.2000 and order on conviction dated 18.12.2000 both the husband and mother-in-law have been held guilty for the offence committed under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, "IPC").Both the mother-in-law and husband have been sentenced to undergo seven (07) years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC.The husband and mother-in-law have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) years under Section 498-A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, and in default thereof they have been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.The present appeal has been filed by the mother-in-law and is directed against the aforesaid judgement and order of conviction.On the basis of the statement of the mother of the deceased, an FIR was registered.During trial, twenty one (21) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Four (4) witnesses were examined by the defence.Statement of the appellants was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. It would be useful to discuss the evidence of some of the material witnesses in detail.4. PW-1, Mohd. Arif (neighbour of appellants) deposed in his examination- in-chief that it was a Sunday, but he did not remember the date.About 3/4 months back, at about 1:30 a.m., he was present at his house.He heard some voices and came to the portion of Rizwan.He saw Sayara in flames (who was the wife of Rizwan).PW-1 deposed that he put water on Sayara from a tub lying there.At that time, the family members of Rizwan, were sleeping in the house.He called the family members, who were sleeping on the lower floor of the house and took Sayara to the hospital.PW-1 deposed that he did not know anything else about this case.In the cross-examination by learned APP, PW-1 deposed that his statement was recorded by the police.PW-1 also deposed that it was incorrect that when Sayara was seen by him in flames, at that time, Rizwanuddin and his mother, Rehmat, were standing there.Further, it was incorrect that he saw a white can in the hand of Rizwanuddin.PW-1 deposed that he had not stated so in his statement to the police.PW-1 was confronted with portion C of his statement, Ex.In his cross-examination by counsel for appellant, PW-1 deposed that Rizwan and deceased, Sayara, were residing together on the second floor of the house and were having separate kitchen and the appellant, Rehmat (mother of Rizwan) and other family members were residing on the ground floor of the house.PW-1 further deposed that there was a very thin wall between his house and the house of Rizwanuddin and they could hear the talks of each other from their respective portions.He had never heard any dispute or quarrel between Sayara Bano and her in-laws including her husband.He also did not hear any quarrel on the day of the incident or immediately few days prior to the occurrence.There was no neighbour present at the place of occurrence.7. PW-3, Rauf Nisha, mother of the deceased (w/o Intzar Ahmed) deposed that the marriage of her daughter, Sayara Bano took place with Rizwanuddin, about 2 years back.PW-3 deposed:My daughter was kept well by Rizwanuddin for 2/3 months after the marriage.Whenever my daughter used to come to reside with us normally on Sunday, she used to complain to me that her mother-in-law, Rehmat was not happy with the dowry brought by her and she used to taunt every time by saying that junk has been given in the dowry.(Kabari Ka Saman Diya Hai).My daughter also used to complain that her husband, Rizwanuddin used to consume liquor every day and after consuming liquor he used to bear her daily with a view to pressurize her to bring money from her parents.About 4 months prior to the incident, I accompanied by my Jethani (sister-in-law), Salma had gone to the house of appellants.There, we were abused by appellants and were turned out of the house.They had also stated that in case we wanted to see our daughter alive, we should fulfill their demands and they also demanded Rs.25000/- from me which I paid to my daughter Sayaro Bano for handing over the same to her husband, namely Rizwanuddin.Again thereafter, my daughter complained to me that appellants are again harassing her for bringing more dowry from us.About 15 days prior to the incident, my daughter, Sayara Bano, again came to meet us on Sunday and she again complained that the appellants were demanding Rs.25000/- and a flat.I had gone to meet my daughter Sayara Bano at her in-laws house in between the period of 15 days alongwith my nephew Miraj.I again met Rizwanuddin and Rehmat but they did not even care to hear.At about 3:00 a.m. on 28th of the month I was informed by Papo, sister of Rehmat that my daughter Sayara Bano has been burnt and she has been taken to JPN Hospital.I then went to JPN Hospital and there I found that my daughter has sustained burn injuries.My statement was recorded by the police as well as by Magistrate.My statement is Ex.PW-3/A which bears my signature at point-A. The statement before the SDM by me is Ex.PW-3/B which bears my thumb impression and signature at point-A.8. PW-3, mother of the deceased in her cross-examination by counsel for the appellants deposed:It was correct that the kitchen of my daughter Sayara Bano and her husband was separate from Rehmat.It is also correct that my daughter and her husband, Rizwanuddin used to reside on the second floor of the house.Rehmat with her other 5 sons and 2 daughters have been residing on the first floor of the house.On the ground floor, one Swalin resides.Adjoining to the house of appellants Arif resides on the first floor.I had visited the house of Arif many times.I cannot see what is happening in the house of appellants while remaining present in the house of Arif (PW).I was not tutored by any police officer before coming to the Court before giving the evidence.My daughter was also sick of Rizwanuddin as he used to consume liquor daily and after consuming liquor, he used to beat her.This was the only reason why my daughter was not happy with Rizwanuddin.in addition to it, she was tired of dowry demand.PW3/A you had stated to the police that my daughter came 15 days prior to the occurrence and told me that she was beaten by accused persons as we had not fulfilled the demand of Rs.25000/- and today in the Court you have stated that Rs.25000/- was paid four months prior to her death? Which of is your statement is correct.My both statements are correct.First of all we paid Rs.25000/- about 4 months prior to the incident and again a sum of Rs.25000/- and a flat was demanded about 15 days prior to the incident by the appellants.I had stated in my statement to the police that the accused persons had told us that in case we wanted to see our daughter alive, the demand of Rs.25000/- should be fulfilled (Confronted with her statement Ex.PW3/A where there is no mention of if we wanted to see our daughter alive.) I had stated in my statement made to the Magistrate that about 15 days prior to the incident, my daughter Sayara Bano came to meet us on Sunday and she again complained that the appellants were demanding Rs.25,000/- and a flat.(Confronted with her statement Ex.PW3/B where there is no mention of any incident about 15 days prior to the incident.) I had no direct talk with Rehmat who is my cousin in connection with the demand of dowry.Rehmat used to demand dowry from my daughter.Rizwanuddin, never demanded any amount or dowry from me directly.It is incorrect to suggest that no demand was ever raised by the accused persons from my daughter.It is incorrect that no amount of Rs.25000/- and flat was ever demanded or paid/given at any time.It is incorrect that I had stated about the demand of Rs.25000/- before the Magistrate on being tutored by somebody in order to falsely implicate the appellants.9. PW-4, Sh.Mirajuddin @ Miraj, deposed that deceased, Sayara Bano was the daughter of his Khala (Mausi).The marriage of Sayara Bano took place with Rizwanuddin.As per PW-4, whenever Sayara Bano used to come to her parents house, she used to complain that her in-laws were harassing her that she does not know household work and that she had not been taught to do domestic work by her parents and that she was also being taunted as to what type of junk she had brought.She also used to complain that her husband used to consumer liquor, come late in the night and she was not at liberty to go to the place where she wanted to go.PW-4 further deposed that on the eve of Bakri-Id, in 1998, his Khala (the mother of deceased) had sent meat to the matrimonial house of the deceased as per the custom but the appellants had returned the same on the third day as a result of which, his Khala felt very much upset.About 3/4 months prior to the incident he had come to know that Rizwanuddin had demanded Rs.25,000/- and his khala had paid the said amount to her matrimonial house but he could not say to whom the said sum of Rs.25000/- was delivered by his Khala at the house of the appellant.PW-4 stated to not know anything else.In his cross-examination by learned APP, PW-4 deposed that his statement was recorded by the Police and he had not stated to the police that mother-in-law of deceased, Sayara Bano used to taunt the deceased as to what junk had been given by her parents in dowry.(Confronted with his statement, portion A to A of Ex.PW/4-A where it was so recorded).He further deposed that Rizwanuddin, used to come late in the night after consuming liquor and used to beat the deceased.He had not stated to the police that Rizwanuddin used to demand money from the deceased.(Confronted with his statement portion B to B where it was so recorded).He had no knowledge that the deceased Sayara Bano came to her parents home about 15 days prior to the incident and had told that she had been badly beaten by her husband and mother-in-law.(Confronted with his statement Ex.PW/4-A portion C to C where it was so recorded).In his presence, deceased, Sayara Bano, had never told her mother that since Rs.25,000/- had not been given to the accused persons, she was being beaten up by them.He had not made such statement to the police.(Confronted with his statement portion D to D where it was so recorded).PW-4 further deposed that it was incorrect that he alongwith deceased, Sayara Bano and his Khala had gone to the house of appellants.PW-4 deposed that it was incorrect that at that time appellants were assured that Rs.25,000/- would be given to them very soon.(Confronted with his statement portion E to E where it is so recorded).When he went to JPN Hospital, he found Sayara Bano in a burnt condition.PW-4 in his cross-examination by the learned APP further deposed that it was correct that deceased, Sayara Bano used to remain upset as she was harassed by the mother-in-law and the husband on account of bringing less dowry as well as for bringing the dowry, goods of very inferior quality (Junk goods).It was correct that deceased, Sayara Bano used to say everytime, when she used to come to her parents home, that she was being harassed and taunted by them for bringing less dowry and for bringing dowry goods of inferior quality.He used to hear the conversation between the deceased and her mother and on one occasion, the deceased had told this fact in his presence to her mother.As per PW-4, it was correct that after her marriage the deceased had become weak as she was constantly taunted but otherwise, the deceased was not suffering from any disease.In the cross examination by learned counsel for the appellant, PW-4 deposed that the deceased used to say that as a result of constant harassment at the hands of her mother-in-law and Nanad, she had become weak.It was further incorrect to suggest that Sayara Bano never told her that her husband Rizwanuddin used to daily come to his house after consuming liquor and beat her and she was sick of her life.It was incorrect to suggest that Sayara Bano never told her that the appellant used to harass her and taunt her by saying that her father had given junk in the dowry.It was incorrect to suggest that the accused persons (before the trial court) were not responsible for the death of Sayara Bano.That Rs.25,000/- were demanded from Sayara and she was asked to bring the said amount from the parental house.PW-8 further deposed that Sayara Bano had taken Rs.25,000/- from his wife after 4/5 months of her marriage and had handed over the same to the accused persons (before the trial court).After 1/2 months, his daughter, Sayara Bano further told him that the accused persons were demanding one flat and a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.His daughter, Sayara Bano, also told him that the accused persons were threatening that their demands have to be fulfilled at any cost.On the night of 27/28.9.1998, he received a telephone call that his daughter, Sayara Bano, was seriously ill and he should come back to Delhi.On 28.9.1998, when he reached Delhi Airport at about 9:45 a.m., his relatives told him that his daughter had sustained burn injuries and had expired.Again said that his relatives informed him that his daughter had been burnt to death.His statement, Ex.PW-8/A, bears his signature and thumb impression at the place marked A. PW-8 also identified the dead body of his daughter and the SDM had recorded his statement Ex.PW-8/B which bears his signature and thumb impression at point A.In the cross-examination by learned APP, PW-8 deposed that it was incorrect that he himself had handed over Rs.25,000/- to his daughter for handing over the same to the accused persons.Again said he had handed over Rs.25,000/- to his daughter for handing over the same to the accused persons and at that time his wife was also there.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-8 deposed that it was correct that his daughter, Sayara Bano, and Rizwanuddin used to reside on the top floor of the house in a small room.There was no kitchen on the top floor and kitchen was situated on the first floor.PW-8 deposed that after four months of the marriage he came to know from his daughter that she was being harassed by her husband Rizwanuddin, who used to beat her under the influence of liquor.PW-8 deposed that he had stated in his statement, Ex.PW-8/A, that his daughter used to come to his house on every Sunday.(Confronted with his statement Ex.As per PW-8, his daughter, Sayara Bano, met him about one month prior to the incident.At this stage, a Court question was also put:"Que.You have stated in your statement before SDM that I had left for Bhavnagar in connection with my business on 16- 9-98 whereas today you have stated in the Court that you had left for Bhavnagar about one and one fourth months prior to the incident and was way away to Bhavnagar during this period.Which of your statement is correct?My statement made before the Ld. SDM in this respect that I left for Bhavnagar on 16-9-98 is correct.PW-8 further deposed that in his statement made before the SDM, he had stated that the accused persons started harassing and beating his daughter after 3/4 months of the marriage.After 4/5 months of her marriage, his daughter, Sayara Bano, told him that there was a demand of Rs.25,000/-.However, they did not make any demand directly from him.PW-8 further deposed that he paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- after one week of the demand made by the appellants.When the money was given to his daughter, Sayara Bano, he was present in his house.He had told the SDM that the accused persons were demanding Rs.25,000/- from his daughter.(Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-8/A where the name of appellant, Rehmat for demand of Rs.25,000/- was not mentioned).But PW-8 could not tell as to whom the money was handed over by his daughter after she took Rs.25,000/- from them.His daughter was depressed as her husband, Rizwanuddin, used to come to home after consuming liquor daily and used to beat her.PW-8 deposed that he had stated in his statement to the SDM that after 1/2 months after the first amount was paid, his daughter told him that there was a demand for a flat and a sum of Rs.25,000/-.(Confronted with the statement, Ex.No chance prints were found present there.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-10 deposed that the plastic can which was found present at the spot was of 2/2 lt. of capacity.The stove was made of iron and its tank was of round shape, which was almost full.The stove was found outside the kitchen in open space within a radius of one meter.PW-10 further deposed:I did not find any blackening sign of smoke on the walls at the second floor at the place of incident.I did not observe any burn marks on the floor on the second floor as the water was found lying at the place of incident.PW 12, Sh.Raj Kumar, SDM deposed that on 28.09.1998, information was received from the police regarding admission of Sayara in LNJP hospital, in burnt condition.He went to LNJP Hospital for recording statement of Sayara, but the doctor declared her unfit for statement.On 29.09.1998, he went to the mortuary of the hospital, where he recorded the statement, Ex. PW8/B of Intzar Anhmed and statement of Naushad Ahmed which is Ex. PW12/A. Both the relatives of deceased identified the dead body of Sayara.On the same day, he recorded the statement of Rauf Nisha which was Ex. PW3/B and she put her RTI at point A and also signed the same in his presence.He also recorded the statement of Intzar Ahmed which was Ex. PW8/A and Intzar Ahmed put his LTI and signatures at point A in his presence.The dead body of deceased, Sayara was thereafter sent for post-mortem vide his application, Ex. PW12/C .PW-16, SI Subodh Kumar has deposed that on 28.09.1998 he was posted at P.S. Turqman Gate.He left alongwith HC Anit Dutt to the spot at 1796, Turqman Gate and found an iron stove containing kerosene oil, one piece of cloth of Mehroon colour (some hair were sticking to it) and smell of kerosene oil was coming from it.He also found one plastic can from which smell of kerosene oil was coming out; one match box of slims brand which was half burnt.PW-16 correctly identified the stove (Ex. P1), plastic can (Ex. P2), cloth piece (Ex. P3) and match box (Ex. P4).In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-16 deposed that the tank of stove was still having some kerosene but the same was partly empty and that he could not tell as to how much kerosene was found in the same.As per PW-16 he also found a gas stove inside the kitchen which was other than the stove recovered by him.Further he did not notice any marks of smoke either on the walls or on the ceiling of the second floor.The place of occurrence was an open place.He did not notice marks of smoke either on the second floor including the stairs coming down to first floor.PW-16 voluntarily deposed that the floor of the second floor was probably washed with water.He further deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that he did not conduct the investigation properly and fairly.PW-17, Dr.Sunita Kaushik has deposed that on 28.09.1998, she was working in JPN Hospital as Sr.Resident in the Burns and Plastic Surgery Department.On that day, one Mr.Rizwan r/o.1796 Turqman Gate, Delhi, was brought with the alleged history of sustaining burns while saving his wife, whose clothes had caught fire by cooking on kerosene oil stove.The history was given by the patient i.e. Rizwan himself.On examination, patient was found to have second superficial burns on both hands and a small patch on the nasal tip and cheeks.PW-17 deposed that the MLC Ex.PW-17/A was under his hand and bears his signature at point A.25. PW-19, Dr.Reena Pal has deposed that on 28.09.1998 she was working as Junior Resident in JPN Hospital, New Delhi.On that date at about 2:45 a.m. w/o Rizwan r/o 1796 Turqman Gate, Delhi was brought by Kayam, the brother-in-law of Sayara with the alleged history of sustaining burn injuries as Dupatta had caught fire from stove.The alleged history was given by the person who brought the patient.PW- 19 deposed that on examination, she found vitals to be stable; chest, heart was also normal; patient was conscious and oriented.There were burn injuries over the face, chest, abdomen and arm of Sayara.PW-19 also deposed that she gave the necessary treatment to the patient and admitted her to the burns and plastic ward.She also deposed that the MLC, Ex.PW-16/A was prepared and the same bears her signature at point-A.On cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-19 stated that when history was given by the person who had accompanied the patient, the patient was at some little distance.She further deposed that she did not remember as to whether the patient was within the hearing of the aforesaid information.A question was put to this witness by the Court, as to why she did not enquire the cause of injuries from the patient? The answer was given that, since the patient was suffering from 70% burns, it was not feasible to enquire from her.However, she was able to tell her name and her husbands name, but not the address.PW-19 deposed that it was incorrect that history as written in MLC, Ex.PW-16/A was given to her by the patient or that the history given "by brought" were added later at the instance of police.PW-21, Inspector J.P. Singh has deposed that he was the SHO at the time when case FIR No.279/98 was registered against Rizwanuddin.He has stated that the exhibits of this case were not sent to CFSL by SI Subodh Kumar.Counsel for appellant, Rehmat, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the material on record as well as the settled principles of law.As and when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under section 113(B) of the EvidenceLearned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court committed a manifest error in convicting appellant, Rehmat and failed to appreciate the evidence as per the settled position of law.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that neither any harassment was ever inflicted upon the deceased by appellant, Rehmat nor any demand for dowry was made by her.It is further submitted that even otherwise, there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution including PW-3 (mother of the deceased), who is the star witness of the prosecution.I have carefully examined the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including the evidence of Rauf Nisha, mother of the deceased (PW-3).PW-3 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that whenever her daughter (Sayara Bano) used to visit the parental house (normally on Sundays), she used to complain that her mother-in-law (Rehmat) was not happy with the dowry brought by her and that her mother-in-law used to taunt her every time by saying that junk had been given in the dowry (Kabadi ka saman dia hai).As per PW-3, her daughter had also complained that her husband, Rizwanuddin used to consume liquor everyday and after which he would beat Sayara with a view to pressurize her to bring money from her parents.PW-3 has further stated that about four months prior to the incident (death of Sayara), PW-3 had also visited the matrimonial house of her daughter, Sayara along with Jethani, Salma (PW-5).At their house, both of them were abused by the appellant and threatened that in case they wanted Sayara to be alive, Rs.25,000/- should be immediately paid.Soon thereafter, Rs.25,000/- were handed over to Sayara for giving the same to her husband, Rizwanuddin.However, Sayara yet again complained that she was being harassed for bringing more dowry and about 15 days prior to the incident, Sayara had complained that another sum of Rs.25000/- and a flat was also demanded.PW-3 has further deposed that she had then visited the matrimonial house of her daughter, Sayara, along with her nephew, Miraj, however, both Rizwanuddin and Rehmat did not even care to hear them.As per PW-3, she had informed that her husband (PW-8) was out of station and as soon as he would come back they would consider the demands.I find that although PW-3 has stated in her examination-in-chief that about 15 days prior to the incident, her daughter, Sayara had complained that there was a demand of Rs.25000/- as well as a flat, however, during the cross-examination, PW-3 was confronted with her statement (Ex. PW3/B) made before the SDM on 29.09.1998 i.e. immediately on the next day of the death of Sayara Bano, where there was no mention of any incident about 15 days prior to the incident.PW- 3 was also confronted with her statement (Ex. PW3/B) wherein it was not mentioned that she had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased with her nephew Miraj.Further PW-3 admitted in her cross- examination that she did not have any direct talks with appellant, Rehmat in connection with the demand of dowry.On a careful analysis of the evidence of PW-3, I find that her major grievance of PW-3 is against Rizwanuddin (husband of the deceased) (who has since expired during the pendency of the appeal) and that her grievance against appellant, Rehmat pertains only to the fact that appellant, Rehmat used to taunt Sayara Bano that junk had been brought by her in dowry.I also find that PW-3 has admitted in her cross-examination that she never had any direct conversation with appellant, Rehmat with regard to demand of dowry.Further PW-3 has also deposed that when about four months prior to the incident (death of Sayara), PW-3 had visited the matrimonial house of Sayara, where after Rs.25,000/- were handed over to Sayara, the said amount was to be given to her husband, Rizwanuddin.None of the witnesses of the prosecution have deposed that any money in the form of dowry or otherwise was ever handed over to the appellant.Thus I find that it is not the case of PW-3 that Rs. 25,000/- were handed over to Sayara to be given to appellant, Rehmat or Rehmat benefited in any way from the amount received.In my considered opinion, on the basis of the evidence of PW-3, it cannot be said that cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry, by appellant, Rehmat, which had a live link between the demand and her death.Yet what is important is that there must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.In my considered opinion, from the deposition of PW-3, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that soon before the death of Sayara Bano, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant, Rehmat for and in connection with demand of dowry.In so far as PW-8 (father of the deceased) is concerned, I find that PW-8 was declared a hostile witness.His daughter also told him that both Rizwanuddin and Rehmat used to taunt her that they have been given junk (kabarh) in dowry and that they were demanding Rs.25,000/-.As per PW-8, after 4/5 months of the marriage, Sayara Bano also took Rs. 25,000/- from his wife (PW-3).However, during the cross-examination, PW-8 was confronted that in his statement (Ex. PW-8/A) before the SDM, the name of appellant, Rehmat was not mentioned for the demand of Rs. 25,000/-.Further as against his deposition in the examination-in-chief, PW-8 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know as to whom the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was handed over by Sayara Bano after she took the said amount from the parental house.Further while PW-3 (mother of the deceased) has deposed in her cross-examination that when she had given Rs. 25,000/- to her daughter, PW-8 was out of station, contrarily, PW-8 has deposed before the Court that when the money was given to his daughter, Sayara Bano, he was present at his house.The anomaly is very much evident.PW-8 also admitted that the appellant, Rehmat, never demanded any money directly from him.Even otherwise, as already held above, the payment of Rs. 25,000/- cannot be said to have a direct bearing on the death of Sayara Bano.PW-8 has further deposed that after the initial demand of Rs. 25,000/- having been fulfilled, after 1 months, his daughter had informed him that the appellants were demanding another sum of Rs. 25,000/- and also a flat.However, yet again during the cross-examination PW-8 was confronted with his statement (Ex. PW-8/A) wherein the demand of Rs. 25,000/- was not mentioned for the second time also.In so far as the allegation of PW-8 regarding the demand of flat is concerned, I find that it is not clearly borne out from the record that appellant Rehmat was behind the said demand.A careful reading of the evidence of PW-8 (father of the deceased) before the Court would also show that he has stated that his daughter Sayara Bano and Rizwanuddin (husband of the deceased) used to reside on the top floor of the house in a small room.PW-3 has also stated that it was correct that the kitchen of her daughter, Sayara Bano, and her husband was separate from the appellant, Rehmat.PW-3 also admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter, Sayara Bano, and her husband used to reside on the second floor of the house.On the second floor, there was one room and on kitchen.Appellant, Rehmat, with her other five sons and two daughters used to reside on the first floor of the house.As such, I find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that since Rehmat (mother-in-law of the deceased) was not residing on the same floor as where the deceased and her husband Rizwanuddin were residing, and that they had a separate kitchen, I find that appellant, Rehmat had no significant role to play in the married life of the couple and even otherwise, she would not have derived any benefit out of the demand of flat.In a case bearing similar facts and circumstances namely Prem Singh Vs.State of Haryana reported at (1998) 8 SCC 70, the Apex Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and observed that, "when A-2 was residing separately from her son and when there was no positive evidence on the record to show that either A-2 was instigating A-1 to demand additional amount of dowry/money or for that purpose telling him to cause ill-treatment or harassment to Sumitra, it would be unsafe to hold A-2 responsible for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.Moreover, such an additional payment of money was to benefit A-1 alone and not A-2 because there was no evidence on record to suggest that A-1 was helping A-2 either by giving some money and/or other benefits.If this be so, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in convicting Shanti (A-2) for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.It is for this precise reason, we give benefit of doubt to A-2 and acquit her of the charge under Section 304-B IPC."On a careful analysis of the evidence of all the three prime witnesses (PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8), I am of the considered view that the allegations for demand of dowry made against appellant, Rehmat (mother-in-law) are completely general in nature and only relate to the fact that appellant, Rehmat used to taunt the deceased that junk had been given in dowry.Both PW-3 (mother of the deceased) and PW-8 (father of the deceased) have stated that no amount was directly demanded by the mother-in-law or any amount was ever paid to her.However, relying upon their evidence, it is established that appellant, Rehmat (mother-in-law of the deceased), subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment and showed her dissatisfaction with the items of dowry and taunted the deceased.It is settled position of law that section 498-A, IPC creates a distinct and separate offence as against section 304-B, IPC.In section 498-A, IPC cruelty has been defined in the Explanation to the said section, through two limbs.The first limb of section 498-A defines cruelty in clause (a) of the Explanation as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).At the same time, I find that PW-5, Salma has also made a categorical statement that Sayara Bano had informed her that her mother-in-law, Rehmat used to harass her and taunt that junk had been given in dowry.Further as per PW-5, Sayara Bano had complained to her that Rizwanuddin used to daily consume liquor and beat Sayara Bano.PW-5 has also corroborated PW-3 (mother of the deceased) that on one occasion she had visited the matrimonial house of Sayara Bano along with PW-3 and that the mother-in-law of Sayara Bano had misbehaved and demanded Rs.25,000/- from them.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-5 has stated that when she visited the matrimonial house of Sayara Bano, the mother-in- law of Sayara Bano had misbehaved and the Nanad of Sayara Bano had quarrelled on account of cooking of food.Thus, on the basis of the evidence of PW-5, it can certainly be held that the acts of appellant Rehmat of harassment to Sayara Bano would certainly attract section 498-A, IPC but appellant Rehmat cannot be held guilty under section 304-B, IPC.Further I find that there is no evidence on record to suggest that appellant, Rehmat was present at the scene of the incident on the fateful night when Sayara Bano suffered burn injuries.Rizwanuddin (husband of the deceased) had examined himself as a defence witness.In his deposition, Rizwanuddin as DW-3 stated that he was a kabari by profession and on the fateful night intervening 12/13.09.1998, he had reached his house at around 12:15/12:30 a.m. As per Rizwanuddin he came late to the house as he had to load some vehicle in connection with his business.When he reached his house, his wife was sleeping.He woke her up and Sayara asked her to warm the food.She started preparing chapattis and since then there was no gas Sayara cooked the food outside the kitchen on a stove.She worked outside the kitchen because there was not much space in the kitchen which was of small size.While Sayara was doing all this, as per Rizwanuddin, he took a nap.Then he heard sound of cries and came out only to find that the maxi of Sayara was in flames.He got perplexed and tried to save Sayara from fire by using his hands and also made noise, "Bachao Bachao".At that time, his neighbour Arif and Arifs wife, Samsad came to his house.Arif then poured water on Sayara, which was lying in a tub.Thereafter Arif went downstairs to wake up Rehmat and other family members.I find that all the four defence witnesses have stated that appellant Rehmat, and other family members of the house were sleeping downstairs when the incident took place.It is settled position of law that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution and if after careful scrutiny of their evidence, the Court finds a portion thereof to be trustworthy and convincing, the same is to be relied upon.Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that Samsad, DW-1 (wife of Arif) has categorically deposed that Sayara Bano had herself informed that she had caught fire while she was preparing food for Rizwanuddin and the said portion of her evidence has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court.No doubt as per Rizwanuddin (DW-3) and Samsad (DW-1), when Sayara was being taken to the hospital, Sayara had informed Samsad that she had caught fire accidentally and further as per Rizwanuddin, (DW-3) Sayara had also given the history of her burns to the doctor in the hospital, however, I do not find merit in the deposition of Rizwanuddin and Samsad, inasmuch as, per the MLC, Ex. PW-16/A the history of sustaining burns injury, as the dupatta caught fire, was given by the person who brought the patient.PW-19, Dr.Reena Pal has also affirmed before the Court that the alleged history of accidentally receiving burns was given by the person who brought the patient.PW-19 has deposed that on 28.09.198 while she was working as Junior Resident in JPN Hospital, New Delhi, on that date at about 2:45 a.m. w/o Rizwan r/o 1796 Turqman Gate, Delhi was brought by Kayam, the brother-in-law of Sayara with the alleged history of sustaining burn injuries as her Dupatta had caught fire from stove.The alleged history was given by the person who brought the patient.PW-19 also deposed that on examination, she found that there were burn injuries over her face, chest, abdomen and arm of Sayara.She also deposed that she gave the necessary treatment to the patient and the patient was admitted to the burns ward.She also deposed that the MLC Ex.PW-16/A was prepared and the same bears her signature at point-A. PW-19 was categorically questioned by the Court as to why did she not enquire the cause of injuries from the patient? PW-19 answered that since the patient was having 70% burns it was not feasible to enquire from her.PW-19 stated that it was incorrect to suggest that the history written in the MLC, Ex. PW-16/A was given by the patient or that the history given "by brought" was added later, at the instance of the police.Nothing has been brought on record to show that Dr. Reena Pal was deposing falsely or that she was a false witness.Dr. Reena Pal, PW-19 is an independent witness and was firm in her deposition before the Court that the person who had brought Sayara to the hospital, had given the history of burns received by Sayara.The Post Mortem Report is Ex. PW14/A and bears his signatures at point A which I identify.As per section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the chapter relating to 'relevancy of facts', the opinion of any erson acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is alleged to have signed the document is relevant.Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:"47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.-- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.Explanation.--A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him."In the present case, PW-14 on being shown the post mortem report, deposed that the same was in the handwriting of Dr. Vinod Chauhan and bears his signatures.Since PW-14 has categorically identified the post mortem report, it cannot be said that the same has not been proved.Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the material seized by the prosecution was admittedly not sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the same certainly affects the credibility of the case set up by the prosecution.I find that PW-16, SI Subodh Kumar has deposed that on 28.09.1998 he was posted at P.S. Turqman Gate and at the spot he found an iron stove containing kerosene oil; one piece of cloth of Mehroon colour (some hair were sticking to it) and smell of kerosene oil was coming from it; one plastic can from which smell of kerosene oil was coming; and, one match box of slims brand which was half burnt.PW-3, mother of the deceased has given firm evidence against her with regard to this fact.The evidence of PW-5 and PW-8 also lends support in this regard.

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

MP(MD)No.7580 of 2018 in Crl.542 of 2018, dated 25.09.2018 (Thangam (Mathalai Muthu Vs.The Executive First Class Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul); and (08).Order of this court passed in Crl.MP(MD)No.8387 of 2018 in Crl.585 of 2018, dated 28.02.2019 (Amalraj Vs.The Executive First Class Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul).07.02.2020 er To, The Superintendent of Prison,http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Central Prison, Trichyhttp://www.judis.nic.inThis criminal revision is directed against the order passed in MC No.385/2019, dated 23.09.2019 by the first respondent.2.It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent police foisted cases against him in Crime No.188 of 2018 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 302 IPC @ 148, 149, 302 IPC and in Crime No.282 of 2019 for the offence under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(11)(A) of NDPS Act and History Register No.06 of 2018 of East Police Station, Virudhunagar.The 1st respondent issued summons to appear him on 27.08.2019 and on that day, he was not furnished with any document relating to the proceedings initiated against him under section 110(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code and further the respondents 1 and 2 did not permit the petitioner to represent his case before the 1st respondent through Advocate.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this court.http://www.judis.nic.in 33.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.4.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not provide reasonable opportunity to defend the case before passing the impugned order.It is the further contention of the petitioner that when without giving reasonable opportunity to defend his case, any order passed by the Executive Magistrate can be set aside.For that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following judgments:-01.AIR (33) 1946 Allahabad 333 (Narain Sahai and others Vs.Emperor);OP(MD)No.6841 of 2015, dated 10.04.2015(Malathi Vs.State);(03).2016 CRI.L.J. 4603 (Bala Vs.Administrative Executive Magistrate, Trichy City);(04).Order of this court passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7591 of 2017, dated 21.04.2017 (Rajkumar Vs.State);(05).2017(1)TLNJ 516 (Criminal) (Sivashanmuga Sundaram Vs.The Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police L & O, Tirunelveli and two others);http://www.judis.nic.in 4 (06).Order of this Court made in Crl.R.C.No.505 of 2017, dated 05.07.2017 (Selvam @ Selvaraj Vs.The Executive Magistrate-cum- Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Law & Order, Crime and Traffic), Tiruppur City and another);(07).Order of this court passed in Crl.The 1st respondent passed the impugned order mechanically.The 3rd respondent is directed to set at liberty the revision petitioner, if his further detention is no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.28.02.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er Note:Issue order copy on 28.02.2020 To,1.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.2.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.971 of 2019 28.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Crl.RC(MD)No.66 of 2020 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J ADVANCE ORDER In fine, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in MP No.1 of 2019 in M.C.No.21/2019/A4, dated 23.04.2019 is set aside.The 3rd respondent is directed to set at liberty the petitioner/detenu, if his further detention is no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

After trial, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 338 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under Section 184 of the M.V.Act to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two weeks simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 411 read with 177 of the M.V.Act, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment.Against which, the accused has filed Crl.Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.3.2005 at about 8.30 p.m., at Tharamani, C.P.T.Road, near V.H.S.Hospital, the accused drove the tempo traveler van bearing Registration No.TN01-K-4353 from South to north direction in a negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration Nos.TN07 AD 1649 and TN07 AB 8276, as a result, the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN07 AD 1649 died on the spot due to the grievous head injuries and the driver of the another motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN07-AB 8276 also sustained grievous injuries on his right hand and left leg.In this context, the defacto complainant had given a complaint based on which the accused was proceeded with for the offences as mentioned above.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not argue on merits but confined his argument only on the question of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent act of the deceased two wheeler, who driven the vehicle in a rash manner.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision.I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State and perused the materials on record.The trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 338 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under Section 184 of the M.V.Act to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two weeks simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 411 read with 177 of the M.V.Act, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment, out of which the petitioner has already paid the fine amount.It is further directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation to the credit of C.C.No.3354 of 2005 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.On such deposit being made, the trial Court shall hand over the said amount to the victim as well as to the family of the deceased, on proper identification.The Legal Representatives of the deceased will be paid Rs.20,000/- and the injured victim will be paid Rs.5,000/- as compensation from the above amount.It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the compensation amount within the time stipulated by this Court, he shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as ordered by the Courts below and this order will not enure to the benefit of the accused.The trial court is directed to take necessary steps as are necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner for undergoing the above said period of sentence.It is needless to say that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner can be given set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.09.09.2015gaIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-I)The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.B. RAJENDRAN, JgaCRL.RC.No. 48 of 201009.9.2015

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']

Respondents No.2 and 3 are unserved.On payment of process fee by registered AD as well as by ordinary mode, notice be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 for final hearing, be returnable within six weeks.After service of the respondents, appeal be listed for consideration of I.A.No.7301/2013 along with M.A.No.919/2013 arising out of the same award.Both the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks time is granted for argument on admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Kumar Soni, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of the Workmen Compensation be called for within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.For admission, record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List thereafter.List after two weeks.Shri Rajendra Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents.In compliance of the order dated 15.1.2014, reply of IAs no.10629/12, 10632/12 and 10633/12 has not been filed by the respondents.List after two weeks.None for the appellant.Record of the Claims Tribunal has already been received.List after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Record of the Claims Tribunal has not been received.Office is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after a week.Shri Rakesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on admission.On perusal of the record it is evident that no document has been produced by the petitioner on record to show that when the order dated 20.8.2014 was submitted before the authority, owing to which, prima facie, no contempt is made out.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to produce the document on record for the same.List after four weeks.Petitioner is directed to produce original receipt of Speed Post whereby the representation was sent to the concerned authority.List after three weeks.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks for admission.List after four weeks.Petitioner is directed to submit copy of the order dated 7.1.2014 passed in W.P.No.8610/2013 within 3 weeks.List after three weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Sarwate, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents and receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri R.B. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.Heard on admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no.1 and 3 only for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents and receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List immediately after winter vacation at the top of the list.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri R. B. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri R. Badkur, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri A. Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri P.K. Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri D.K. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Prabhat Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.Record of the learned Claims Tribunal be called for.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondents, this appeal be listed along with MA No. 2255/2014 arising out of the same award for final hearing in due course.Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the compliance has been made by the respondents yet copy of the said compliance report has not been received to him.Hence, he seeks four weeks time for further consideration of this petition.The prayer is accepted.List after four weeks.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri A. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Smt. Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Smt. Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Vinod Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.IA No.16307/2014 filed by the petitioner for taking the documents on record is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Shri A.K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.On payment of process fee within 7 days by registered /AD mode, notice be issued to the respondents for submitting reply of the petition as well as compliance report within four weeks, be made returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks.None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.Service report be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.Heard on the question of admission.Appellant / accused is present in person along with his Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar Shukla.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent/State.Shri Nitiraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.Parties are directed to remain present before the Registrar (J) day-after-tomorrow i.e. on 20/12/2014 for verification of the compromises application.Thereafter, list for consideration of the compromise application.List after four weeks for consideration on the said issue.Office is directed to take necessary steps in this regard within four weeks.After receipt of the same, list for admission.None for the appellant.Order dated 26.11.2014 has not been complied with so far.Again four weeks time is granted to comply with the said order, failing which, this appeal shall be dismissed on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P. N. Verma, Advocate for the applicant.For leave of the appeal record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.Shri P. C. Paliwal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on his behalf, Shri K. N. Sushil Agrawal, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.On payment of process fee within 15 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondent no.2, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri D.K. Dixit, Advocate for the appellant.Shri P. Sabu, Advocate for the respondents.Interim order of the aforesaid date is hereby confirmed till final disposal of the appeal.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on IA No.12767/2013 filed by the appellant for amendment in the appeal.Considering the facts stated in the application, the said IA is allowed.Shri M. Ali , Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for admission, be made returnable within six weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.None for the applicant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, list after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri C. M. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. N. Gupta, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after four weeks for admission.In the meanwhile, record of the trial court be called for.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant.Shri T.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondents no. 3 and 4A.IA No. 12217/2014 filed by the respondents no. 3 and 4A is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Jitendra Prasad, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Sandeep Kostha, Advocate for the respondents.Interim order dated 31.3.2004 is hereby confirmed till final disposal of the appeal.IA No. 1324/2004 is disposed of accordingly.As a result, IA No. 1779/2005 filed by the respondents is hereby dismissed.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Maqbool Khan, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on its behalf, Shri S.P. Sethi and other Advocates have filed their Wakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondents no. 2 to 6 / State.Notice issued to the respondent no. 7 has been returned unserved.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD with correct address, notice be issued to the respondent no.7 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the said respondent, appeal be listed for final hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.As prayed by counsel for the applicant / accused, short adjournment is granted to file copy of the statement of the prosecutrix.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, a copy of the order dated 7.11.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16098/2014 be produced.Shri Sarthak Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.List after two weeks.Shri S. B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, a copy of the order dated 7.11.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16098/2014 be produced.Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Meanwhile, a copy of the order dated 16.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16640/2014 be produced.Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Statement of only one seizure witness namely Kaluram has been got recorded by the prosecution before the trial court on 7.10.2014 and statements of another seizure witness and Investigating officer are to be recorded before the trial court.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after a week.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List after a week.Appellant is directed to remain present before this Court on 4.2.2015 for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant / accused.Office is directed to take appropriate steps for calling the record of the courts below within four weeks.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant / complainant.Shri A. N. Gupta, learned PL for the respondent No.1 / State.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this revision, it shall be decided on merit.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. N. Gupta, learned PL for the respondent / State.This revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2006 framing the charge under Section 498-A of IPC against the applicant / accused.More than 8 years have elapsed.Shri Maqbool Khan, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 2 though served.Notices issued to the respondents no. 4 and 5 have been returned unserved.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD with correct address, notice be issued to the said respondents for final hearing as well as IA No.4745/2006, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the said respondents, appeal be listed for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Ankita Khare, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents though served.Appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ravindra Kumar Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after four weeks.Shri Vinit Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Smt. Shobna Kostha, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.Record of the Trial court be called for.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (R ) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2014 dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC for compromise of the suit.On perusal of the appeal memo it appears that this appeal does not come in the purview of Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks two weeks time for argument on the maintainability of this appeal.List after two weeks.Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.Heard on admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.As prayed by counsel for the respondent no. 1, three weeks time is granted to file reply of the petition as well as compliance report.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shir S. P. Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Vidya Prasad, Advocate for the respondent.Hence, the respondent is directed to produce the inquiry report conducted by Shri Somwanshi within 3 weeks.List after three weeks.None for the appellant.IA No.12879/2007 filed by the respondents for early hearing is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amit Ghurak, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served.Shri R. Choubey, PL for the respondent no.2 / State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent has been returned unserved with a report that the noticee does not reside at the mentioned address.Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondent, the case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent has been returned unserved with a report that the noticee does not reside at the mentioned address.Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondent, the case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1, b, c, d and 5,6, 7 & 8, though served.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, the case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks for further orders.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Surendra Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Respondent no. 1 is reported to have died.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the LR's of the deceased respondent no.1 for IAs No.15074/2014, 15075/2014 and 9157/2005, be made returnable within 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri R. K. Samaiya, Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents.Counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw IA No.11912/2013 filed for restraining the respondents from making the construction over the disputed vacant land.Hence, the said IA is dismissed as withdrawn.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Priyank Khandelwal, Advocate for the respondents no. 1 to3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 11.11.2014 has not been complied with by the appellant.Appellant is directed to comply with the said order today positively, failing which, the effect of the order dated 9.10.2014 shall stand vacated automatically.As per earlier order record be called for within 3 weeks positively.Shri R.L.Ariha, Advocate for the appellants.Notices issued to the respondents no. 1 to 3 have not been returned either served or unserved.Let service report be called for within four weeks.Heard on admission.Interim order dated 13.10.2014 is hereby confirmed till final disposal of the appeal.Record of both the courts below be called for.Shri N.K. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Sobhitaditya, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Devesh Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Ashish Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri K.N. Pethia, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri M. Aadil Usmani, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri D. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.List on 8.1.2015 for consideration of the said application.Shri Vijay Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.None for the respondent no. 3 though served.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, two weeks time is granted to file reply as well as compliance report.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Anand Kumar Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Office is directed to trace out the record and place it on record on the next date of hearing.List in the week commencing 19.1.2015 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Rajesh Sen, Advocate for the appellant.As per Mediator report dated 25.2.2013, proceeding for mediation has failed.List for admission after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Office is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard promptly within three weeks.List thereafter.List after three weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri H.D. Khan, Advocate for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance of the order dated 26.8.2011 the amount has been deposited by the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri T. C. Lakhera, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no.1 though served and on his behalf Shri Sachin Sisodiya, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks time is granted for argument on admission.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks time is granted to comply with the said order.If the said order is not complied with by the appellant, this appeal shall be dismissed on the next date of hearing.None for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 though served and on their behalf Shri Pankaj Dixit, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.For admission, record of the learned Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing at motion stage after 8 weeks.Record of the trial court has not been received.Office is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing at motion stage after 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sharad Punj, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.Appellant is directed to supply copy of appeal memo to the respondents no. 3 and 5 within five days.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for IA No.7498/2009, be made returnable within 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sudeep Patel, Advocate for the appellant.With the consent of counsel for both the parties, the matter is referred to the Lok Adalat.List on 13.12.2014 in the Lok Adalat.List after four weeks.Shri Sandeep Koshtha, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Bail application of co-accused Vishnu was decided by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10436/2014, owing to which, this application of co-accused Lekhram has been listed before this court for hearing.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, this application be listed after two weeks before this Bench.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on IA No.15914/2014 filed by the applicant for amendment in the cause title.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.3 for admission, be made returnable within 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vikalp Soni, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no.2 and 3 though served and on their behalf, Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate has filed their Vakalatnama.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the State.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.1 for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, IA No.3680/2005 filed by the appellant under Section 151 of CPC to direct the trial court to frame a formal decree is hereby dismissed as not pressed.Heard on IA No. 5193/2005 filed by the appellant for takign a document Certified copy of the decree.Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondent though on his behalf Shri H. K. Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.MCP No.396/2004 filed by the respondent under Section 151 of CPC for vacating the stay order dated 1.8.2003 is hereby rejected for want of prosecution.Appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Devendra Shukla, PL for the respondent / State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.None for the remaining respondents.Order dated 10.9.2014 has not been complied with by the appellant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, one week time is granted to comply with the said order.If on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.If it survives notice be issued to the respondents for their presence before this Court.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri T. Khadka, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on IA No. 15171/2014 filed by the respondent for early hearing of the appeal which is pending since 2003 and the age of the respondent is near about more than 80 years.Appellants have no objection in allowing the application.With the consent of counsels for both the parties, the appeal be listed for final hearing on 7.1.2015 as short matter is involved in this appeal.With the consent of counsels for both the parties, this petition be listed in the next week.Appeal has been admitted vide order dated 2.11.2014 for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.Both appeals be listed separately.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.As per order dated 3.12.2014 this petition ought to have been listed before Hon'ble Justice Shri J. K. Maheshwari.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri B. R. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Respondent / State is directed to submit the report regarding criminal antecedents of the applicant / accused within 7 days.List next week.Bail application of co-accused Kamal Nayan Pandey filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.Shri J.K.Maheshwari,J) vide order dated 1.12.2014 passed in M.Cr.Bail application of co-accused Raghavendra filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.Shri Sandeep Kostha, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Heard on admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri U. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants.Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, case diary of cross case crime no.303/2014 Police Station Rehti, District Sehore be also produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.None for the appellant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondents no. 2 and 3 / State.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 1 for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondent no. 1, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.List thereafter.Appeal be listed alongwith MA No.1598/2007 in the week commencing 19.1.2015 for admission.Shri S. B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submits that this criminal revision has been wrongly listed for hearing today.On perusal of the order-sheet dated 13.10.2014, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be correct.Therefore, this criminal revision be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri A. M. Lal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents.Cross objection filed by the respondents on 21.2.2006 is taken on record as the delay in filing the same was condoned vide order dated 17.5.2006 and the court fees has already been paid by the respondents.None for the appellant.Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Ajay Sen, Advocate for the respondent.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ishtiyaq Hussain, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Amit Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-M. A.No.Shri Satyendra Jain, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 2 though served and on its behalf, Shri K. L. Raj, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.None for the remaining respondents.Appeal be listed for for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant / accused.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.List after four weeks.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Warrant of arrest issued against the appellant for today i.e. on 5.12.2014 has not been returned either served or unserved.Let service report of warrant be called for within four weeks from the concerned Police Station.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, short adjournment is granted for argument.List next week.Shri Pradeep Sukhwani, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, two weeks time is granted for producing some documents.List after two weeks.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the son of the applicant Mohd. Hasan, Sultan also lodged a report on the same day bearing Crime No. 43/14 and the case has been registered against the complainant party.Hence, the case diary of cross case Crime No. 43/14 be also produced on the next date of hearing.Shri Devdatt Bhave, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 3 though on their behalf Shri Dinesh Agrawal, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the State.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri Pramesh Jain, Advocate for the respondents.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent has been returned unserved.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD with correct address, notice be issued to the respondent for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sushil Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 5 though served.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 6 for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondent no. 6, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on her behalf Shri Anil Dwivedi, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.Respondents no. 2 to 5 are not served.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 2 to 5 for MCP No.4973/2004, be made returnable within 8 weeks.Record of the trial court be called for.This appeal be listed alongwith FA No. 535/2004 arising out of the same judgment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 and 2 though served and on their behalf Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate and his Associates have filed their Vakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manas Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondents / State.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, adjournment is granted.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 and 2 though served and on their behalf Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate and his Associates have filed their Vakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Kumar Barman along with his son Amit Barman are present in person.Shri A. Choubey, Advocate for the respondent.Shri K.K. Patel and Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocates for the Caveator.Heard arguments of both the parties.Reserved for judgment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-C. V. Rao, Advocate for the appellant.Notices issued to the respondents no. 1 and 2 have not been returned either served or unserved.None for the respondent no. 3 though served.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, this appeal be sent for settlement in next Pre-sitting of the Lok Adalat on 10.12.2014 of the National Insurance Company.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Notices issued to the respondents have been returned unserved.Again on payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode with correct address, notice be issued to the respondents for IA No. 1411/2014, be made returnable within 10 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 3 though on their behalf Shri Kunal Thakre and Shri Ankur Shrivastava, Advocates have filed their Vakalatnama.None for the respondents no. 5 and 6 though served.Notices issued to the respondents no. 7 and 8 have been returned unserved.On payment of fresh process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 7 and 8 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after four weeks.Shri Manoj Soni, Advocate for the appellant.Respondents no. 1 and 2 are not served.Though the respondent no. 3 has been served and none is appearing on his behalf yet it does not effect in this appeal because the respondent no. 3 National Insurance Company has already been exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no.1 and 2 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondents no.1 and 2, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.List after four weeks.None for the respondent no. 2 though served and on its behalf Shri T. S. Lamba, Advocate has filed his memo.However, respondent no. 2 Insurance Company has been exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.1 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondent no.1, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Considering the period of dispute, the prayer for early hearing is allowed.Two weeks' time is granted to move an application for condonation of applicant's absence for 1.10.2014 and the applicant no.2 / accused is directed to remain present before this Court on 14.1.2015 for consideration of the said application.Two weeks' time is granted to move an application for condonation of appellant's absence for 3.12.2014 and the appellant is directed to remain present before this Court on 9.1.2015 for consideration of the said application, failing which, warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Appellant / accused Jagdish is present along with his Advocate Shri O.P. Bagri.Shri Devendra Shukla, PL for the respondent / State.Two weeks' time is granted to move an application for condonation of appellant's absence for 20.12.2014 and the appellant is directed to remain present before this Court for consideration of the said application on 9.1.2015, failing which, warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri B. P. Pandey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Applicant is directed to take appropriate steps within 2 weeks for impleading the complainant as respondent no. 2 in this petition.List after two weeks.Applicant is directed to take appropriate steps within 2 weeks for impleading the complainant as respondent no. 2 in this petition.List after two weeks.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, short adjournment is granted to file some documents.The prayer is accepted.Counsel for the applicant submits that bail application of co- accused Kuldeep Tripathi filed under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. has been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Umesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent submits that the order has already been complied with and seeks one week's time to submit compliance report.The prayer is accepted.In the meanwhile, compliance report be filed.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for the objector.Case diary is available.In the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant wants to file some documents and seeks short adjournment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Hitendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Counsel for the applicant undertakes to produce him on the next date of hearing.List on 9.1.2015 failing which warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pushapraj Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer.As prayed, short adjournment is granted with a direction that if on the next date of hearing arguments are not advanced on behalf of the applicant, the effect of interim order shall be vacated.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Respondent no. 2 is not served.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant.In the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to produce copy of the sale deed as well as cheques which were given to the sellers Nohari and Santrani and were deposited in their accounts.After service of the respondent no. 2, list for admission.Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Shri P. S. Chouhan, Advocate for the objector.Case diary is available.Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Rajneesh Kushwah, learned PL for the respondent / State.This appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-M. Cr.Shri Kasim Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Rajneesh Kushwah, PL for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to submit a report regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioner / accused within 7 days.List after 7 days.As per report dated 31.1.2014, OIC of the Record room, Jabalpur, it is evident that the original record of the trial court bearing criminal case no. 11976/2007 Judgment dated 31.1.2011 Sandeep Jain vs. Smt. Nandini Bais, Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, has already been eliminated, owing to which, original record cannot be transmitted to this Court.Now, the question that arises for consideration is that how the appeal can be entertained without original record.List after four weeks for consideration on the said issue.Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Shri B. P. Pandey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to produce the appellant / accused on 21.1.2015, failing which, warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 2 to 4 though served.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.1 for final hearing, be made returnable within six weeks.After service of the respondent no.1, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Two weeks' time is granted to remove the default.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shamim Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list the case day-after-tomorrow i.e. on 3/12/2014 at the top of the list.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-M. Cr.None for the petitioner.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Hence, the appellant is directed to file it in the office within 5 days.List after seven days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.However, still investigation is incomplete.As per the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hatta, District Damoh, it is evident that 29 criminal cases have been registered against the applicant / accused.Shri O.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.Shri Pradeep Singh Chouhan, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.However, adjournment has been sought by counsel for the applicant / accused for argument.List after two weeks.None for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.List after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Ramesh Kushwah, learned PL for the respondent / State.The said reply is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after four weeks.Shri Nitin Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Sudeep Patel, Advocate for the appellants.Heard on IA No. 12481/2008 filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which is of 9 days.No reply has been filed by the respondent no. 3 to oppose the application and counsel for the respondent no. 3 has no objection in allowing the same.Shri Amit vikram Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Thereafter, the instant contempt petition has been filed by the applicant.Now, the question that arises for consideration is that how this contempt petition is maintainable, whereas against the impugned order, a miscellaneous appeal should have been filed by the applicant.Shri Vivek Baderiya, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Rajneesh Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Anita Kaithwas, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Shakti Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Shri J.L. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.List after four weeks.Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Smt. Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 only for submitting reply of the petition, be made returnable within six weeks.List in the week commencing 2.2.2015 for further consideration.Shri G. S. Baghel, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Order dated 8.8.2014, Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Umaria, District Umaria and MJC No.17/10, Order dated 8.2.2012 be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondents for admission as well as IA No. 15531/2014, be made returnable within eight weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, on payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondents for admission, be made returnable within eight weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P.N. Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 only for submitting reply of the petition, be made returnable within four weeks.List in the week commencing 12.1.2015 for further consideration.Shri Dipak Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the documents whereby an intimation of the order dated 20.9.2013 was submitted to the Revisional authority.Two weeks' time is granted for the same.List after two weeks.Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed alongwith MA No. 4330/2008 for final hearing in due course.Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed alongwith MA No. 4334/2008 for final hearing in due course.Shri Himanshu Chourasia, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed along with MA No. 4737/2008 for final hearing in due course.Shri Abhishek Acharya, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on his behalf Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.None for the respondent no.2 though served.None for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue the matter, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Chhoti Kushram, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Smt. Alka Singh, Advocate for the appellant.A receipt depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has not been filed by the appellant on record.Counsel for the appellant seeks two days' time for the same.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within 6 weeks.List thereafter.None for the appellant.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.The order dated 12.12.2008 has not been complied with by the appellant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue the matter, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served.Notice issued to the respondent no. 2 for 21.11.2014 has not been returned either served or unserved.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, again notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.After service of the respondent no.2, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Therefore, applicant is directed to submit certified copy of the said order within four weeks.List after four weeks.Therefore, applicant is directed to submit certified copy of the said order within four weeks.List after four weeks.Shri Mahesh Prasad Shukla, Advocate for the applicants.Heard on IA No.15603/2014 filed by the applicants for taking the application filed by them for bringing the LR's on record.Hence, the applicants are directed to cure the defect.List after a week.Let this application be listed alongwith SA.No.53/2004 dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2014, after two weeks.List on 16.12.2014 for further orders.Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, a week's time is granted for argument.List on 15.12.2014 for admission along with MA No. 3097/2009 arising out of the same award.As per order dated 22.9.2009, record of the Claims Tribunal be called for immediately.List thereafter.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.List for admission after record is received.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri A. D. Mishra, Advocate for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents submits that civil suit bearing no. 17A/97 has already been decided by the trial court and the counsel seeks for a week's time to file copy of the judgment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shakti Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for both the parties, let this case be sent to Lok Adalat.List after four weeks.Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, list for final hearing in due course.Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, list for final hearing in due course.List the case at the top of the list on 27.11.2014 for admission.List after two weeks.Shri V.C.Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Petitioner is directed to clarify the plots no. 341 and 2506, on which basis, the aforesaid plots have been made at the spot.List after two weeks.Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondent for admission, be made returnable within four weeks.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.List in the week commencing 5.1.2015 for admission.One week's time is granted to file additional documents.List after a week.Shri Makbool Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.This petition be listed alongwith SA No.117/2006, Decided on 17.9.2014, after a week.None for the applicant.List after three weeks.None for the petitioner.List after three weeks.List after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manoj Rajak, Advocate for the petitioner.None for the respondents though served.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, list after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Rajneesh Chaurasia, Advocate for the appellant / accused.Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the appellant / accused undertakes to produce him within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.In compliance of the order dated 5.11.2014, the report regarding nature of the injuries of the injured has not been received.Respondent / State is directed to produce the same in the next week.Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant.This application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Ashish Gulatee, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent.With the consent of counsel for both the parties, list on 17.11.2014 for final hearing at motion stage.IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashish Giri, Advocate for the applicants.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, short adjournment is granted.No further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.None for the respondent.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K. Rohan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. D. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.List on 10.12.2014 for consideration of the IA No.563/2014 alongwith M.Cr.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K. Rohan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Chandrapal Singh, Advocate for the respondent.Two weeks' time is granted to submit reply of IA No. 562/2014 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay.List on 10.12.2014 for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Umesh Kumar Vaidya, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.In compliance of the order dated 11.9.2014, office is directed to call for the current status report of criminal case no. 2725/2008 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur (Shri Pranaydeep Thakur), within four weeks.Respondent / State is also directed to submit the report.As prayed by counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4, two weeks' time is granted.List on 12.12.2014 for admission.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant / accused passed away near about 3 to 4 months ago.He was murdered.Respondent / State is directed to call for the report regarding death of the applicant / accused within 3 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.None for the applicant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, list after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Shivhare, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent no.1 / State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, two weeks time is granted for argument.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Shivhare, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, two weeks time is granted for argument.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amit Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for.List thereafter.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.Petitioner may file copy of the charge sheet also.Meena Khera, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.List this petition alongwith Cri.A. No.3268/2013 disposed of on 21.3.2014 after a week.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.The complainant Abhisheik Ahirwar has not been made party in this petition, whereas the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing an FIR, Crime No. 656/13 as well as charge sheet.List next week.Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.The complainant Shahnaj Bano has not been made party in this petition, whereas the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing an FIR, Crime No. 32/14, Woman Police Station Satna (MP) as well as further proceedings of the trial pending before the trial court.One week's time is granted to move an appropriate application in this regard.List next week.Shri Vikas Mahavar, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioners, one week's time is granted.List after one week for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S. C. Datt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Petitioner is directed to move an application for impleading the complainant Smt. Ritu Goel as respondent no. 2 who lodged an FIR, Crime No. 26/13, Police Station Cantt, District Jabalpur (MP).One week's time is granted for the same.List after one week.For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.List after two weeks.Shri S.K. Patel, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.The complainant Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna has not been made party in this petition, whereas the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing an FIR, Crime No. 72/13, Police Station Devendranagar, District Panna (MP).As prayed by counsel for the petitioners, one week's time is granted.List after one week.List after two weeks.Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, two days time is granted to produce the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial court.List next week.Jailaxmi Ayer, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the State.None for both the parties.List after two weeks.List after four weeks.Shri Wakeel Khan, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, short adjournment is granted to produce a copy of the report submitted by the police before the court below.As stated by counsel for the applicant, bail application of the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Napit filed under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.None for the petitioner/ accused.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Record of both the courts below be called for.After receipt of the same, revision be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20201/2014 filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.21263/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20923/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Om Prakash Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20970/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for both the parties.List after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shailendra Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents no. 5 and 6 / State.Notices issued to the respondents no. 3 and 4 for 11.11.2014 have not been returned either served or unserved.Service report be called for within four weeks.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after two weeks.Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after two weeks.Shri Pramod Singh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, this application be listed alongwith M.Cr.C.No.17467/2014 filed by the co-accused Kedar Sharma.Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.List next week.List next week.Shri Vivek Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Heard on IA No. 21047/2014 filed by the applicant for taking documents on record.Application is allowed.For admission as well as IA No. 20740/2014, record of the courts below be called for forthwith.Respondent / state is directed to submit reply of IA No. 18489/2014 by the next date of hearing.List after two weeks.None for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.List alongwith Cri.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.S. Sablya, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Nitin Karan, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, adjournment is granted.List after four weeks.Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record has already been received.List next month for consideration of IA No. 19744/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.None for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.List after a month.Shri Anoop Sonkar, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission as well as IA No.20345/2014, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the same, appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20345/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, adjournment is granted.List after two weeks.None for the applicants.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.The said fact is corroborated with the death certificate issued by the competent authority.There is no reason to disbelieve the said report.Hence, the instant criminal revision is abated against the applicant no. 2 Vikku @ Vikram.His name be deleted from the array of cause title of the revision petition.Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Copy of the order dated 14.3.2014 passed by the Collector is available to the applicant, however, it has not been produced on record.Hence, the applicant is directed to produce the same either today or tomorrow.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri S.K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.It is a case of motorcycle theft which was seized from the possession of the applicant / accused.Due to paucity of time, matter could not be heard.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri M.S. Tahilramani, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing as well as IA No.14935/2014, be made returnable within eight weeks.Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.Shri V.V. Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.Smt. Arpana Nakra, Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents.Notice issued to the respondents for final hearing has not been returned either served or unserved.Service report be called for within three weeks.List after three weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Chhoti Kushram, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List after two weeks.Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List in the next week.Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20724/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence, next month.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court as well as appellate court be called for.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is not available, be produced on the next date of hearing.List in the next week.Shri S.P. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Shri Mohd. Amzad, Advocate for the CBI.As per record it is evident that bail application of co-accused Bhagirath Verma and Surendra Kumar Meena were decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.15059/2014 and M.Cr.Shri A.R. Lakhera, Advocate for the applicant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicants.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent no.8/ State.In compliance of the order dated 5.9.2014, financial status report of the applicants has not been produced by the State.Respondent / State is directed to produce financial status report of the applicants on the next date.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1 to 4, be made returnable within eight weeks.List after eight weeks for consideration of exemption from court fees.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.After service of the respondents, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri B. J. Chourasia, Advocate for the applicant.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for the appellant.For admission record of the trial court be called for within 3 weeks.After receipt of the same, list for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.D. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Appellant is directed to supply copy of the annexures filed alongwith appeal memo within 3 days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Anoop Sonkar, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Govind Patel, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal be called for.After receipt of the same, list for final hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Atulanand Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amardeep Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Appellant is directed to supply copy of the appeal memo to the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, short adjournment is granted for argument.If on the next date of hearing, further adjournment is sought on behalf of the appellant effect of stay order shall be vacated.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-C. V. Rao, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on IA No.13759/2014 filed by the applicant for ignoring the default pointed out by the office.On perusal of the record it is evident that the name of the applicant no. 2 was deleted as mentioned in the impugned order, owing to which, the default pointed out by the office is correct.Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents no. 1 and 4 though served.Heard on IA No.4018/2010 filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which is time barred by 11 days.Respondents have not filed any reply to oppose the application.Considering the facts stated in the application, the said IA is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.On behalf of the respondents no. 2 and 3, present counsel have taken notice for final hearing.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 though served.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents no. 1 and 4 though served.Respondent no. 5 is not served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 5 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.Respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are not served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.Respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are not served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Mohd. Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant.As per order dated 19.9.2014 process has not been paid.Applicant is directed to remove the default within a week.Record of the trial court be called for.List after two weeks.As per order dated 22.7.2014, process be paid within a week.Thereafter, show cause notice be issued to the respondents for admission.Record of the trial court be called for.List after service of respondents for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Faujdar, Advocate for the applicant.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for IA No. 11689/2009, be made returnable within six weeks.List after service of respondents for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.L. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 and 3 though on earlier date they appeared before the Court.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for payment of process fee with correct address of the respondent no. 2 for issuance of bailable warrant against him.List after two weeks.Ms. Sonika Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Counsel for the petitioners submits that the default has been removed.For admission, the record of the trial court be called for.` (M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-List after four weeks.Shri Devendra Gangrade, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of MJC No.96/02, IV ADJ, Bhopal, order dated 31.7.2003, be called for immediately.After receipt of the same, list for admission.In the meanwhile, IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of the trial court be called for immediately within four weeks.After receipt of the same, list for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Respondents no. 1 and 2 are not served.Notice issued to the respondents no. 1 and 2 has not been returned either served or unserved.As per order dated 8.7.2014, service report be called for within four weeks.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.List after 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, case is adjourned with the direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue the matter, this application shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shravan Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.None for the respondent.Record from the concerned authority be called for.SPC be issued to the respondent.List after four weeks.IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.Appellant is directed to supply copy of IA No.6918/2012 to the respondents within five days positively and the respondents may submit reply of the said application.List in the week commencing 8.12.2014 for consideration of the said IA.Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, 10 days time is granted for producing some documents.List after 10 days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. by the applicant / accused.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, one week's time is granted for producing the statement of the witnesses recorded before the trial court.List after a week.Shri Manhar Dixit, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that today he has filed Wakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.Applicant is directed to supply copy of the petition alongwith documents to the respondent within 5 days.IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Rajroop Patel, Advocate the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.List after two weeks.List after three weeks.Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Respondent / State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri C. M. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, this petition be listed alongwith Conc.List after three weeks for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Himanshu Chourasia, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.This is first bail application filed by the applicant / accused under Section 439 of Cr. P. C.On perusal of the order dated 1.9.2014 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur (MP), it is evident that six statements of the witnesses have been got recorded by the prosecution before the trial court.The deceased was the wife of the applicant / accused.List after 10 days.Shri Atulanand Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is not available.The applicant has filed this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.108/14, Police Station Baikunthpur, Distt.Hence, this application be listed before appropriate Bench.Shri Akhilesh Singh, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, one week's time is granted to produce some documents.List after a week.As prayed by learned PL, as per order dated 1.10.2014 and 8.10.2014, one week's time is granted to produce DNA report.List after a week.Shri M.K. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.IA No. 16339/2014 filed by the applicant / accused for taking additional documents on record is allowed.List after a week.Shri Advocate for the respondent.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for final hearing, be made returnable within six weeks.Jitendra (M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Aditya Narayan, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Sachin Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after two weeks.On payment of process fee within 7 days show cause notice be issued to the respondents as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against them for non-compliance of the order dated 25.6.2014, be made returnable within six weeks.List after service of the respondents.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Arjaria, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, the record of the trial court is required.Therefore, office is directed to call for the record within four weeks.After receipt of the record, list for final hearing at motion stage.IR granted on earlier occasion shall remain continued till next date of hearing.` (M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Saini, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Perused the record.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1 and 2 for final hearing, be made returnable within six weeks.Cross objection filed by the respondent no. 3 is taken on record.Copy of the cross objection be supplied to learned counsel for the appellant within 3 weeks.After service of the respondents no. 1 and 2, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.None for the appellant.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant to pursue the appeal, case is adjourned.List after four weeks for admission.Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Interest has not been awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Cross objection filed by the respondent no. 1 is taken on record.After service of the respondent no. 2, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent no. 2 has been returned unserved with the report that the noticee was not found on the given address.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, case is adjourned.List after three weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the State.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD notice be issued to the respondents, be made returnable within six weeks.As per order dated 28.8.2014, the report from the State regarding the financial status of the applicant has not been received.State is directed to submit the said report on the next date.List after six weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.List next week.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4, though served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD mode by the appellant, notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for final hearing as well as IA No.2847/2014, be returnable within six weeks.Both appeals be listed separately.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shreyas Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.On payment of process fee within 3 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD mode, notices be issued to the respondents for IA No.2901/2014 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, be returnable within six weeks.The appeal is time barred.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to deposit the entire amount of the impugned award within one month before the Claims Tribunal and the said amount be restrained to disburse to the respondents without permission of this court.It is ordered that the appellant shall deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal within one month before the Claims Tribunal.The said amount shall be kept in the fixed deposit.It is further ordered that the said amount shall not be disbursed to the respondents without permission of this court.CC as per rules.List thereafter immediately.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.R. Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.Shri O.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the Objector.As per Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Atul vs. State of U.P., 2014 (2) MPWN 147, two weeks' time is granted to the respondent / State to submit reply of IA No. 15427/2014 filed by the appellant under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence.The objector may also submit reply of the said application.List after two weeks.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed.Service report be called for.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-Shri M. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R. Pandey, Advocate for the respondents.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.After receipt of the same list for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within three weeks.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri M.A. Khan, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, three weeks' time is granted to inspect the record.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, G.A. for the respondents no. 1 to 3 / State.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.Interim relief shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ghanshyam Verma, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks for admission.None for the appellant.List after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after two weeks for admission.List after two weeks for admission.It be listed for admission alongwith SA No.262/2008 arising out of the same judgment.Both the appeals be listed separately after two weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri R.P. Khare, Advocate for the appellant instead of Shri P.S. Gaharwar.List after two weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjeev Tuli, Advocate for the appellant.Notice of the said IA be issued to the respondent on payment of PF within 7 working days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD mode, be returnable within six weeks.Record of the trial court be called for.List for consideration of the said IA after service on the respondent.Shri Dinesh Koshal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 7, though served and on their behalf Shri Anil Lala, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.None for the respondents no. 8 and 9, though served.Record of the trial court be called for within six weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Saini, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants.Record of the trial court be called for within three weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.List after three weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sitaram Shukla, Advocate for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sitaram Shukla, Advocate for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.Record of both the courts below be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the petitioner.List after four weeks.None for the appellant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State.List after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants even in second round.The appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 1 on record within three weeks.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellants, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ramesh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri K.P. Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on IA No.10139/2012 filed by the appellant for staying the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.7.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2011 by Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal.The appeal was already admitted vide order dated 10.2.2014 and interim relief was also granted.The said interim order is hereby confirmed till final disposal of this appeal.The appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.As per order dated 29.11.2013, the appeal is barred by 360 days.List after two weeks for consideration of IA No.10597/2012, an application for condonation of delay.List after three weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri N. Kothecha, counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents.List after ten days for further consideration.List after three weeks for further consideration.List after two weeks for further consideration.The order dated 3.3.2014 has not been complied with by the appellant.List after two weeks for further consideration.List after three weeks for further consideration.Shri Ankit Pandey, Counsel for the appellant.Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent no. 3 / State.IA No.12689/2014 filed by Ms. Manju Verma for changing the counsel is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List in the week commencing 10.11.2014 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Agnihotri, Counsel for the appellants.The respondent no. 5 is reported to have died.Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent no. 16 / State.Counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two weeks' time for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S. Kochar, Counsel for the appellants.As prayed by counsel for the appellants, two weeks' time is granted to file Vakalatnama as well as for argument.List in the week commencing 3.11.2014 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.P. Kushwaha, Counsel for the appellants.Counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two weeks' time for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Usmani, Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time for argument.List in the week commencing 3.11.2014 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Counsel for the appellant.For admission record of both the courts below be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pramod Sahu, Counsel for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Notices issued to the respondents no. 8 and 9 have been returned unserved, afresh notices be issued to the respondents no. 8 and 9 on payment of process fee within 7 days with correct address by ordinary mode, be returnable within 8 weeks.Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall remain continued till next date of hearing.Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for.Heard on I.A.No.12114/2014 filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC for staying the execution of impugned judgment and decree dated 25.7.2014, whereby appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2014 passed by the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge Class-1 to the court of 1 st Civil Judge Class-1, Bhopal, decreeing the suit for eviction.Counsel for the appellant submits that warrant of possession has been issued by the trial court, hence execution of the impugned judgment and decree be stayed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, execution of the impugned judgment and decree is hereby stayed till next date of hearing.List after receipt of the record for admission as well as for consideration of said application.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant in second round.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant to pursue the matter, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks for admission.List this appeal alongwith S.A. No.693/2009 arising out of the same judgment.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants.Record of both the courts below be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after two weeks for admission.List after three weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants.Notices issued to the remaining respondents no. 2 to 5 have not been returned either served or unserved.Service report be called for within four weeks.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents no. 1 and 2 / State.Record of the trial court be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pranay Verma, counsel for the appellant.During the course of argument, counsel for the appellant seeks some time for further argument.List after two weeks for admission.Shri J.L. Mishra, counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Two weeks' time is granted for the same.List after two weeks.Record of both the courts below be requisitioned within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Anil Lala, counsel for the petitioner.Heard on IA No.12814/2010 filed by the petitioner for mentioning the declaration with regard to filing of the Caveat.Considering the reasons as stated in the application, the said IA is allowed.Necessary amendment be carried out within 3 days.Also heard on IA No.5872/2009 filed by the petitioner for staying the execution of the impugned award till final disposal of this revision.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to deposit the amount awarded by the learned trial court with a condition that the said amount shall not be disbursed till final disposal of this revision.Application being IA No.5872/2009 is disposed of with a direction that the entire amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within one month from today before the trial court.It is further directed that the said amount shall not be disbursed till final disposal of this revision.In the meanwhile, record of the trial court be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.During the course of argument, counsel for the appellants prays for one week's time to further argument.List after one week for admission.As prayed by counsel for the appellants, one week's time is granted for argument.List after one week for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, counsel for the appellants.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Chandrahas Dubey, counsel for the appellant.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after two weeks for admission.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, petition be listed alongwith M.Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after Winter vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V. Judge shukla/-It be produced on the next date of hearing.List after the winter vacation.None for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.List after the winter winter vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-None for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused, list after vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-None for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused, list after vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-Shri Siddharth Datta, counsel for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.List alongwith M.Cr.C. No.18760/2014 after vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-Shri R.P. Khare, counsel for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, this appeal be listed alongwith S.A. No. 501/2009 arising out of the same judgment.Both appeals be listed separately after two weeks.

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

The applicant is permanent resident of District-Ujjain.This bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 760/2017 U/s 307, 294, 506, 451 & 427/34 of IPC registered at Police Station - Madhavnagar, District- Ujjain.As per information given by the accused/applicant, this is the first bail application in connection with the present crime number.No other bail application is either filed or pending before or decided by any coordinate bench of this court or by Hon'ble the Apex court in the same crime number.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.There is no evidence against him.Conclude of trial is likely to take time.There is no possibility of his absconding.He is ready to furnish adequate security.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.The objection of the prosecution is that the applicant has long criminal history.Apart from the present two cases, 7 other cases have been registered bearing Crime Nos.496, 456, 602, 101, 296, 767 and 319 at Police Station Madhav Nagar under MCRC 7715/18 (Jitendra vs. State of MP) 2 the offence relating to abusing, thrashing and threatening against the applicant.MCRC 7715/18 (Jitendra vs. State of MP) 2Facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 18/12/2017, in the afternoon at about 12.30, a scuffle took place between the present applicant Jitendra, Sunny and Satish in one hand and Rajesh and Pappu on the other hand.Both the parties filed FIR and Crime No.752/2017 and 755/2017 are registered against both the parties.In the evening at about 8.30 p.m., they again fought with each other.At this time, Satish filed FIR on which Crime No.761/2017 was registered under Section 307/34 of IPC against Ganpat and his two sons Rajesh and Suresh.At the same time, Suresh also filed FIR which is registered at Crime No.760/17 under Section 307, 294, 506, 451 & 427/34 of IPC.They alleged that the applicant along with co-accused persons Satish and Sunny hurling abuses outside their house and when they objected for the same, Satish caught Suresh and Jitendra, and struck iron pipe on his head.When Rajesh tried to intervene, Satish inflicted Dharia on his right hand.He filed certain documents to support his contention.Considering the aforesaid facts, nature of incident, injury caused to the applicant and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2018.04.04 16:25:36 +05'30'

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

Therefore, there cannot be conviction for offences under Sections 147 read with 149 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, but only for offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC in individual capacity, if the same are proved.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as per the complaint (Exh.68) lodged by PW-8 Keshav Darandale, on 17.5.1991 he was working as clerk in Block Office of Bhenda Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Bhenda (Bk.) (hereinafter referred to as "the sugar factory").At about 11.00 a.m. accused No.2 Pradeep Bhandari came to the office and requested PW-8 Keshav to take entry of sugarcane planted by him.PW -8 Keshav pointed out to accused No. 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 4 Pradip that there was an endorsement of injunction on the V.F.7 x 12 extract of his land and, therefore, he should take permission of the head of the block i.e. Oversear (PW-7 Lahanu Garje).However, accused No.2 Pradeep abused PW-8 Keshav, held his collar, tore his clothes and beat him.At that time PW-5 Balasaheb Wable, Narayan Dale, PW-7 Lahanu Garje and Sarpanch Kumar Deshmukh came and intervened and stopped the quarrel.Accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari went away.PW -8 Keshav pointed out to accused No. 2::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::It is further stated by PW-8 Keshav in the complaint (Exh.68) that thereafter he went to the head office of the sugar factory at Bhenda along with PW-7 Lahanu Garje and gave report.At that time, Satish Bhandari and Vjay Bhandari who were brothers of accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari came there and started abusing.However, Garad Guruji and Kakasaheb Shinde who were the Agricultural Officers persuaded Satish and his brother Vijay and so they went away.PW-8 Keshav gave report to his superiors who told PW-8 Keshav to lodge complaint with Kukana Police Out Post.Security Officer Shri Tanaji Datir (PW-10) was asked to accompany PW-8 Keshav.Accordingly, both went to Kukana Police Outpost.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::It is further stated in the complaint (Exh.68) that at the police outpost, Kukana, Head constable Yadav Satpute (PW-4) was present.PW-8 Keshav lodged report regarding incident.He signed the complaint.At that time, appellants and two more persons (original accused No.3 Sunil Deshmukh and accused No.4 Bandu Deshmukh) came there.It was about 1 to 1.30 p.m. Accused No.1 Rajendra (appellant No.1) was armed with sword and others were having sticks.Accused No.1 Rajendra asked PW-8 Keshav to come out, but he refused.Thereafter, accused No.1 gave blow with sword on the head of PW-8 Keshav who sustained bleeding injury.Thereafter, other accused persons started beating PW-8 Keshav.At that time, Kumar Deshmukh, Gorakh Rindhe came running and intervened.It is also stated that during the said incident, appellant No.3 Sunil Garje (accused No.5) and appellant No.2 Pradip Bhandari (accused No.2) beat PW-4 Head Constable Satpute with sticks and all the accused went away by abusing.Thereafter, the injured were taken to the government hospital in a jeep.It is also the prosecution case that the accused persons had also injured PW-10 Tanaji Datir, who was security officer accompanying PW-8 Keshav to the out-post.This is an appeal preferred by original accused Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.271 of 1991 decided on 10.12.1997, whereby the appellants are convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353 all read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, so also of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., each accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5000/= each.For each of offences punishable under Sections 332 read with Section 149 and 353 read with Section 149, each accused is sentenced for one year and fine of Rs.1000/=. For offence punishable under Section 147 read with section 149 of I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment of six months is awarded to each accused and for offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. each accused is sentenced rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::After the incident, PW-4 Head Constable Satpute informed the incident to the Police Station, Newasa and Investigating Officer API Shri Pansare (PW-14) along with staff came to the incident.The complaint of PW-8 Keshav was registered.Statement of PW-4 Satpute was also recorded; panchanama of spot was drawn; statements of various witnesses were also recorded.Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were absconding.They obtained anticipatory bail.They surrendered on 29.5.1991 and produced the sword and sticks which were attached under separate panchanamas.After usual investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the court.The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses.The defence examined three eye witnesses to show that accused No.1 Rajendra Bhandari was present at village Patharwal and attended an election rally at about the time when the alleged incident took place.However, defence evidence was discarded by the learned Sessions Judge and relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, original accused Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 (present appellants) were convicted as afore stated.Benefit of doubt was given to accused Nos. 3 and 4 and they were acquitted.Accused Nos.1,2,5 and 6 being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 7 filed the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri B.V. Wagh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.It is argued by Advocate Shri Dhorde before this court that at the time of alleged incident, parliamentary elections were being held and due to political rivalry false complaint is filed.Before we go to the eye witness account, we may consider circumstantial evidence.He stated that on 17.5.1991, he examined PW-8 Keshav at about 1.45 p.m. and following eight injuries were found on his person.(1) Incised wound 5-1/2 c.m.x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the right pariatal region, on the head near the occipital region oblique in direction, bleeding present.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::(2) C.L.W. 4 c.m.x 1 c/m.x skin deep on the right parietal region mid point, transverse in direction.(3) C.L.W. 3 c.m.x 1 c.m. x skin deep, on the left occipital region on the head.(4) C.L.W. 3 c.m.x 1 c.m. x skin deep on the left parietal region posteriorly.deep on the left parietal region near No. 5(8) Contusion 4 c.m. x 1-1/4 c.m.on the right thigh lower part.According to Dr. Firodia, injury No. 1 was caused by sharp substance.He opined that the said injury was possible with article No.8 (sword).Initially, doctor was hesitant.He has stated that the lower part of article No.8 sword was not sharp enough, but then stated that it was possible to cause injury No. 1 with the same.He also stated that patient gave him history of injuries with sword.It is argued before me that it is not known who has made endorsement on complaint Exh.68, regarding PW-8 being conscious, but there is clear evidence of PW-2 Dr.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Dr. Firodia has further stated that he examined PW-10 Tanaji Datir and found following five injuries on his person.According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance.Dr. Firodia also stated that patient Tanaji Datir gave history of injuries caused to him with sticks.The doctor has stated that on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 10 17.5.1991 he also examined PW-4 Head Constable Satpute and found following injuries on his person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::(1) Contusion 14 c.ms.x 1 c.m. x on the left side of back.According to the doctor, above injuries were caused within six hours and those were caused by hard and blunt substance.In the cross examination, the doctor has stated that in the exhibited documents, history was not stated.It may be noted that injury No.1 on the person of PW-8 Keshav was incised wound of 5-1/2 c.m.x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the right parietal region on head near the occipital region oblique in direction and bleeding present.Almost seven injuries which were incised and C.L.Ws. were on the head and one injury was on thigh.So, from injuries intention to cause his death was clear.In paragraph 11 of cross examination of PW-2 Dr. Firodia it is brought on record that injury No. 1 caused to PW-8 Keshav was simple in nature but it was opinion formed on the basis of the result of the injury on the date ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 11 of deposition.The doctor also stated that the dangerousness of the head injury can be considered from the inner damage caused by the said injury than the external injury caused over the head.Law is well settled that for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., the intention is more important and here in the present case, besides incised wound was caused on the head, there were other six injuries on the head.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Therefore, intention could not be to cause only simple injury or grievous hurt.The same is proved by PW-1 Eknath Kachare.Panchanama clearly shows that inside the police outpost, there were blood stains on the door frame, on the calender which was lying in torn condition, on the bench, on the floor and even on the wall below window.It is stated that even hair of the complainant were cut and they were found on the spot.It is said that the complainant did not state about cutting of his hair.But, injury No. 1 was such that some hair might have been cut and fallen on the ground.Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve the spot panchanama indicating that the incident did take place inside the police outpost.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::PW-8 Keshav Darandale is examined at ExhibitHe mainly deposed in terms of his complaint which is reproduced earlier.It does not appear from the cross examination of PW-8 Keshav that there was any previous enmity between appellants and PW-8 Keshav nor there is anything on record to show that PW-8 Keshav was in any way involved in election canvassing or was belonging to any particular political group or party.It has come in the evidence that appellant No.1 Rajendra was a political worker and had supported candidate Shri Vikhe Patil.Merely because the Chairman of the sugar factory was one Mr. Tukaram Gadakh, it cannot be inferred that PW-8 Keshav was belonging to the party of Yashwantrao Gadakh who was contesting the election against Balasaheb Vikhe Patil.Some incident did take place prior to the main incident and that is also clear from earlier reports filed with the police.PW-13 Head Constable Shri Shinde who was Police Station Officer at Police Station, Newasa at the relevant time.Exhibit 66 is the complaint lodged accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari (appellant no.2) at about 11.30 a.m. on 17.5.1991, complaining that Kanta Darandale (which is also the name of PW-8 Keshav Darandale) had refused to take entry of sugarcane plantation and abused and beat him.So, Exh.66 which is a complaint lodged by appellant No. 2 clearly proves that at 11.00 a.m. there was some incident between him and PW-8 Keshav regarding taking entry of plantation of sugarcane.So, it cannot be said that the incident had not taken place and that the complaint by PW-8 Keshav is a concocted story.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Exhibit 67 is the occurrence report produced by PW-4 Police Head Constable Satpute on earlier complaint by PW-8 Keshav for abusing and beating him for not taking entry of sugarcane plantation as asked by accused No.2 Pradip.Exhibit 69 is the occurrence report about the main incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::In fact, PW-4 Head Constable Satpute is an independent witness.There is nothing to show that he had any enmity with any of the appellants or original accused persons.His evidence clearly shows that on 17.5.1991, initially accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari came and lodged complaint at about 11.00 a.m. against PW-8 Keshav alias Kanta who was then working as clerk in the office of the sugar factory.On the basis of that complaint, occurrence report (Exh.66) was prepared.PW-8 Kanta alias Keshav lodged complaint about incident that took place at 11.00 a.m, which PW-4 Satpute reduced to writing.The occurrence report (Exh.67) regarding said complaint lodged by PW-8 is just prior to the main incident.Thereafter appellants came and assaulted PW-8 Keshav.Police Head Constable Satpute (PW-4) stated that accused No.1 Rajendra Bhandari had sword and others were armed with sticks.They asked PW-8 Keshav to come out, but he refused.So, accused entered the outpost and gave blows to him with sword and sticks.Then he intervened, but he was also given stick blows.He stated that accused No. 2 Pradip and accused No.5 Sunil (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) gave him blows with sticks.Due to said blows, sword snatched by him ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 15 from the hands of accused No. 1 had fallen on the ground.P.W.10 Tanaji Datir and others intervened.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Thereafter accused No. 1 took the sword and went away in a jeep.It is argued that the registration number of the jeep could not be told by the witness.However, it is to be noted that when PW-8 Keshav and PW-4 Satpute themselves were beaten and injured inside the outpost, we cannot expect them to be in a state of mind to note down the registration number of the jeep in which the accused ran away.It is also argued that the owner of the jeep in which injured were taken to the hospital, was not examined.However non examination of driver of owner of the jeep is neither a material piece of evidence nor it is a link.What was important at that time was to take the injured to the hospital immediately.Therefore, the injured were taken to the hospital in the vehicle then immediately available without bothering as to who was the owner or driver of the same and what was its number.PW-10 Tanaji Datir has half heartedly supported the prosecution case.He deposed that he was injured by some unknown persons, when he had accompanied PW-8 Keshav to the Police Outpost at Kukana, Kukana and when PW-4 Head Constable Satpute ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 16 was reducing the complaint of PW-8 Keshav.When the complaint was being recorded and signature of PW-8 was obtained, one person came and asked PW-8 Keshav to come out.No body had accompanied the said person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Thereafter, according to PW-10 Tanaji, PW-8 Keshav went out abusing that man and then he also went out.According to PW-10 Tanaji, two persons caught both the hands of PW-8 Keshav and third man was assaulting on forehead of Keshav with stick.As a result, Keshav fell down and thereafter this witness attempted to pull back that assailant, but he was also assaulted with stick.This witness says that he attempted to see as to who were those persons, but he saw about 25 persons around him.He was not conscious enough to see the assailants.So, he ran towards road side, but those people chased and beat him with sticks.Thereafter, he told the crowd that he had no enmity with the assailants and he was performing his duty.Thereafter, he went away on his motorcycle to the sugar factory and reported the incident to the chairman and at the directions of the chairman, took six watchmen with him and came back to the police outpost Kukana.There is nothing to suggest that PW-10 Tanaji was acquainted with any of the accused prior to incident.Due to sudden assault he appeared to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 17 flabbergasted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::PW-10 Tanaji was declared hostile by prosecution and was confronted with his statement before police particularly the portions marked "A" to "F" from the same.Witness denied those portions.So, here is a person who has turned hostile.However, one thing is very clear that the incident had taken place in which this witness was also injured, although he was not ready to tell the whole truth.The evidence of Dr. Firodia clearly shows that one of the injuries on the head of PW-8 Keshav was incised wound which was not possible with stick.19. PW-5 Balasaheb Wable, PW-6 Narayan Dale, PW-7 Lahanu Garje and PW-9 Gorakshanath Rindhe were witnesses to the incident which preceded main incident at the police outpost at Kukana.PW-12 Suresh Nikam is a witness to the main incident.He deposed that he has bicycle repairing shop and hair cutting saloon at Kukana.At about 1.00 p.m., he was working in his bicycle repairing shop and on hearing shouts, he came out and saw that PW-8 Keshav was injured, his clothes were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 18 torn, there was crowd of people.This witness has stated that appellant No.1 Raju Bhandari, Garje,Kharade and Deshmukh were present on the spot.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Raju Bhandari was armed with something, but witness could not see it specifically.Thereby, witness wants to say that it was not a stick.Thereafter,appellant Rajendra Bhandari and others ran away.So, this witness, who has his bicycle shop at a distance of about 200 ft.from his hair cutting shop, has stated that the incident did take place in which accused No. 1 and others had taken part and PW-8 Keshav was injured.Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.On the other hand, accused have examined DW-1 Ashok Khate at Exhibit 109, DW-2 Dattatraya Navthar at Exhibit 114 and DW-Balasaheb Rasne at Exhibit 115 in support of the defence.It is brought on record that all these witnesses are from the same political party to which accused No.1 Rajendra Bhandari belonged and that in the elections of 1991, they were supporting the candidature of Shri Balasaheb Vikhe Patil.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Absolutely, there is no independent evidence brought by accused in support of their defence and the evidence of these three defence witnesses is clearly of interested witnesses.Therefore, the learned trial judge did not believe their evidence regarding plea of alibi and believed the prosecution evidence as the same was so overwhelming and convincing as compared to evidence of said interested defence witnesses.Learned counsel for appellants and learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State cited some authorities.In that case, it was the defence of the accused that the original F.I.R.was suppressed by police and was substituted by another.There was failure on the part of police officer to produce the F.I.R. book in court notwithstanding the directions of the court.General diary at police station was also not produced.Inference drawn was that the original FIR was suppressed and so the prosecution case had become suspicious.The Supreme Court observed that the entire evidence was of partisan character and held in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 20 paragraph 3 as under:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::"Where the entire evidence is of partisan character impartial investigation can lend assurance to the court to enable it to accept such partisan evidence.but where in a murder case, the investigation itself is found to be tainted, in the sense that the original FIR was suppressed by the police, it becomes difficult for the court to sift the evidence, and the evidence of partisan eye witnesses cannot be accepted. "In the present case, there were immediate actions, such as occurrence reports, spot panchanama etc. The spot panchanama clearly indicates that blood stains were found on the doorsteps, wall, calender and floor in the police outpost.There was also immediate medical treatment which is apparent from evidence of Medical Officer Firodia.The small difference in the evidence regarding timing was pointing out, but in my opinion the same is insignificant and immaterial.The second case which learned Advocate Shri Dhorde relied upon is Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P.1995 Cri.In the cited case, none of the alleged eye witnesses had actually seen the occurrence.They were introduced as eye witnesses after thoughtful deliberations and considerations.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Authenticity of FIR was lost being ante-timed and had not been recorded till inquest proceedings were over at spot.There was no evidence to show as to when the copy of FIR, special report was actually dispatched to the Magistrate.The alleged ocular testimony was contradicted by medical evidence and thus there was failure on the part of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.For these reasons, the accused were given benefit of doubt.In the present case, it is argued that the copy of the FIR was not sent to the Magistrate and the only basis to this argument is that there was no entry in the station diary produced on record regarding sending of FIR to the Magistrate.I am not impressed by the said argument.It is true that the Head Constable Shri Shinde has proved the entry (Exh.90) which is regarding telephonic message received from the Head Constable Satpute (PW-4) about the incident and entry was taken at about 2.30 p.m. It shows that Sunil Garje (appellant No.3) and other 4-5 persons had beaten in front of Kukana police outpost and immediately police help was required to be sent.So, Police Inspector Shri Pansare and others proceeded to Kukana.Thus, it was a very short message and therefore, it was mentioned therein that the incident had taken place in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 22 front of Police outpost, Kukana.As per evidence on record incident took place both inside and outside the outpost.Immediate complaint, spot panchanama and evidence of eye witnesses are enough to show that part of incident had also taken place inside the police outpost, so far as beating to PW-4 Head Constable Satpute and PW-8 Keshav is concerned, though PW-10 Tanaji was beaten outside the police outpost.I am not satisfied that this is a case filed out of election rivalry and the incident itself had not taken place.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::In that case, eye witnesses were highly interested and partisan and were not coming with true version.26. 2008 AIR SCW 1276 (Babu Ram vs. State of Punjab) and more particularly paragraph 13 thereof is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 23 relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Dhorde for the appellant in support of his argument that non examination of independent witness raises doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case.However, in that case, independent witness was not examined.Overall evidence probabilised defence version.There was injury on the person of accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::In that case, the Supreme Court held that merely because there was some difference in the version of PW-1 so far as his statement in the court vis-a-vis statement in the FIR is concerned, that does not in any way affect the credible and cogent evidence of PWs.2 andIn our case, merely because PW-10 Tanaji chose not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 24 to tell the whole truth, that by itself would not affect the credibility of evidence of PW-4 Head Constable Satpute and PW-8 Keshav.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::So far as plea of alibi and private defence is concerned, in para.19 following observations are made:"19......................................... The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place.The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. "It is pointed out that distance between Kukana and Patharwal is 12 km. as stated by DW-2 Dattatraya Navthar and so it was possible to reach Patharwal within 10-12 minutes in a jeep and attend a meeting.Moreover, timings given by defence witness of the meeting are approximate.They are interested witnesses.There is no independent corroboration to their evidence.In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence against appellants-accused which clearly ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 25 falsifies the interested version of defence witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::I am satisfied that this is not a case where accused-appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.In this case, out of original six accused, two are acquitted and there is no appeal against their acquittal.It is not a case that there were more than six accused persons, but doubt arose regarding identification of original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, they were acquitted.PW-8 Keshav in paragraph 10 of his cross examination admitted as follows;It is correct that the Mala of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is adjacent to the police out post, Kukana.It is correct that the house of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is adjacent to the Shevgaon Newasa road on northern side in front of the police station.It is not correct that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 came there after hearing the noise of quarrel from the police out-post Kukana.It is correct that 5 to 6 persons came to police out-post Kukana besides Kumar Deshmukh and Rindhe.I did not see that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were amongst those 5 to 6 persons.I did not see that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 came from the field and they had sugarcane in their hands for eating.It is correct that the three persons who beat me do not include the accused Nos. 3 and 4. "I did not see that accused Nos. 3did not see that the accused Nos. 3 and 4::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::However, the learned Judges overlooked that since the accused who are convicted were only four in number and the prosecution has not proved the involvement of other persons and the Courts below have acquitted all the other accused of all the offences, Section 149 cannot be invoked for convicting the four appellants herein.The learned Judges were not correct in stating that A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-11 "can be held to be the members of the unlawful assembly along with some other unidentified persons" on the facts and circumstances of this case.When the 11 other accused were acquitted it means that their involvement in the offence had not been proved.It cannot be said that present four appellants can be held to be members of unlawful assembly along with some other unidentified persons.On the facts and circumstances ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 28 of the case, charge was not that the accused "and others" or "other unidentified persons" formed unlawful assembly, but it is "you accused Nos. 1 to 6"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::who formed unlawful assembly.However, they can be convicted for offences committed with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the appellants will have to be convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, 332 read with section 34 and 353 read with section 34 of I.P.C.The second case cited is Musakhan and others vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 2566 for proposition that 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 29 it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Here are the accused persons who had dared to enter into the police outpost and assault the person lodging complaint to the police against them ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 30 with sword and sticks and attempt to kill him.Not only that, the appellants-accused did not spare even the Head Constable (PW-4) Satpute doing his public duty or even PW-10 Tanaji Datir who had come to the police outpost just to accompany PW-8 Keshav on the directions of the chairman of the sugar factory.The incident took place in broad day-light in presence of several villagers.Only motive could be to create terror, that too during election period.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::So, in the facts and circumstances stated above, the appeal is partly allowed.The order of conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 is hereby set aside.So far as other offences are concerned, the conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is set aside and in stead, they are convicted of offences under Sections 307 read with section 34, 332 read with section 34 and 353 read with section 34 of I.P.C.The order of sentence passed by the trial judge is hereby set aside and modified as follows:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Appellants are directed to forthwith surrender to their bail for undergoing remaining terms of sentences awarded.If the appellants have paid excess fine, the same may be refunded to them The appeal is accordingly disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']

Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4) are the brothers of Kaliyamurthy and Ganesan.Chandra (PW1) is the wife of Kaliyamurthy.2.2 Kaliyamurthy and the family of his deceased brother Ganesan share a common boundary and naturally, they had boundary disputes.On 20.09.2014, around 11.30 a.m., when Kaliyamurthy was fencing his property, A1 to A4 objected to it.Kaliyamurthy insisted that he was fencing the property only within his boundary and proceededhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 with the fencing work.Infuriated at that, Senthil (A1) took a billhook (aruval) and aimed a blow on Kaliyamurthy.Seeing this, Kaliyamurthy's brother Kalaivanan (PW4) interjected to protect Kaliyamurthy and the blow fell on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) shoulder.Senthil (A1) gave another blow on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) leg and injured his toe.In this melee, when Kaliyamurthy went to the rescue of his brother Kalaivanan (PW4), Sivakumar (A2) took a casuarina log and gave a hard blow on Kaliyamurthy's head, resulting in Kaliyamurthy falling unconscious, following which, Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) also started attacking Kaliyamurthy and Kalaivanan (PW4) with sticks and thereafter, they all fled.2.3 Kaliyamurthy and Kalaivanan (PW4) were rushed to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam by Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), and Swaminathan (PW3), where, Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15) examined the injured duo.2.4 Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15), in his evidence as well in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P.18), has stated that he examined Kaliyamurthy who was brought by his brother Jayapal (PW2) and found him unconscious; he was told that at 11.30 a.m., Kaliyamurthy washttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 attacked by two known persons with a log; he noted the following injury:“a lacerated would of about 10 x 2 x 1 cm.on the scalp over the left parietal region.” he referred Kaliyamurthy for further treatment to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital since his condition was critical.2.5 Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15) has stated that he examined Kalaivanan (PW4) who was brought by Jayapal (PW2) and when enquired, Kalaivanan (PW4) stated that around 11.30 a.m., he was attacked by two known persons with a billhook (aruval) in the residence on his right shoulder and leg; he noted a cut injury on his right shoulder with contusion and a cut injury on his toe; he admitted Kalaivanan (PW4) as inpatient for further treatment and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.2.6 Chandra (PW1), wife of Kaliyamurthy, carried him to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital in Kumbakonam itself for treatment, where, Dr.Sundar Rajan (PW14) gave treatment to Kaliyamurthy.On getting intimation, Adhikesavan (PW18), Special Sub Inspector of Police came to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital, Kumbakonam, onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 20.09.2014 at 5.30 p.m. and recorded the complaint statement given by Chandra (PW1), which was marked as Ex.P.1, based on which, he registered a case in Thiruvidaimaruthur P.S. Cr.No.189 of 2014 under Section 294(b), 324, 323 and 307 IPC against A1 to A4 and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.22).2.7 Dr. Sundarrajan (PW14), in his evidence, has stated that Kaliyamurthy was unconscious, his blood pressure was low, he was finding it difficult to breathe and he was kept in ventilator; since his condition started deteriorating, he advised that he be taken to Cauvery Hospital in Trichy for better treatment; he issued accident register which was marked as Ex.Inasmuch as both the criminal appeals at hand arise from one judgment, viz., judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C. No.267 of 2015, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.2 The prosecution story could be succinctly stated as under: 2.1 The deceased in this case is one Kaliyamurthy.His eldest brother Ganesan died over a decade ago.Senthil (A1) is the son of Ganesan.Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) are Ganesan's daughters.Sivakumar (A2) is the husband of Punitha (A3).2.8 However, Chandra (PW1) took Kaliyamurthy to KMC Hospital in Trichy, but, they refused to admit him and so, she brought him back to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, where, he was declared as dead.Hence, the police filed an alteration report (Ex.P.24) altering the offence to Sections 294(b), 324, 323 and 302 IPC.On the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Chandra (PW1), the FIR was registered, as stated above.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 3 Inquest was conducted by the police and the inquest report was marked as Ex.The body of Kaliyamurthy was sent to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam for postmortem, where, Dr.A.Ravichandaran (PW17) performed autopsy and in his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.21), he has stated as follows:“One sutured wound measuring 8 cm x 8 cm x 1 cm on the left portion of the head.Eyes closed, ear nostrils Ho, Mouth Partially opened.Tongue inside the mouth.Ribs intact.Heart 250 gms.c/s chambers empty.Lungs 400,400 c/s congested, Liver: 1500 gms.c/s congested.Spleen 150 gms c/s.Stomach empty.Hms: (N) Intestine; empty, bladder empty.Kidneys each 150 gms.c/s.Scalp: A sustained wound over left side (parietal region) about 8 cm x 1 cm below the wound.Depressed fracture of skull bone elliptical shape fracture of parietal region left.Brain: Lacerated injury over left parietal lobe over skull, fracture side, cavity fillup with blood clots.Shown no alcohol/other poisons detected.So, the final opinion is grievous injury on head and brain leads to death” 4 While so, Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram in Cuddalore District and not before the jurisdictional Magistrate.On coming to know of it, the Investigating Officer took them into custody on 08.10.2014 and recorded their statement.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 5 Based on the disclosure statement of Senthil (A1), the Investigating Officer recovered a billhook (aruval) – MO1, under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.31).Based on the disclosure statement of Sivakumar (A2), he recovered a casuarina log (MO2) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.32).6 Meanwhile, Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) were arrested by the police on 21.09.2014 itself and certain recoveries were effected based on their confession statements, which may not be necessary to be alluded to.7 After recording the statement of witnesses and collecting various reports, the Investigating Officer filed the Final Report in P.R.C. No.27 of 2015 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, for the offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.8 On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No.267 of 2015 and was made over tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for trial.The Trial Court framed the following charges:Charge No. Array of accused Provision of law under which charged 1 A1 & A2 S. 294(b) IPC 2 A1 S. 324 IPC 3 A2 S. 302 IPC 4 A3 & A4 S. 323 IPC 5 A1,A3 & A4 S. 302 r/w S.34 IPC When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.9 To prove their case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, marked 33 exhibits and 3 material objects.On behalf of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any document marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.10 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 27.02.2017, acquitted Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4), however, convicted Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) as follows:(A2) for the charge under Section 302 IPC and the complete acquittal of Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4), Chandra (P.W.1) has preferred Crl.12 Heard Mr. N. Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel on record for the appellants in Crl.A. (MD) No.85 of 2017 and respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.A. (MD) No.167 of 2017, Mr.K.S. Duraipandian, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.167 of 2017 and Mr. R. Anandharaj, Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 13 At the outset, it may be necessary to examine the evidence of the eyewitnesses, viz., Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3), and Kalaivanan (PW4).As stated above, Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4) are siblings and they are the paternal uncles of Senthil (A1), Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) born to their eldest brother Ganesan.Kaliyamurthy, the deceased in this case, was the other brother.13.1 Chandra (PW1), widow of Kaliyamurthy, has stated in her evidence that there was boundary dispute between both families; her husband made arrangements for putting up a fence around their property and at that time, her brother-in-law (her husband's brother) was also there; when they were at it, A1 to A4 came to the boundary and asked her husband not to fence the property, for which, her husband, stated that he is putting up the fence only within his boundary after measuring, for which, Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) abused him and referred to him as “bastard” in vernacular; thereafter, Senthil (A1) took a billhook (aruval) and aimed a blow at her husband; on seeing this, her husband's brother Kalaivanan (PW4) intervened and the blow fell on his shoulder; once again, Senthil (A1) attacked Kalaivanan (PW4) and the blow fell on his leg; when her husbandhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 intervened, he was beaten with a casuarina log on his head and he fell down.She identified M.O.1 as the billhook (aruval) that was used by Senthil (A1); M.O.2 as the casuarina log used by Sivakumar (A2) and M.O.3 series as sticks used by Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4).Chandra (PW1) has further stated that the injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, from where, her husband was taken to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital at Kumbakonam and from there, he was taken to K.M.C. Hospital, Trichy and from the said hospital, he was brought back to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, where, he was declared brought dead.13.2 Kalaivanan (PW4) has stated that he retired as Bus Conductor; the accused are living next to the house of his brother Kaliyamurthy; his eldest brother Ganesan, who is the father of Senthil (A1), died ten years ago; there was property dispute between Kaliyamurthy and his eldest brother Ganesan's children; on 20.09.2014, around 11.30 a.m., Kaliyamurthy wanted to put up a fence around his property, which was objected to by Ganesan's children, for which, Kaliyamurthy stated that he is putting fence only on his side of the property; Senthil (A1) abused him in vulgar words and came to hack him; on seeing this, he (PW4) intervened; the blowhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 fell on his shoulder and so, he fell down and again, Senthil (A1) hacked him on his leg and caused injury to his toe; when Kaliyamurthy came to his (PW4's) rescue, Sivakumar (A2) took a casuarina log and gave a hard blow on Kaliyamurthy's head by saying "All the problems are because of you only and it is better you die (free translation); his brother (Kaliyamurthy) fell down and the women also started hitting with sticks, after which, they all ran away; thereafter, both of them were taken to the hospital where he was admitted as inpatient; but, his brother was advised to be taken to Thanjavur Government Hospital; while he (PW4) was in the hospital, he learnt that his brother died at 4.30 a.m. the next day.He identified the billhook (aruval) that was used by Senthil (A1) as M.O.1, the casuarina log used by Sivakumar (A2) as M.O.2 and the sticks used by Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) as M.O.3 series.13.3 The evidence of Jeyapal (PW2) and Swaminathan (PW3), who are the other two brothers of Kalaivanan (PW4) and the deceased Kaliyamurthy are also to the same effect.14 The Trial Court has believed the testimony of Kalaivanan (PW4), injured witness and has returned a finding that Kalaivananhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 (PW4) was attacked with a billhook (aruval) by Senthil (A1) and Kaliyamurthy was attacked with a casuarina log.However, the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the eyewitnesses that Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) had also joined the attack, though their presence has not been disbelieved and has eventually acquitted Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4).15.1 The complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Chandra (PW1) cannot be true because Selvabharathy (PW9), Kaliyamurthy's daughter has, in the cross-examination, stated that after the attack, they all went to the police station first and only thereafter, to the hospital; hence, the evidence of Chandra (PW1) and Kalaivanan (PW4) that they went first to the hospital stands belied.Our reasoning: However, it is to be noted that Selvabharathy (PW9) has clearly deposed with regard to the attack that was mounted by Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) and has amply corroborated thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 evidence of Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4).Selvabharathy (PW9) was aged about 17 years when she was examined in the Court on 24.01.2017 with regard to the incident that had taken place on 20.09.2014, when she would have been 14 years old.The Trial Judge has posed preliminary questions to find out whether she has the necessary understanding of the Court proceedings.The fact remains that after sustaining the injury, Kaliyamurthy had fallen unconscious and Kalaivanan (PW4) was bleeding with cut injury.When that being so, they would have been taken first to the hospital and not to the police station.As against this stray statement of Selvabharathy (PW9), we have the overwhelming evidence of Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4) who have all, in unison, stated that after the attack, the injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam.Ergo, we cannot place much credence on the stray statement of Selvabharathy (PW9) that the injured were first carried to the police station and only thereafter, to the hospital.15.2 Jayapal (PW2) has stated that the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor were present at the place of occurrence and that their non-examination is fatal to the prosecution case.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Our reasoning: We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with this contention, because, apart from the stray statement of Jayapal (PW2) that the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer were present at the place of occurrence, there is no other material to show that they were present there.Had the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer been present for measuring the land, the incident would not have taken place, because, the accused would not have dared to prevent the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer from measuring the land.Even assuming for a moment that the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer were present at the place of occurrence, their non-examination cannot be said to be fatal, because, we have the evidence of the injured witness Kalaivanan (PW4), whose evidence, the defence were not able to demolish even a wee bit.The injury sustained by Kaliyamurthy has been corroborated by the evidence of Dr.Kamarul Jamal (PW15) and the Accident Register copy (Ex.P.18).15.3 Swaminathan (PW3) has stated in the cross-examination that the incident had occurred for about 45 minutes and the altercation occurred for about 5 minutes; further, the witnesses have also statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 that Senthil (A1) took a bilhook (aruval) that was lying on the ground and caused the injury, which shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused; thus, it is clear that Kaliyamurthy provoked the accused by picking up a quarrel and the attack was due to the grave and sudden provocation.Our reasoning: It is trite that if an accused wants to bring his case within any legal exception, the onus is on him under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. Of course, this onus can be discharged by preponderance of probability and also by pointing out the circumstances available in the evidence on record in support of the claimed exception.However, in the cross-examination of Kalaivanan (PW4), it has been suggested that no incident, as alleged by him, had taken place and that he got injured somewhere in his house, with which, a case has been foisted on the accused.Even in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused have not stated that Kaliyamurthy abused them and provoked them to attack.Assuming for a moment that the family of Kaliyamurthy being neighbours and also close relatives, had animosity towards the accused, no ill-motive has been attributed to Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and the injured witness, viz., Kalaivanan (PW4) who all are the paternal uncles ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 Senthil (A1), Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4).In fact, they have all stated that they were having good relationship with the family of their deceased brother Ganesan and they had no property dispute with the accused.Jayapal (PW2) and the injured witness Kalaivanan (PW4) have stated that Senthil (A1) used vulgar words at his uncle Kaliyamurthy when Kaliyamurthy insisted that he was going to put up the fence only within his boundary.15.4 Chandra (PW1) and Swaminathan (PW3) could not have been an eyewitness to the incident, because, Kalaivanan (PW4) has stated that before his going to the place of occurrence, Kaliyamurthy and Jayapal (PW2) were there and he did not see the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer.In this context, the learned counsel for the accused harped upon the statement of Kalaivanan (PW4) “Besides us, no one was there”, and contended that Swaminathan (PW3) and Chandra (PW1) were also not there.http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Our reasoning: In our opinion, this is an utter misreading of the evidence.When a leading question was put to the witness as to whether Kaliyamurthy and Jeyapal (PW2) were there before his going, he has stated in the affirmative.Therefore, to the leading question put to him, he has stated that he did not see the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor.After saying so, he has stated that besides them, none was there.He excludes the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor, because, he did not see them.The incident had taken place in the compound of Kaliyamurthy and it was natural for his wife Chandra (PW1) to have been there when such a commotion was taking place.Chandra (PW1) was not a stranger and her presence at the place of occurrence, which is her house, is indubitably natural.Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the findings of the Trial Court that Senthil (A1) attempted to hack Kaliyamurthy, but, on the intervention of Kalaivanan (PW4), the blow fell on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) shoulder.After the second attack on Kalaivanan (PW4) by Senthil (A1), Kaliyamurthy came to the aid of his brother, seeing which, Sivakumar (A2) hit him on his head with a casuarina log and caused injury.We also hold that the prosecution have proved that Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) had abused their paternal uncle Kaliyamurthy in filthyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 language and Sivakumar (A2), while attacking Kaliyamurthy, has stated that he (Kaliyamurthy) is the root cause for all the troubles.16 Now, comes the strange findings of the Trial Court.“20 Against the 1st accused, the specific charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC.As per the evidence of above stated eye witnesses the 1st accused have not attacked the deceased Kaliamurthy and even he has not touched the body of the deceased Kaliyamurthy before or after death.So, mere participation of the 1st accused at the occurrence place along with the 2nd accused.21 In this case, the 1st accused attacked PW4 Kalaivanan.But, originally, the 1st accused started to attack deceased Kaliamurthy.But, unfortunately, PW4 Kalaivanan intervened and got the blow from the 1st accused on his shoulder and leg.From the above said attack, the deceased Kaliamurthy escaped.Then the 2nd accused took revenge and attacked Kaliamurthy with wooden log.Due to the attack of the 2nd accused, Sivakumar deceased kaliamurthy fell down and became unconscious.The attack made by Sivakumar caused grievous injury to the deceased Kaliamurthy.The injury caused by the 1st accused to PW4 Kalaivanan only simple.In the above said occurrence, the 1st accused has not made any attack on the deceased Kaliamurthy.Both the accused 1 and 2 have not made any preparation for committing murder.The attack caused by the 1st and 2nd accused are only without any intention to cause death, as per the evidence of PW4, PW2 who are the prime eye witness in the occurrence place.While the deceased Kaliamurthy was making arrangements to put uphttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 fence, the accused came and asked them not to put up fence and do the same after completing the measurement.So, they have not stated anything aggressively as against the interest of the deceased Kaliamurthy.The evidence of PW4 and PW2 clearly reveals that the accused 1 & 2 suddenly provocated on hearing the reply from the deceased Kaliamurthy, the 1st accused suddenly provocated and attempted to attack Kaliamurthy with aruval.It could arise and be formed suddenly, as for example when one man calls on bystanders to help him kill a given individual and they, either by their words or their acts, indicate their assent to him and join him in the assault.He gave a second blow to Kalaivanan (PW4) for having come to the rescue of Kaliyamurthy, which fell on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) leg cutting his toe.When Kaliyamurthy came to the rescue of Kalaivanan (PW4), Sivakumar (A2) took a casuarina log and gave one solid blow on Kaliyamurthy's head by saying that all these problems were because of him (Kaliyamurthy) only and that he should be no more.Though at the first blush, this argument did sound reasonable, but, the evidence on record militates against such ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 conclusion.Hence, instead of taking Kaliyamurthy that far, Chandra (PW1) took him to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital in Kumbakonam itself for better treatment.There, Dr. Sundarrajan (PW 14) treated Kaliyamurthy and put him on ventilator.His pulse rate was coming down and he was gasping for breath.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Around 13.00 hours, M.S.Pandian, son-in-law of V.K.Gurusamy, who was known to her, came there running and rushing inside the house where Jeyanthilal is residing in the ground floor.It is, at that time, 5 persons armed with deadly weapons chased the said M.S.Pandian and trespassed into the house and all of them attacked M.S.Pandian repeatedly with aruvals 5/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 and swords.When Vasantha tried to prevent them, the five persons threatened to cut and kill her also.Therefore, she raised alarm.However, the said M.S.Pandian was indiscriminately attacked.Thereafter when she went inside the house, she found M.S.Pandian was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries.An amputated finger of M.S.Pandian was found inside the house.At the entrance of the house, a bullet and a broken cell phone were also found.Thereafter, the said victim was shifted to nearby Velammal Hospital by an ambulance.However, he was pronounced dead by the doctors.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that thereafter, Vasantha came to B4 Keeraithurai Police Station and prepared a complaint statement requesting action, based on which a FIR in B4 Keeraithurai P.S.Cr.No.412/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC was registered.After thorough investigation, the detenu Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy and Muthupandi, S/o.Further, the investigation reveals that there was a previous enmity prevailing between V.K.Gurusamy and Rajapandi of Keeraithurai area over political rivalry and family disputes for years together.Due to that, both the parties carried out their revenge murders.Recently, V.K.Gurusamy's son V.K.G.Mani and Son-in-law M.S.Pandian kidnapped Thoppilli Muniyasamy S/o.Rajapandi, murdered him and burnt his body into ashes.Therefore, in order to take revenge, the supporters of Rajapandi murdered one Muniyasamy on 12.06.2018 mistaking him as M.S.Pandian.In continuation, Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali, relative of Rajapandi insisted Boomi @ Boominathan on several occasions to murder M.S.Pandian.Under such circumstances, the accused Boomi @ Boominathan joining with other accused Rambabu, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari came in a car armed with deadly weapons driven by Padam @ Muniyasamy.The detenu Manikandan @ 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 Chinna Vavuthalai followed them on a two wheeler with Muthupandi as a Pillion Rider.Muthukumar @ Pattakumar was driving another two wheeler with Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth as pillion rider and followed them and all of them rushed to Nagupillai Thope.After seeing M.S.Pandian going on walk, Boomi @ Boominathan, who was in the car shot M.S.Pandian with a pistol in his possession.On hearing the sound, M.S.Pandian, escaped from them and ran away.Immediately Boomi @ Boominathan, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni armed with big aruval, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari armed with a big sword, Muthupandi and the detenu Chinna Vavuthalai armed with deadly weapons chased M.S.Pandian and attacked him indiscriminately.On seeing this, when Vasantha tried to prevent them, the assailants threatened her also and fled away from there by car and two wheelers.They have also robbed a Two Wheeler TN 59 BP 5477 creating panic and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the local people and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the public order.Even the shopkeepers there also closed their shops and the vehicle riders came on that way also returned.8/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019Moreover, Bhuvaneswaran @ Bhuvanesh @ Kocha S/o.Ganesa on his arrest has given a confession statement on 25.04.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody.Besides, Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy, S/o.Muthu was arrested on 26.04.2019 and his confession statement was recorded.Thereafter, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV , Madurai on 26.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody.When the investigation team was searching the other accused, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari S/o.Chellapandi, Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth, S/o.Chinnapandi and Rambabu, S/o.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.(Order of the Court was made by T.Raja, J.) Mrs.Angala Eswari, W/o.Alagarsamy has filed this Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the validity of the impugned order of detention dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, the 2nd respondent herein in Proceedings in No.41/BCDFGISSSV/2019, to quash the same and to set her son Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy at liberty.Therefore, the 2nd respondent appears to have inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the above case and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The above reasoning given by the Detaining Authority shows that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly for the reason that the 2 nd respondent failed to consider the fact that at the time of passing the detention order whether the said bail application was pending before the Sessions Court or not, but nowhere in the detention order the detaining authority mentioned about the date of filing bail application, 3/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 date of hearing, date of pending disposal whereas the detention order has been passed on 15.07.2019 without verifying the pendency of the bail application.Hence, this non-application of mind would vitiate the impugned detention order, it is pleaded.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the detention order says that the co-accused Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy was granted bail by the Madurai Bench of this Court, it has to be seen that the said Muniyasamy was granted bail on the ground that though he had two previous cases, but the same are not similar in nature.Insofar as the present detenu is concerned, the Sponsoring Authority did not place the entire materials before the Detaining Authority.For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to go.A detailed Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, Madurai.Though the detenu also has moved the bail application, the same was pending.As per the ground case, one Vasantha, w/o.Pandian is residing at Flat No.572, TNHB Colony, Anuppanadi, Madurai for rent and her ancestral house is located at Door No.50/216, Subbammal Compound, Sinthamani Main Road, Madurai.While so, one Jeyanthlal is residing at the ground floor for lease whereas one Seenivasan is residing at the first floor of the house for rent.On 18.04.2019 at about 12.00 hours, Vasantha came to the said house and was sitting on the stairs in the ground floor.Kumar were arrested on 24.04.2019 and their confession statements were also recorded.Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.On 26.04.2019, they were transferred to the Central Prison, Madurai.Thereafter, the trio were taken to police custody on 27.04.2019 and their confession statements were recorded.Moreover, the case properties, namely, a 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari, a Hero Honda Splender Two Wheeler was seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one Two Wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner addressed to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was received by the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2019 from the petitioner and remarks for the same were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 05.08.2019 and the remarks which were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.08.2019 were sent to the Government on the same day without any delay.Therefore, there is no infirmity in the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent.10/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 20199. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and I have also perused the typed set of papers including the detention order carefully.At the outset, it is an admitted case that after killing M.S.Pandian, when the investigation team was searching the offenders, the detenu Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai and his associate Muthupandi were arrested on 24.04.2019 Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.Besides, the accused Boomi @ Boominathan was surrendered before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 25.04.2019 and was remanded to judicial custody till 03.05.2019 at the Puzhal Prison, Chennai.The accused Rambabu along with other accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.Moreover, a sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari.On the basis of the confession statements given by them, it appears that a Hero Honda 11/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 Splender Two Wheeler was also seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one another two wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.Thereafter, all these three accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and their remand period has also been extended.While so, the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was received by the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2019 and remarks for the same were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on the same day and remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.08.2019 which were sent to the Government on the same day itself without any delay.Secondly, the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.412/2019 of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1- A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959 in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and on the date of passing of the detention order i.e. on 12/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 15.07.2019, the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.2392/2019 was pending disposal.13/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019Since a Full Bench of this Court in Arumugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chenni-9 and another reported in 2011 (4) CTC 353 has held that even a single incident giving rise to a single case would be sufficient and if that single case is of the nature as defined in Section 3 of the Act, there can be a valid order of detention.In view of all the above, we find no infirmity in the order detaining the detenu Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982).14/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.15/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.and B.PUGALENDHI,J.tsi Pre-delivery order in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 16/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 04.06.2020

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioners in the above O.P.s are human rights activists, twoof them are advocates and others represent Social Action Groups,namely Thindivanam Nagara Matrum Ooraga Kalvi Membattu Kazhagam ( Thindivinam Town and Rural Education Development Society), a Committee for Educational Improvement of the People of Thindivanam Town, and Peoples Watch (Tamil Nadu).Alleging that the complaint lodged by one Leelavathy, in Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Gingee Police Station, thdaughter, an innocent 19 years old girl, namely Ms.Rita Mary, was said tohave been illegally trafficked, subjected to sex tourism andcommercial sexual exploitation, victimised by sex traders and pimps, causingcruelty - physically and mentally, assaulted sexually and exploitedto gruesome gang rape on the night of 29.10.2001, while she was underjudicial custody in Gingee Sub-Jail, was not properly investigated by the Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station, the petCrl.O.P.No.24090 of 2001, seek:(a)to direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department, toentrust the investigation of Crime No.679 of 2001, on the file of theGingee Police Station to the CBI under the direct supervision of the Joint Director, CBI, Chennai;(b)to direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department, to payjust and fair amount as compensation to Ms.Rita Mary, Lakshmanan, Anandan, Sadiq Basha and Mohan;(c)to direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department and theDirector General of Police, Chennai, to get the complaint registeredby the concerned Police station on the basis of the representationdated 12.11.2001 made by Mr.P.Lakshmanan and entrust it to the CBI forinvestigation and action as per law;and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24248 of 2001, seek:a direction to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, totransfer the investigation of the offence in Crime No.679 of 2001 on thefile of the Gingee Police Station to Central Bureau of Investigationunder the direct supervision of Joint Director, Central Bureau ofInvestigation, Chennai and for payment of fair compensation to thevictims including Lakshmanan, Anandan, Sadiq Basha and Mohan.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and thenature of the crime said to have been committed on the victim girl, Ms.Rita Mary, this Court, while admitting the above O.Ps.on 23.11.2001,directed Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, HeadQuarters, Chennai, to hold an enquiry relating to the investigation in Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Gingee Policecompensation payable to the victim girl.Pursuant to the said directions of this Court dated 23.11.2001, Ms.In her report dated 4.12.2001, Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S.,Inspector General of Police, had traversed the entire relevant factsrelating to the alleged crime and placed the same before this Court,unearthing certain material evidences and vital details relating to thealleged crime and also had disclosed the names of the Police Officialsand Medical Officers, who are said to have committed lapses indischarging their duties.It was reported that the victim, Ms.Rita Mary, herself wascharged for an alleged offence punishable under Section 8(b) ofPrevention of Immoral Traffic Act in STC No.2255 of 2001, and was sent tojudicial custody on 30.10.2001, without any injury.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivait was not safe to keep the victim, Ms.In the meanwhile, on 5.11.2001, the victim was released on bail.As per the said report dated 4.12.2001, it is evident that theonly humane moment in the whole enquiry was the care and concern shown by the Ms.R.P.Kalpana, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Thindivanam, whose understanding, compassionate and tenderly approach towards the victim was laudable.The humane and judicious approach of Ms.After narrating the details of the alleged barbaric crime saidto have been committed on the ill-fated victim girl, Ms.Rita Mary, Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, indated 4.12.2001, had reported that going by circumstances andevidences, Ms.The report dated 4.12.2001 suggests for payment of interimcompensation to not only to the victim, but also to M/s. Lakshmanan,Mohan, Sadiq Basha, and Anandan, as a token of appreciation for theirattempts to save the victim from the brothel runners and their henchmen.The report dated 4.12.2001 has also brought to the notice ofthis Court, the excessive media coverage which would definitely hamper the future of the victim girl to a large extent.Treating the said report dated 4.12.2001, as a part and parcelof the proceedings in the above O.P.s, this Court, by an order dated 4.12.2001, transferred the investigation relating to Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station,with regard to the alleged crime said to have been committed on thevictim, Ms.Rita Mary, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Sections 511 and 576(c) of the Indian Penal Code, to the Crime Branch CID II, Chennai, headed by Mr.Sridhar, Supeof Police, Chennai, with a direction to investigate the said crime and to proceed in accordance with law, with the followingofficers, viz., Mr.G.Rajendran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID,Chengalpet, Mr.G.Harikrishnan, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram,Mr.Rajan, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Salem and Mr.Subbaiah, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Cuddalore, under the direct supervisThilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Head Quarters,Chennai, and to report the effective steps taken in that regard and theprogress in the investigation.This court by the said interim order dated 4.12.2001 alsodirected (i) the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to takeappropriate decision to provide interim relief to the victim; (ii) theSecretary, Home Department and the Director General of Police, to takeappropriate action against the Police Officers concerned; and (iii) the Secretary, Health Department, to provide all necessarassistance to the victim girl, at the expense of the State, and also totake appropriate departmental action against the medical officers whoare said to have committed lapses in their duty, in the light of thereport dated 4.12.2001 of Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, as a part and parcproceedings in the above O.P.s, and to issue the above directions, I do not propose to give any opinion on the alleged crimeas it would, otherwise, be an interference with the investigationordered, causing unnecessary aspirations on the prosecution andprejudice the defence in the trial.The investigation relating to the Crime No.679 of 2001 on thefile of Gingee Police Station was, accordingly, transferred to CrimeBranch CID II, Chennai, and the Crime Branch CID II, Chennai, underthe direct supervision of Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Chennai, had taken swift actimatter.In supersession of the orders issued in the G.O. third read above,the Government issue the following orders:The Government have examined the case and have decided to pay Rs.5 ,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as compensation to the allegedvictim Selvi Rita Mary.They accordingly direct that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) be paid to Selvi Rita Mary.The above expenditure shall be debitable under the following head of account:(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) NARESH GUPTA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.The said amount of Rs.5 Lakhs awarded to the victim Ms.RitaMary, by G.O.(2D) No.346, Home (Police.XII) Department, dated 12.12.2001, shall be invested with Tamil Nadu Power Finance Cor from the date ofinvestment, which shall be renewed thereafter, once in three years,periodically, and the monthly interest accrued thereon shall be paid to thevictim Ms.Rita Mary, for her livelihood, from the date of theinvestment.The victim Ms.Looking at the pains and sufferings of the victim, Ms.Rita Mary, as a prototype of the plight of many such trafficked viare forced and subjected to the commercial sexual exploitation, I amconstrained to issue the following guidelines, for due implementationby the Government:But, on 31.10.2001, Ms.R.P.Kalpana, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam, observed that the victim was injuredleg and could not explain the cause for the same; and that she wasnot in fit mental condition.Hence, the victim was sent for medicaltreatment.On 1.11.2001, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam, recorded that the victim was mentally upset and thereforecommended for mental treatment at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police.Except to treat the report dated 4.12.2001 of Ms.The sincere and dedicated service rendered by Ms.The G.O.(2D) No.346 Home (Police.XII) Department, dated 12.12.2001, reads as follows:GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT VICTIM COMPENSATION Compensation to Selvi Rita Mary, alleged victim of assault in Sub-Jail, Gingee Orders of High Court in Crl.O..No.24090 and 24248/2001, dated 4.12.2001 Implementation of.1.Orders of High Court dated 4.12.2001 in Crl.Claims under no fault liability Principal charges (D.P.C. 2055 00 109 AA 5113).The Director General of Police is requested to draw and disburse the said amount to Selvi Rita Mary under proper acknowleintimate the fact to Government.This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Departmentvide it U.O.No.29/ADS(SM)/2001-1, dated 6.12.2001 and the additionalsanction Ledger No.498 (Four hundred and ninety eight only).The benign decision of the Government to allot an ownershipdwelling unit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board to the star-crossed victim, Ms.Rita Mary, free of cost, is also recorded and the sagiven effect to expeditiously, in any event within a period of ninetydays from the date of receipt of this order; on condition that thevictim, Ms.This Court extensively appreciates the benevolent gesture ofthe Government towards the hapless victim girl, Ms.Rita Mary.Right to life means something more than survival or animalexistence.Right to life includes the right to live with humandignity.(a)to effectively prevent the Media from unmindfully and undulypublishing the photographs and other details relating to the sexuallyassaulted victim, invoking Section 228A of Indian Penal Code, as itwould take a long time to get rid of the social stigma caused on thevictim due to such unwarranted and prohibited media coverage andpublicity;(b)to establish separate sub-jails to house women prisoners, underthe exclusive administration of trained women personnel; and till such formation, to remand women prisoners only in the vigilseparate enclosures; and(c)to entrust an in-depth analysis of psycho-social factors relating to the victimisation of the trafficked individuals to anmeasures, on:i.prevention of trafficking, through education, public awareness and economic alternative;ii.protection for the victims of trafficking; andiii.prosecution of traffickers, as, many a time, traffickedindividuals, are alone treated as criminals, even though they themselves arevictims of fraud and violence, by sexual assaults and exploitation.These O.P.s are, therefore, disposed of with the above directionsand observations.No costs.Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.8256 and 8257 of 2001 are closed.21.12.2001Note to Office:Copy of this order may be marked to:1) Ms.R.P.Kalpana, Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam2) Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police Headquarters, Chennai.

['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

hy Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 ad of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Gudda Gond in crime no.379/2017 registered M by P.S.-Patan, District-Jabalpur under Sections 294, 323, of 315, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, at about 11:00 a.m. on rt 01.10.2017, victim Herobai was returning from the field ou with her husband Betu and daughter Khusboo.At that C time, petitioner Gudda and co-accused persons Gullu, h Subhadrabai and Langdobai had beaten her with sticks.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no post- mortem examination of the child was conducted.In the MLC report victim Herobai was found to sustain only one injury in the thigh.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned 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 sh pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be e released on bail.ad Consequently, this first application for bail under Section Pr 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Gudda Gond, is allowed.a hy It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-ad with one solvent surety in the same amount to the M satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for of complying with the conditions enumerated under Section rt 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ou Certified copy as per rules.C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2017.11.28 20:14:13

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on the question of admission.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6-9-2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2015 by which the order dated 7-2-2015 passed by Special Railway Magistrate, Gwalior in complaint Case No. UN/2014 has been affirmed.It was the case of the applicant that he is working in the Railway Department and on 19-9-2014 while he was going back home after his duty hours, he found that Rajesh Kumar Godia, Rakesh Kushwaha and Ashok Kumar were bringing one double bed and four chairs from Rail Spring Factory.Therefore, the Court directed the applicant to examine himself and his witnesses.The Counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that since, the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not cognizable, therefore, no order could have been passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but submitted that the Magistrate could have treated the said application to be under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and should have directed for investigation.He further stated that merely a wrong provision of law was quoted, therefore, the application filed by the applicant should not have been rejected treating the same under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.Per contra, the Counsel for the State submitted that the applicant himself had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, no illegality was committed by the Magistrate in rejecting the application.Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.The counsel for the applicant has not challenged that part of the order of the Railway Magistrate, by which it was held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the 3 MCRC 12730/2016 complaint in respect of offences punishable under the Penal Code.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

Prosecution story in short was that on 11.11.2018 social worker reported at Police Station, Kotwali, Alirajpur regarding trafficking of children being carried out by one Shailendra Singh Rathore.The Police thereafter deputed decoy in order to apprehend the concerned.The deputed punter approached Shailendra Singh Rathore and gave him pre-marked currency for purchasing child.Shailendra Singh Rathore was then caught giving child to the decoy witnesses in presence of four other co-accused persons viz. Devisingh, Dines, Baisingh and Rinku.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.389/18 registered at Police Station Alirajpur, district Alirajpur for the offence punishable under sections 363, 370, 34, 120(b), 420, 467 & 468 of the IPC and under section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.The case was registered and during investigation, it was found that one Dr.A.Raju, running Kesar Surgical and Maternity Hospital at Chhota Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 20/03/2019 15:50:49 2 Udaipur, Gurarat was involved along with his staff in selling children.After investigation charge sheet has been filed under sections 360, 370, 363/34, 120-B, 420, 467 & 468 of IPC along with section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.The allegation against the applicant Sayrabanu, who is Nurse in the hospital of Dr.A.Raju is that she had sold child to one Samdani Memon and had been given Rs.4000/- as commission.Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dave submits that memorandum of Sayrabanu was recorded on 20.11.18 at 12.40 P.M, however, even prior to that memorandum of Dr.A.Raju was recorded concerning the same subject matter on 20.11.18 only at 7.15 A.M and recovery of child was made at 1.05 P.M on 20.11.2018, therefore, it cannot be stated that recovery of child was made on the basis of memo of Sayrabanu.Learned counsel submits that thus there is no discovery on the basis of memorandum of Sayrabanu.It is also stated that no recovery of any money was also made from the applicant.There are other connected matters along with this matter.It is also submitted that kids which were allegedly traded were such kids as were born out of illicit relationships and were given away by their mothers as they were unable and un-inclined to rear them up.Such children were being reared by person acquiring them as their own children and they were not subjected to any kind of abuse.Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that children were being sold of like commodities against the provisions of law and such illegal practice had thrown the door open to exploitation of children as there was no means of supervising as to whether children are being exploited or not and their interests are being served or not.Case diary was perused and arguments were considered.Prima facie, it appears that children were being traded like commodity but it does not appear that they were being sold for exploiting them.All those persons who have bought the children have been shown to be bringing them up in normal manner and some of the purchasers have even demanded custody of the children.There is substance in the submission that there is no evidence to suspect trafficking of children since there is no evidence regarding trading of children for exploitation.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a condition that she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)C.c as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 20/03/2019 15:50:49

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 213 of 2020, under Sections 498-A/304/326/342/323 IPC, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that F.I.R was registered under sections 498-A/304/326/342/323 IPC against three accused persons Smt. Kaushalya Devi Mother-in-law, Ajay Yadav husband and Rahul Yadav Dewar.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 2.11.2020 Vikram

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

The name of the petitioner/prosecutrix has not been mentioned in order to avoid her identity.On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.150/2010 under Section 376(2)(G) IPC was registered at PS Seema Puri.In her complaint the complainant stated that she was residing at Dilshad Colony for the last about 3 months and had met Amit Modi and Pushpash Aggarwal about 1 months ago when she requested them to give her an employment.Two of them employed her in their company.Thereafter Amit Modi started frequently visiting her house.On 21st May, 2010 at about 8.00 PM, on the pretext of discussing some official work, he visited her residence and after some time called Sunil Totlani, Jai Kishore and Pushpash Aggarwal to her house.According to the petitioner, by 8.15 PM, three of them also came to her house whereafter Amit Modi started molesting her and when she freed herself from his clutches Sunil Totalani wiped out a revolver threatening her Crl.M.C. 4/2016 Page 1 of 8 of dire consequences.Thereafter first Amit Modi and then Sunil Totlani raped her against her wishes.She made a PCR call at 11.09 PM.M.C. 4/2016 Page 1 of 8Learned ACMM also noted that as per the complainant herself the alleged incident took place between 8.15 PM and 11.09 PM on 21st May, 2010 and the locations of the four accused persons namely Amit Modi, Sunil Totlani, Jai Kishore Totlani and Pushpash Agarwal at the relevant time was far away from the residence of the petitioner.Amit Modi was present in the area of Preet Vihar, Swasthya Vihar, Jagriti Enclave, Sunil Totlani was present in the area of Crl.During the course of investigation, the complainant was medically examined, crime team inspected the spot, collected the bed sheet and broken pieces of bangles, videographed and photographed the spot and conducted enquiries.Call detail records of mobile phones of all the four accused were obtained.Statements of relevant witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and a cancellation report was filed.The petitioner filed a complaint and protest petition.Vide order dated 19 th February, 2011 the learned ACMM was of the opinion that the investigation was incomplete.The investigating officer was directed to impound hard disc of the computer of the Moti Mahal Restaurant and CCTV footage of Fun Cinema and send the same to the CFSL and after collecting the said material file the report within two weeks.Vide order dated 6th March, 2012 learned ACMM noted the statement of learned counsel of the complainant that the complainant has since married and was in the process of deciding whether to proceed with the complaint or not and sought some time.On 1st May, 2013 further investigation as directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was completed and the supplementary charge sheet was filed.Vide order dated 7th October, 2014 it was also noted that the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as report in respect of the CD of the place of offence have been filed.Finally after hearing arguments, learned ACMM vide the impugned order dated 17th October, 2015 accepted the cancellation report and dismissed the protest petition.M.C. 4/2016 Page 2 of 8The affidavits of Kavita Choudhary, Anuradha @ Anu, Sunil Sharma and Ashok Kumar have been appended with the protest petition.The affidavits of the said witnesses also do not support the version of the complainant regarding her rape.None of the said persons is a witness to the effect that the accused were present at H.No.562, B pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi or that the accused Amit Modi was not present in PVR, Karkardooma or that accused Sunil Totlani was not present in Moti Mahal Restaurant, Rani Bagh, Delhi at the time of incident.As already observed, even the affidavits of the said witnesses do not have any bearing on the assertions of the complainant.In the above circumstances, even posting the matter for evidence of the complainant would not serve any useful purpose.In passing, it has been observed that the IO has moved a complaint u/s 195 Cr.Pc for initiating action u/s 182 IPC against the complainant herein.Perusal of the final report shows that material has come on record to show that the complainant herein in conspiracy with other known and un-known persons had sought to falsely implicate the accused persons.The exact roles and identities of the said persons are yet to be ascertained.I deem the present case to be fit for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 155(2) of the Cr.Pc as further investigation is to be conducted for ascertaining the exact roles and identities of the said persons.SHO, P.S. Crl.M.C. 4/2016 Page 3 of 8 concerned is accordingly, directed to conduct further investigation in terms of section 155(2) Cr.It is clarified that IO will be at liberty to arrive at his own conclusions and it is further clarified that in case commission of any other offence comes to light, the IO will be at liberty to proceed as per law.M.C. 4/2016 Page 3 of 8There is no material before this court to take cognizance of offence u/s 376(2) G IPC.There are no grounds to proceed further.I am satisfied with the investigation of the case.The conclusion arrived at by the IO appears to be bonafide.The cancellation is accepted and protest petition is without any merit and is dismissed.Copy of this order be sent to P.S. concerned for information and necessary compliance.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance."In the impugned order, learned ACMM noted that though the claim of the complainant was that she was employed by the accused persons and working in their office at Indra Puram however from the statement of witnesses and record it was established that she was never employed in the said company nor was there any evidence to show that the petitioner ever received salary from the company of the accused persons.M.C. 4/2016 Page 4 of 8 New Seelampur, Shastri Park and Kohat Enclave, Jai Kishore Totlani was present at Vasundhara Enclave, Kohat Enclave, Rani Bagh whereas Pushpash Agarwal was present in the area of Noida Sector 18, Block A, Noida 15A. The CCTV footage recording of Moti Mahal restaurant at M2K Mall, Rani Bagh showed presence of Sunil Totlani and Jai Kishore Totlani dining along with their families in the restaurant from 9.00 PM onwards.The CCTV footage of Fun Cinema, Cross River Mall, Anand Vihar revealed that from about 10.00 PM onwards Amit Modi was watching movie along with his family.During the course of investigation, a slip wherein names of all the four accused were noted was recovered from underneath the kitchen slab of the complainant.M.C. 4/2016 Page 4 of 8M.C. 4/2016 Page 5 of 8Before the learned ACMM, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plea of alibi of the accused could not be considered at this stage and the electronic evidence was accepted without a certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act and that the statements of the witnesses who were the employees of the accused were partisan, taken under duress and could not have been considered.It was further argued that since an offence under Section 376 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, learned ACMM could not have accepted the cancellation report.The Court noted that none of these deponents were witnesses to the incident nor stated about the presence of the accused at the house of the petitioner at the relevant time.Thus, the affidavits filed by the complainant had no bearing on the facts of the case.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 09, 2016 'v mittal' Crl.M.C. 4/2016 Page 8 of 8M.C. 4/2016 Page 8 of 8

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

This petition is by the widow of Dilbagh Singh.He was one of theaccused in case FIR No. 89/85 of P.S. Delhi Cant.for offences under Sections 186, 353, 332/34 and 307/34, IPC along with three others, namely Baleshwar Solanki, Ram Lal and Padam Singh.JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.With respect to the same occurrence, another case was registered vide FIR No. 90/85 at P.S. Delhi Cant for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Act No.54 of 1959) against Padam Singh, son of Subh Ram, the sole accused in that case.2. Dilbagh Singh, the petitioner's husband was the holder of arms licence No. 61/PS/Rai/SDM/S for 32 bore revolver No. H - 108289, Make-Smith & Wessions for which FIR No. 90/85 was registered against Padam Singh.Padam Singh was tried for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act in FIR No. 90/85 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.On 6.6.1986 proceedings against Padam Singh were dropped by the Metropolitan Magistrate by the following order:"Report received back from the Police Station Delhi Cant.regarding the death of accused Padam Singh.It is verified by the police.Proceedings against the accused Padam Singh be dropped and file be consigned to record room.Trial of the other case, which was subject matter of FIR No. 89/85 proceeded in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi against four accused persons.In the said case on 28.2.1985, an application was moved before the Metropolitan Magistrate by accused Dilbagh Singh, on the strength of his arms licence stating that as the revolver had been taken possession of by the police from his custody, the same be ordered to be returned to him.On 1.3.1985, an order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for return of the revolver to Dilbagh Singh on superdari of Rs. 10.000/- with the direction that the same be produced in the Court as and when directed.However, the fire arm was not taken on superdari by Dilbagh Singh pursuant to the said order.As Padam Singh expired on 27.4.1986, proceedings against him in Sessions Case No.68/86, State Vs.Baleshwar & Ors.(FIR No. 89/85 of P.S. Delhi Cant.) also stood abated.Proceedings against him also stood abated.Baleshwar & Ors.), while acquitting the other co-accused.In this case also, no order was passed by the Court for disposal of the revolver.It appears that on 12.3.1987, an application was moved by S.H.O., P.S. Delhi Cant.for confiscation of the revolver stating that the accused Padam Singh in FIR No. 90/85, for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, had expired on 27.4.1986 and the case stood decided on 6.6.1986, against which no appeal was preferred and the property involved in the case was no more required, therefore, necessary orders for its disposal be passed.On this application, the following order was passed by Mr. A.S. Yadav, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in March, 1987:After decision of Sessions Case No. 69/86 (State Vs.Baleshwar & Ors.), the petitioner (widow of Dilbagh Singh) moved an application for return of the revolver in question.Report was called on the said application.In view of this report, the application was dismissed on 16.4.1993 an infructuous.Padam Singh expired on 27.4.1986 and the criminal proceedings against him in FIR No. 90/85 stood abated.No order was passed by the Magistrate on 6.6.1986 regarding custody or disposal of the revolver when proceedings against Padam Singh were ordered to be dropped and file was ordered to be consigned to records.The petition stands disposed of.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants shall be released in connection with Crime No.146/2016 registered at Police Station- Hudkeshwar, Nagpur under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The order shall remain in force for one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.The applicants are at liberty to approach the competent Court to seek anticipatory bail beyond the period of one month.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA)

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

5.The brief facts of the case are that the first accused is the son of the second accused and the accused were residing adjacent to the deceased's house.PW.1 is the brother of the deceased.There was an enmity prevailed between the deceased and the accused that the first accused used to throw garbage in front of the decease house.On 28.12.2010 at about 3.45 pm as usual, the accused threw some garbage in front of the deceased Mahalingam house and the same was questioned by the deceased.The accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and has stated that he will do like so and there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused and during the course, the accused No.1 said to have pushed the deceased and the deceased fell down on the cement road and sustained injuries on his back head.Immediately, the brother of the deceased took him to the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar, where PW9 Dr.The victim was also not conscious and considering the nature of the injury and his condition, he referred the victim to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and in the meantime he gave medical intimation to the Virudhunagar East Police Station.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 20146.The Special Sub Inspector of Police, Narasingaraj, [PW14] on receipt of medical intimation, went to the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar at about 4.45pm and since, the deceased was in an unconscious state, he recorded the statement from his brother, Muniyandi [PW1] and returned to the Police Station around 5.30 pm and registered a case in Crime No.848 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(II) IPC.Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatadars on 29.12.2010 from 11.00am tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/21 Crl.7.PW.10 is Dr.18.The deceased in this case was admitted by PW1 in the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, on 28.12.2010 at 4.10pm.The Doctor [PW9], who admitted the deceased at Virudhunagar Government Hospital, recorded the accident register [ExP.6].The Doctor [PW9] has noted that the deceased was assaulted by two known persons with weapons and knife on 28.12.2010, around 3.45pm at his house.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 20142.The appellant is accused No.1 and he was tried along with his father Ramasamy [accused No.2] in S.C.No.248 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 304(II) IPC and acquitted him from the charge under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC and the second accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 304(II) r/w 34 IPC and was acquitted from the charges under Section 294(b) and 302 IPC.3.The conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court are as follows:Accused Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment To undergo Rigorous A1 304(II) IPC Imprisonment for ten years A2 304(II) IPC r/w To undergo Rigorous 34 IPC Imprisonment for ten years4.The accused No.2 also filed an appeal in Crl.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014A(MD)No.79 of 2014 12.30pm.Purushothaman and he conducted autopsy on 29.12.2010 at 1.15pm and noted down the antemortem injuries, which are an abrasion 3 cms X 2 cms over the left thigh and on dissection of scalp, subcalpal contusion measuring 12 cms X 10 cms on the left temporal-parietal region and after the chemical examination report, he gave his final opinion that the deceased appears to have died of raino cerebral injuries.Thereafter, further investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police [PW16] on 28.12.2010 and he obtained chemical analysis report and recorded the statements from the witnesses and also verified the statements examined by the previous Investigating Officerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 and filed a final report after concluding his investigation on 25.08.2011, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and the same was taken on file in PRC No.15 of 2011 and committed to the Court of Session and the same was taken on file in SC.No.248 of 2011 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar.9.During the course of trial 16 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were filed as exhibits before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution and 4 material objects were also produced.10.The available prosecution evidence are as follows:10.2.PW2 is the wife of the deceased and also she speaks about the occurrence as an eye witness.10.3.PW3 is the grand son of the deceased, who was also examined as an eye witness.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 10.4.PW4 son of the deceased, who was residing in the adjacent house and he was also examined as an eye witness and he also speaks about the occurrence.10.5.PW5 is a neighbour, who is residing in the same street and he was also examined as an eye witness.10.6.PW6 is another son of the deceased who was residing in another place and he was also examined as witness.10.7.PW7 is examined for the purpose of the observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared in the place of occurrence.10.8.PW8 is the Village Administrative Officer, who stood as witness for the arrest and recovery.10.9.PW9 is the Doctor at Government Hospital at Virudhunagar, who provided first aid to the deceased on 28.12.2010 at 4.10 pm and also prepared accident register [ExP.6]http://www.judis.nic.in 7/21 Crl.10.12.PW15 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted preliminary investigation and PW16 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted further investigation and filed final report in this case.11.The incriminating materials from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused, under Section 313 CrPC and the accused denied the same and he also stated that there are witnesses in support of his case, but, he did not examine any one.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.12.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed this present appeal.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 201414.The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are the close relatives to PW1 and all the witnesses are not real eye witnesses and they are created witnesses for the purpose of this case.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as eye witnesses cannot be relied upon in this case.According to PW1, he specifically, stated in his evidence that he did not witness the occurrence and he reached the place after the commission of offence.PW2 is the wife of the deceased.Though she was examined as an eye witness, she did not support the case of the prosecution.She was also working as Washerwoman and used to go to wash cloths.PW3 is the grand son of the deceased who was also examined as an eye witness that he was present at the place of occurrence and he came to his grandfather's house for the purpose of preparing for examination.But he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital and therefore, he could not be present at the time of occurrence.PW4 is the son of the accused, he was residing at the adjacent street and he was sleeping in his house athttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 the time of occurrence and he was not directly aware of the occurrence.He also did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.It is also not the case of the prosecution that the daughter-in- law of the deceased Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi was present at the place of occurrence and therefore, the evidence of the eye witness produced by the prosecution are not reliable witness and there are contradictions in their evidence and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the eye witnesses.He also pointed out that in the Accident Register[ExP.6], the Doctor [PW9], who admitted the deceased has specifically mentioned that there was breath smell of alcohol noticed at the time of admitting the deceased in the hospital.The drinking habit of the deceased has also been stated by PW1, PW2 and PW4 and the postmortem Doctor [PW10] has also noticed the presence of 100 ml brownish liquid with pungent odour athttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 the time of postmortem and therefore, the deceased, who was under the influence of liquor fell down on the slab, sustained injury and died.Further the prosecution has projected the case as if, it is the appellant, who has pushed the deceased on the cement slab and due to which, the deceased succumbed to injury.Though the First Information Report was registered on 28.12.2010, it reached the Court only on 29.12.2010 at 11.00am and there is a delay in the FIR reaching the Court and this delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution.The postmortem certificate also discloses that the deceased died due to raino cerebral injuries and the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem has noted down the antemortem injuries that an abrasion 3 cms X 2 cms over the left thigh and on dissection of scalp, subcalpal contusion measuring 12 cms X 10 cms on the left temporal - parietal region.State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2004 SC 313, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the reliability of the witnesses cannot be discarded on the theory of relative of the deceased.Even if they are relatives, if the evidences are trustworthy and reliable, then the Court can consider their evidence and can sustain conviction.Consequent to that the victim died in this case and therefore, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has considered all the evidence and held that there is a death as homicidal one, rightly convicted and imposed sentence on the accused.He also noted the breath smell of alcohol when he admitted the deceased in the hospital.The deceased was referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment, but he died on the next day around 6.30am.The Doctor [PW10] at Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai conducted postmortem and noted down 100ml brown colour liquid with pungent odour in the stomach and 20ml of stained fluid with pungent odour in the small intestines.The defence has taken a theory that the deceased was a drunkard and on the date of occurrence under the influence of liquor, he fell down on the cement slab, sustained injury and died due to that injury.However, the prosecution has foisted this case, as if, the accused pushed him down on the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 occurrence and on account of which, the occurrence has taken place.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused are neighbours and the accused used to put garbage near the house of the deceased and that was questioned by the deceased and on the date of occurrence also the accused put the garbage near the house of the accused and when that was objected to by the deceased, the accused picked up a quarrel and also pushed him down and the deceased fell down and sustained injuries.19.In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 as eye witnesses.PW1 is the brother of the deceased, who took the deceased to the hospital on 28.12.2010 and admitted him in the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar.He was residing two furlong away from the house of the deceased.He was examined as an eye witness and he also stated in his chief examination that he witnessed the occurrence, but during his cross examination, he admitted that he came to the place of occurrence only after hearing the incident and reached the place of occurrence 10 minutes after the occurrence and at that time his brother was sitting on the pier and he enquired his brother's wife PW2 and through PW2 he came to know about the occurrence and also admitted thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 14/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 he did not witness the occurrence.So far as PW2 is concerned, she is wife of the deceased and she was also examined as an eye witness.According to her, she is working as Washerwoman and she also used to go to wash clothes in the morning and her husband also used to go to iron the cloths near Kamarajar Statute adjacent to Municipality and on the date of occurrence, her husband was sleeping on the pier after taking meals, she is said to have accompanied PW1 to the hospital, however, according to her no bloodstain was found on her clothes.But, there was no undigested food particles on the stomach.PW3 the grandson of the deceased, was studying B.Tech at Srividhya College at a different place and he was also residing near the place and on the date of occurrence, he was present in the place of occurrence and for the purpose of studying, he came to his grand parents house and that he is said to have witnessed the occurrence, but, he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.The conduct of PW3, being a B.Tech student and also the grandson of the deceased, though he was present at the place of occurrence, he said to have not accompanied the deceased to the hospital, raises doubt, as to whether he was present at the place of occurrence or not?http://www.judis.nic.in 15/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 201420.PW4 is the son of the deceased.Admittedly, he is residing several furlong away from his father's house and on the date of occurrence, he was sleeping in his house and on knowing about this incident, he came to the place of occurrence and he has also not witnessed the occurrence and at the time of occurrence he was sleeping in his house.21.PW5 is the neighbour and also a relative of the deceased and he was also examined as an eye witness in this case.During the course of examination, he stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and at that time the daughter-in-law of the deceased namely, Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi has pacified the deceased and the accused.But the said Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi was not examined by the prosecution in this case and it is not the case of the other witnesses that the daughter-in-law of the deceased Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi was present at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence.The evidence of PW5 in this regard is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses and therefore, the evidence of PW5 cannot be relied.22.Now coming to the case of the prosecution that there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 account of the accused throwing garbage in front of the house of the deceased.However, in the observation mahazar or in the rough sketch, there is no reference about the garbage thrown by the accused.Moreover, the sketch and the observation mahazar show a pit in the middle of the road, which was dug by the Municipality for laying underground drainage and the place of occurrence is shown in the middle of the road near the drainage.The place of occurrence is also shown away from the house of the deceased.23.PW1 the brother of the deceased, PW2 wife of the deceased, PW3 the grand son of the deceased, have uniformly stated that the deceased was in the habit of drinking liquor.Though PW1 to PW3 have stated that on the date of occurrence, the deceased has not consumed any liquor, the evidence of the Doctor [PW9], who admitted the deceased at the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar on 28.12.2010, shows that he noticed the breath smell of alcohol, while admitting the deceased in the hospital.It is also mentioned in the accident register [ExP6].The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy in this case has noted 100 ml of brown colour fluid with pungent odour in the stomach and 20 ml of stained fluid in the small intestines.During his evidence, he also admitted that this liquid found on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 17/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 deceased was on account of alcohol.Therefore, the defence theory that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol is found in this case.The observation mahazar and the rough sketch and the evidence of witnesses would show that only in the opposite house of the deceased there was a pit dug for laying underground drainage and the occurrence was also shown near the drainage.Though the place of occurrence is surrounded by many houses in ExP.14, none of the residents residing near the place of occurrence has been examined by the prosecution.PW5 is the neighbour of the accused as well as the deceased and he is also a close relative of the deceased, in his evidence has stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the date of occurrence and this quarrel was pacified by the daughter-in-law of the deceased, Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi, but there is no reference about the said Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi in the evidence of other witnesses and she was not cited as witnesses in this case.PW2 wife of the deceased, who was examined in this case has not stated anything about the presence of her daughter-in-law at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence.Since the evidence has not been corroborated by any other witness, it may not be safe to rely upon his evidence to convict the accused.The available evidence as well as the availablehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 circumstances show that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol on the date of occurrence and there was a pit in the middle of the road, opposite to the house of the accused, which probalise the case of the defence and moreover, the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.24.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar in S.C.No.248 of 2011 on 14.03.2012 is set aside and the bail bonds executed by the appellant if any shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded.22.11.2019 Index : Yes / No dsk To1)The learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar2)The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.http://www.judis.nic.in 19/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 20143)The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4)The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 20/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 B.PUGALENDHI, J., dsk Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 22.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 21/21

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Therefore, this Court should not entertain the quash petition at this stage.6.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has been cheated by the petitioner by collecting the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and has been supplied with a Solar Power Equipment with a lower capacity.Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the second respondent has been put to wrongful loss, and therefore, an offence of cheating under Section 420 has been prima facie made out.No allegation has been made that he had an intention to cheat the respondent from the very inception.Following allegations made in the First Information Report need to be specially noticed: “Along with him his son Samir Sahay Advocate who was already acquainted with the applicant also accompanied his father.Major PC Sahay gave the above said assurance, and the applicant and his wife Smt. Uma Devi deposited Rupees one Lakh with Major P.C.Sahay in this regard and he gave the receipt of the same to the applicant of which the applicant is enclosing the photocopy.The second respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.50,000/- by cash as an advance.The petitioner installed a Solar Power with a capacity of 100 WT and promised the second respondent that he will install the balance 900 WT and thereafter receive the balance amount.The petitioner did not install 900 WT of Solar Power as promised by him.The second respondent attempted to get in touch with the petitioner, but the petitioner never responded.13.The material that is available on record does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and at the best it can only said to be a failure to keep up a promise subsequently, by the petitioner.A subsequent conduct can never raise a presumption of the culpable intention right at the beginning.The prosecution has not established that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception.15.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry is hereby quashed.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.2.The Sub Inspector of Police, (Law and Order) Othiyan Salai Police Station, Puducherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.N. ANAND VENKATESH,.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the objector.This is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474 and 341 of IPC for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 64/2018 registered at Police Station Gautam Nagar District Bhopal.The applicant herein,aged 60 years is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case.A short resume of facts essential to appreciate the present case are as follows:-The Alp Vetan Karmachari Grihnirman Shahkari Samiti is a co-operative Society, which owns a particular plot of land.The applicant was the power of Attorney holder, who on the basis of the said power of attorney has sold a plot of land to one Anisha Bi.The matter went up before the SDM, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, in which vide order of the SDM, dated 14-12-2017 he arrived at the conclusion that the dispute between Anisha Bi and Nahid Jahan is of civil nature and the same ought to be decided by the civil court.In the year 2013 itself, Nahid Jahan files a criminal complaint inter alia against the applicants, Anihsa Bi and Mohd Aziz.The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class passed an order under Section 202 Cr.The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.C.C as per rules.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

On due consideration, prayer for urgent hearing during winter vacation is allowed.Record of the trial court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.9733/2015 , which is an application for suspension of jail sentience of appellant Virendra , who has been convicted under Section 212 of the IPC and sentenced to five years R.I with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that section 212 is bailable and during the trial appellant was bailed out and at the time of conviction, an application for suspension of jail sentence was filed under section 389 (3) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspending the sentence before the trial court and grant of bail because appellant is preferring an appeal against impugned conviction, but learned trial court without assigning any reason rejected the application.On due consideration of the aforesaid and also on the fact that section 212 is bailable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.9733/2015 , which is an application for suspension of jail sentence is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant - Virendra is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees -2- Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 03.03.2016 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.( P.K. JAISWAL ) VACATION JUDGE RP

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

cases in which his son is involved.The said representation has not been responded to and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, upon instruction, submits that the following criminal cases are pending against the petitioner's son :(1) Purulia Town Police Station Case No.38 of 2018 dated 25.03.2018 under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 353/ 186/ 188/114/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 25/35 of the Arms Act, 83(2) JJKR and Protection of Children Act, 2015, 32 Police Act and 9 WBMPO Act;(2) Purulia Town Police Station Case No.62 of 2018 dated 22.05.2018 under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 353/ 186/ 307/ 427/ 187/ 506/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 3 P.D.P.P Act, 18 W.B Highway Act and 9 WBMPO Act;(3) Purulia Town Police Station Case No. 63 of 2018 dated 22.05.2018 under Sections 153/504 of the Indian Penal Code;(4) Purulia Town Police Station Case No.66 of 2018 dated 30.05.2018 under Sections 153A/295A/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code;(5) Mongolkote Police Station Case No.109/2018 dated 17.04.2018 under Sections 143/ 188/ 186/ 353/ 427/ 332/ 333/ 324/ 326/307/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 3/4 P.D.P.P Act, 32 Police Act;There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2018, under Sections 354D, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, Police Station Shahabad, District Rampur, during pendency of trial.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 27.4.2020 SK Srivastava

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 20.10.2020 Sumit S

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

The relevant part of the Paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detentionis re-produced hereunder:-"I am aware that Thiru.[Order of the Court was made byM.V.MURALIDARAN, J. and B.GOKULDAS,J.] The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Selvakumar.The detenu wasdetained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.01 of 2016 dated17.02.2016, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.26of 2016 on the file of Ammapettai Police Station registered for offencespunishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 386, 387, 307 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 (Amended 1994).The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that thedetenu conformed to the definition of "Goonda" and that his presence at largewould be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, thelearned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise anadditional ground and we permit the same.The learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the non-application of mind on the part of theDetaining Authority is apparent from Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the grounds ofdetention, wherein the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authorityregarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the groundcase came to be expressed.The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor inreply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are also heard.Selvakumar, aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan was produced before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam inAmmapettai Police Station Cr.No.26/2016, u/s.294(b), 341, 386, 387, 307I.P.C., and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss)Act 1992 (Amended 1994), on 21.01.2016 and was remanded to Judicial Custody and was lodged at Sub-Jail, Papanasam as a remand prisoner till 04.02.2016and further his remand period has been extended periodically upto 18.02.2016.I am aware that Thiru.Selvakumar, Male, aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan has filed a bail application in Ammapettai Police Station Cr.No.26 of 2016before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam inCr.Further bail petition filed before thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur was dismissed in Cr.In a similar case registered in Mannargudi Town PoliceStation Cr.No.491/2013, u/s.294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) I.P.C., r/w 3(1) ofTamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 (Amended 1994) bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Babu@ Byepass Babu @ Shanmugam by the vacation Sessions Court, Tiruvarur in Cr.M.P.No.693/2013 on 15.05.2013.Hence, I am satisfied that there is a real and imminent possibility of his(Thiru.Selvakumar, Aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan) coming out on bail byfiling a bail application for the above case before the Higher Court.?The highlighted portion will show that the Detaining Authority didnot apply his mind and he has made an observation which is meaningless.It isso nebulous, as it cannot be ascertained from the said part of the grounds ofdetention as to whether any bail application was pending or a bailapplication was going to be filed.The very absurd language used therein willshow total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitseven though, the bail petitions filed by the petitioner were alreadydismissed twice, the Detaining Authority proceeded with an observation thatthere was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the groundcase on the basis of the order of bail granted in respect of another case.Hence, on the ground of non-application of mind, the expression of subjectivesatisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bailin the ground case stands vitiated and the same can be termed as ipse dixit,not supported by cogent materials.On that ground alone, the order ofdetention is liable to be set aside.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']

On 18.06.2018, the driver of the aforesaid vehicle loaded the sand from sand mines of Son river Ghariyal, Village Ghunghuta, and taken the same in the aforesaid vehicle.It is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 53-HA-1789 be released to its registered owner-petitioner on Supurdginama till the decision of the case, subject to producing the original registration and sale- letter, on satisfying the following conditions:-(i) That, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.(ii) That, the petitioner shall not transfer/sell/alienate or create third party interest in respect of vehicle in question without the permission of the trial Court.(iii) The petitioner will not change the parts, colour or machinery, except for necessary repairs for smooth running of the vehicle.(iv) The petitioner will produce the vehicle at his own expenses as and when directed to be produced.(v) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.(vi) The petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of the vehicle in question.Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.(vii) The petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used in any antisocial activities or in similar offence, failing which this order shall become 3 MCRC-32158-2018 ineffectively immediately.A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned, for necessary compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2018.12.24 11:07:35 +05'30'

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Suti P.S.Case No.373 of 2014 dated 09.1.2014 under Sections 376(2)(i)/41d7 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.At the very outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that already his client has married the de facto complainant, that the victim-housewife.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)

['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']

The deceased because of the beating was disturbed and was feeling sad and, therefore, he committed suicide by hanging himself.The centripetal question for determination in the present case is that whether the allegations which have been made against the applicant amounts to abetment of suicide or not.The cause of quarrel is not clear from the record.This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in S.T. No.347/2015 by which charges under Sections 306, 323 of IPC have been framed against the applicant.The necessary facts for the disposal of present application in short are that the deceased Anuj Singh committed suicide on 26.07.2015 by hanging himself.A FIR was lodged on 26.07.2015 itself at about 18:05 by Harjeevan Singh alleging that the applicant along with one Gullu Rathore had quarreled with his nephew Anuj Singh and sister-in- law Geeta Devi and the deceased Anuj Singh was beaten by the applicant and co-accused by fists and blows, as a result of which, the deceased was sentimentally hurt and was feeling bad and, therefore, he committed suicide by hanging himself.The police registered the crime and investigated the matter.After recording the statements of the witnesses, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 306, 323, 34 of IPC against the applicant.The applicant by filing the order-sheets of the Trial Court has stated that not a single witness has been examined so far inspite of bailable warrants issued against the witnesses.Thus, it is prayed that the charges framed against the applicant be quashed.R.No.1180/2015 (Pappu alias Ramsundar v. State of M.P.) 306, 323, 34 of IPC.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The allegations against the applicant is that he had beaten the deceased and his mother, as a result of which, the deceased was disturbed and accordingly he committed suicide.Geeta Devi, the mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased Anuj Singh was studying in Class 11th and was aged about 15 years.He was going to attend his tuition classes and when he reached in front of the house of the applicant, some quarrel took place.After hearing the shouts, she also went there.The statement of Rakhi i.e., the sister of the deceased is also to the same effect.Harjeevan Singh has also stated that some quarrel took place between the applicant and the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was beaten by the applicant.The deceased and his mother were beaten by the applicant and co-accused person.Accordingly, the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in S.T. No.347/2015 framing charge 9 Cr.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.The applicant is apprehending his arrest for offences punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. & Section 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Crime No. 153/2015 registered with Police Station Jahangirabad, Bhopal.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that some of the applicants have filed a writ petition in this Court for quashing the FIR.The Writ Court by a consent order disposed of the writ petition by laying down certain terms and conditions therein.The relevant terms and conditions for the said purposes is that the accused persons shall cooperate in the investigation in the query and they have been not arrested without giving them a clear seven days notice.It was further submitted that the main accused Shriniwas Tiwari, the then Speaker of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.Similarly, other accused persons namely Satyanarayan Sharma and Arun Tiwari have been granted bail by the Supreme Court.Copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court has been produced for perusal.It is submitted that notice for arrest was served on 21st June, 2015 and thereafter also he appeared before the Investigating Agency.He, therefore, prays that the application for anticipatory bail be allowed.The bail application has been vehemently opposed by Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate and shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.After hearing the rival submissions at length and considering the fact that applicant in this petition is beneficiary of order issued by the State Government and the main allegation is against Shriniwas Tiwari who has already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court, this application is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of applicants arrest, in connection with Crime No.153/2015 registered at Police Station Jahagirabad, Bhopal, (M.P.), he be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.The applicant would abide the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall remain in force only for a period of three months from today or till filing of challan whichever is earlier.C. stands disposed of.C.C. on payment of usual charges.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the point ofadmission as well as perused the judgment and order passedby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao.This revision under Section 397 (1)/401 Cr.P.C. has beenfiled by the accused against the judgment and order dated28.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Court No. 5, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2009(Criminal Case No. 1801/2009); Naseem Vs.State underSection 498-A IPC, P.S. Makhi, District Unnao by which thelearned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed theappeal preferred by the accused-appellant and set aside theconviction under Section 323 IPC.However, the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge has maintained the sentenceawarded by the Magistrate under Section 498-A IPC holdingthe accused guilty under Section498-A IPC and sentencedhim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of oneyear and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.The revisionist involves arguable point of law.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the prayer of thebail.He is still on interim bail granted by the AppellateCourt.He, therefore, deserves to be released on bail duringthe pendency of the revision.Order Date :- 22.6.2010Santosh/-

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

in both cases.For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel in Crl.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:The second accused is a private person and he was the proprietor of M/s.(b) The second accused submitted a proposal dated 18.01.1995 to the Indian Overseas Bank, Salem main branch, stating that he had opened a new proprietorship concern called 'Valley Exporters' in November, 1994, whereas he had opened the company in the year 1993 and he has taken over the potential black granite quarry situated at Pagadupattu village, Chinnakalrayan Hills, Attur Taluk, Salem, with an extent of 6 acres with 10 years mining lease from the Government of Tamil nadu, and he had an order from M/s.Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., Japan and M/s.Macmarvels Co., Ltd., Japan for 500 cubic meters.He gave an undertaking that the granites manufactured from the mine will be exported as rough blocks under 'letters of credit' only and that there will be no indigenous sales and requested the bank, Salem Main Branch, Indian Overseas Bank, for a Packing Credit facility to an extent of Rs.75 lacs for the purpose of excavating granite blocks form the quarry and Rs.50 lacs as secured OD for meeting hire charges of Mining machineries.The second accused also revised his request for the credit facilities vide letter dated 02.02.1995, seeking for a Packing Credit facility of Rs.70 lakhs, secured over draft of Rs.20 lakhs and Foreign Bill Negotiation facility for Rs.30 lakhs.At that time, the second accused submitted applications with false project report, inflated valuation certificates in respect of collateral securities, false and forged agreement dated 01.01.1995 as if entered into between the second accused as proprietor of Valley Export and Karunagaran (PW-31) owner of the Compressor and Cranes and another agreement entered into between the second accused and one Ramesh (PW-36) proprietor of Virgo Exporters for hiring Proclain and Tippers. The second accused also submitted along with the application a false and forged purchase order dated 28.01.1995 said to have been issued by one H.Fuji of M/s.Toya Trading Company Limited, Japan offering to purchase 500 cubic meters Black granite at the rate of 1100 US Dollar.The second accused furnished the title deeds of 75 acres of landed property situated at Sevvapet, Thandalam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, Salem and false valuation certificates showing inflated rates by valuing one acre of land at Rs.1 lakh wherein the cost of the lands were only Rs.16,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre during the relevant period.During 1993, the second accused had obtained IE Code, but only during 1995, he obtained IE Code from the Controller of Imports and Exports, Ministry of Commerce, Coimbatore and from the Joint Controller, ECD, RBI, Chennai.In Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that M/s. Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., Japan and M/s. Macmarvels Co., Ltd., Japan have insisted and approved the materials and have placed orders.P.4 is a related purchase order from Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., but according to the prosecution, it is a forged document.As per Ex.P.4 one Mr.Fuji had inspected.It is the evidence of P.W.31, who was working as Typist under second accused, had deposed that Ex.P.4 was prepared in the office being typed by him as instructed by the second accused.Though P.W.31 admitted in the cross-examination that Mr.Fuji was available in the office at the time of preparing Ex.P.4, he had not stated that Mr.Fuji signed in Ex.18.07.2012Index : yes Internet : yesksr/jrl T. SUDANTHIRAM, J.ksr/jrlToA.No.1390 of 2003 For Respondent : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases in both CasesCOMMON JUDGMENT The appellants herein are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.3 of 2000, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge and Special Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.The accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and each one of them sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.The first accused was further convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.The second accused was further convicted for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for each offence.It was ordered for the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the first accused preferred Crl.A.No.1390 of 2003 and the second accused preferred Crl.(c) The first accused with the help of the second accused prepared a processing note, credit appraisal and assets and liabilities details in his own handwriting without verifying the genuineness of the purchase order and project report, need for the credit facilities, correctness of the valuation certificate.The first accused issued a letter dated 25.02.1995 giving sanction for Rs.1 crore limits, even though he was not competent to sanction such facilities up to Rs.1 Crore as stipulated under the Delegation of the sanction powers.He also sanctioned a fund based limit of Rs.30 lakhs as Packing Credit and Rs.5 lakhs as miscellaneous cash credit abusing his official position.Thereafter, the second accused prepared a false agreement with forged signature of Ramesh (PW-36) allegedly representing Virgo Exporters which was actually owned by the second accused himself.The second accused prepared another hire purchase agreement in the name of the R.Karunagaran (PW-31) who was actually employee of the second accused.These forged agreements were accepted by the first accused in order to favour and bestow undue official favours to the second accused.The second accused had not undertaken even a single export as per the purchase order though he used the packing credit facilities.No exports of black granites from the quarry was made as per the purchase order.The outstanding liability to the bank on 10.03.1997 was Rs.49,76,970/-.In order to establish the prosecution case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 44, marked Exs.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied their complicity.Both the accused filed separate written statements.In the written statements, the first accused stated that there was no irregularity in the sanction of loan and other credit facilities and the credit sanctioned by the bank were adequately covered by securities in the shape of the immovable properties offered by the second accused.The bank also filed a recovery proceedings against the accused in the Debt Recovery Tribunal and fraud has not been alleged by the bank before the DRT.On the side of the accused, one Kannan was examined as a defense witness - DW-1 and Ex.D.1 to D.5 were marked.P.33 to 36, legal opinion Exs.P.18, sanction order also was signed by PW-1 Senior Manager.Learned counsel also pointed out that in the evidence of PW-1 that there is nothing wrong in the Manager filling forms and he had power to sanction loan to the second accused up to Rs.65 lakhs.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no material to substantiate that the first accused acted in connivance with the second accused and it was only he who took steps for recovering the dues from the second accused and Ex.D.1 shows that the application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal only by the first accused.During the pendency of this criminal appeal, the second accused had paid the entire amount due to the Indian Overseas Bank, Salem Branch.The bank also filed full satisfaction memo in the proceedings in T.A.No.1157 of 2002, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal stating that the matter was settled out of court.The learned senior counsel further submitted that PW-34 and PW-35 stated that appellant was a granite businessman and PW-28 stated that appellant had spent huge amount for improving the quarry business and the appellant was having various companies for running his business.PW-31 had deposed that he was present when Ex.P.4, purchase order was prepared in the office of second accused and it was typed by PW-31 as per the request of Mr.Fuji- buyer who is from Japan.PW-31 also had deposed to the extent that he had leased out machineries to the second accused and it was not necessary for a person to own the equipments.P.46 agreement entered into between the second accused and PW-36, Ramesh is not a forged document and handwriting expert was not in a position to express any definite opinion regarding the signature found in Ex.Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI cases submitted that for packing credit facility, letter of credit is a must, but it was not provided by the second accused and packing credit facility was given by the first accused to the second accused on the basis of Ex.P.45 contract letter is also not a true one and there were no machineries.Ex.P.46 is also false and PW-36 did not sign in Ex.PW-33, employee of the second accused though turned hostile, he admits that as per the agreement in Ex.P.46, Ramesh had no machineries and Ramesh is not the owner of Virgo export Companies. PW-33 also admitted before the learned Magistrate while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that he only signed in the name of Ramesh.P.2 and P.3 applications were given with false particulars that the second accused had already got lease agreement from the government for quarrying.The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the properties which were shown as securities are only agricultural lands, but they were shown as housing plots in Ex.P.16 and the value was shown as Rs.75 lakhs by the first accused.This clearly shows that the first accused deliberately acted in favour of the second accused and the conspiracy among the first and second accused is established.This Court considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the materials available on record.Now it is to be seen from the available evidence whether the second accused availed credit facility from the bank in a fraudulent manner by producing forged documents and it is also to be seen whether the first accused/Chief Manager of the bank sanctioned loan facility abusing his official position knowing about the incorrectness of the documents submitted by the second accused.It is mentioned in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 that the second accused's firm M/s. Valley Exporters, Chennai, had mining lease from the Tamil Nadu Government for 10 years, but as per Ex.P.76, the second accused claims that he was operating the quarry under power of Attorney from M/s. Happy Granite India Private Limited to whom lease was given by the Government.As per Ex.P.81 - Inspection Report of P.W.13, no quarrying operation was noticed and only one old worked pit was noticed.There is a suppression of fact and wrong information is given by the second accused.He had stated that second accused signed in Ex.P.2 and P.3 applications are dated 18.01.1995 and 02.02.1995, but Ex.Therefore, Ex.P.4 is only to the extent that it was prepared for the purpose of getting loan from the bank.The properties relating to documents Exs.P.37 to 40 are given as security for loan.The properties are purchased from 01.03.1995 to 10.03.1995 and the total value is Rs.80,450/-.These properties are agricultural lands, but in the documents Exs.P.37 to 40 the word (tptrhak;) 'Agricultural' is deleted by applying whitener.P.W.8, the bank approved panel valuer has given valuation reports under Exs.He had stated that he gave the reports to one Vasu.According to the prosecution, the value was boosted.P.W.8 while giving certificate he had not taken the land as agricultural land but stated as vacant land which could be converted as housing sites.Therefore, again it appears that Exs.P.33 to 36 were obtained by the second accused showing not the real value but with enhanced value for the purpose of getting loan.The second accused also approached on his own, the panel lawyer of the banks to get his opinion and obtained Exs.Further, for getting the amount the second accused had produced Exs.P.43 to 46, but according to the prosecution, they are bogus documents.P.45 and 46 were false agreements.P.45 is an agreement between P.W.31-Karunagaran and the second accused for hiring the machineries.As per Ex.P.45, P.W.31 was the owner of machineries, but as per his evidence, he was not the owner but he got on lease those machineries.P.W.31 was employed under the second accused as typist.P.45 was prepared falsely.Ex.P.46 is an agreement between one Ramesh and second accused.P.W.36 admitted in his evidence that his name is Ramesh but he did not sign in Ex.P.46 and there was no agreement.Therefore, Ex.P.46 also was prepared falsely.Hence, it is to be held from the oral and documentary evidence that the second accused had cheated the bank by producing bogus documents for getting loan.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan that this is a case of civil nature and no criminal liability can be fastened is only to be rejected for the above said reasons.The repayment of the loan amount due to the bank after twelve years does not wipe out the criminal liability of the accused.M.P.No.1 of 2012 is filed seeking permission to take additional evidence to mark the documents relating to payment made to the Bank.All these subsequent happenings cannot form part of evidence.Hence, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is dismissed.Though the application is dismissed, it is taken note of by this Court that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid in the year 2007 for the claim made by the bank in the year 1997 for a sum of Rs.51,09,090/-.It is to be noted that Indian Overseas Bank is a nationalised bank and the money involved is public money.Though Bank had entered into one time settlement with the accused for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, after 12 years, the interest amount that accrued for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs for a period 12 years (i.e., minimum Rs.50 lakhs) is a loss to the bank and it is a wrongful gain for the accused.Therefore, this repayment of amount of Rs.50 lakhs by the second accused to the Bank cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance even while sentencing the accused.Regarding the first accused as it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Ajmalkhan that the first accused had no mens rea and he had performed only his official duty and at the most there can be only negligence or dereliction of duty on his part; it must be looked into whether the evidence available on record show that deliberately and knowingly the first accused had helped the second accused to avail the loan facility in a improper manner.Of course in Exs.P.2 and P.3, the second accused suppressed the fact that he did not have any direct lease from the Tamil Nadu Government for quarrying and the first accused could have verified it.Though Ex.P.4 is bogus purchase order, it had been produced by the second accused and first accused had simply accepted it.The properties, which were given as security for loan were having only low value but second accused suppressed the fact that the lands were agricultural lands and in the documents produced before the bank the word 'agricultural' had been deleted.The first accused accepted the valuation certificate given by P.W.8, though inflated value was given by P.W.8 as requested by the second accused saying the vacant land may be converted as housing sites.P.17 sanction for credit facility is signed by P.W.1 and the first accused.The hire purchase agreement for machineries produced by the second accused were forged but they have been accepted by the first accused.Though there are several defects and faults on the part of the first accused, still it cannot be definitely said that the first accused had acted with the criminal dishonest intention by helping the second accused to avail loan facilities.Though conspiracy cannot be proved directly and it can be inferred from the materials available, in this particular case, it is not possible to hold beyond doubt that the first accused acted only in pursuance of conspiracy with the second accused.Of course there is suspicion against the first accused in this case but however the suspicion is strong that cannot take the place of proof.In the result, the criminal appeal No.1390 of 2003 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused/appellant in Crl.Since the first accused had been acquitted, the second accused cannot be convicted for the offence under conspiracy.Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the second accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.1385 of 2003, for the offence under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act by the trial Court are set aside.The other convictions imposed on the second accused by the trial Court are confirmed.The sentence of imprisonment for each offence is altered and reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount imposed on the second accused is enhanced to a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each offence and in default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount already paid shall be adjusted.The Criminal Appeal No.1385 of 2003 is partly allowed.The II Additional District Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.The Inspector of Police CBI/BSFC, Chennai RC.No.3(E)/97, Bangalore.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment in Crl.A.Nos.1385 and 1390 of 200318.07.2012

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to alterthe provision as 264(b), 307, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code instead of294(b), 352, 324, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.26 of 2020 registered byKachirapalayam Police Station, Villupuram District.Accordingly, the respondent police isdirected to complete the investigation and file a final report within aperiod of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.4.With the above direction, this criminal original petition isdisposed of.10.03.2020Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderariToThe Inspector of Police,Kachirapalayam Police Station,Villupuram District.3/4 Crl.O.P.No.5543 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J ari Crl.5543 of 2020 10.03.20204/4

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']

(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:S.No.Police Station and Crime No.The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the SubInspector of Police, D2 Sellur Police Station, Madurai City, in Crime No.316 of2013 for offences under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrievedby the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds toassail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on thequestion of delay in consideration of the representation and the delay willprejudice his right to make effective redressal of his grievance in the manneras contemplated and he pointed out that there is a delay in disposal of therepresentation.We have heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional PublicProsecutor on the question of delay in consideration of the representation andperused the materials available on record and the chart provided to this Court.The impugned order of detention has been called for in question by themother of the detenu as to the satisfaction arrived at by the detainingauthority stating the following:I am aware that Thiru.Selvakumar s/o Selvaraj is now in remand in theground case in D2 Sellur PS Cr.No.316/2013 for the offences under section 392r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC and lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai.I am alsoaware that he had been granted conditional bail in all the three adverse casesby the courts concerned.I am also aware that his bail application filed in thesaid ground case was dismissed by the J.M.No. II, Madurai on videCrl.On consideration of the conditional bailgranted by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide Crl.OP(MD)No.2235/2013 on11.02.2013 to the same Tr.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.T h e applicants are in custody since 18.2.2020, in connection with Crime No.334/2019 registered at Police Station Shahgarh, District Sagar (MP), for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506, 427, 325, 326 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 16.11.2019, accused/ applicant and co- accused inflicted injury by means of Katarna, Axe, stick to Halkai, Devi Singh, Kusum, Paramlal and Ramdas.Ramdas has received grievous injury.Thereafter, FIR was lodged and case has been registered against the accused/applicant for the aforesaid offence.At the time of incident, he was not present.Accused/applicant is Secretary of Gram Panchayat and due to this reason he has been falsely implicated.A counter Cri.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 03/03/2020 11:23:20

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Let this matter appear two weeks after vacation.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicants, in connection with C.R.No.53 of 2018, registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, they may be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, each, with one or more sureties in the like amount;(ii) Applicants shall report Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, as and when called for by the investigating officer ;rpa 3/3 937-aba-1962-18.doc(iii) This interim protection is granted till the next date of hearing;(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Bullet was used by country made weapons like revolver.Death was confirmed by severe bullet injuries.All shots were closed contact shots."He opined the death was due to bullet injuries which are ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.He opined injury in the brain was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of manner.He proved post-mortem report (Ext.14).P.W. 16, Nihar Kr.Modak held inquest over the dead body and proved the inquest report (Ext.12).P.W.s 19, 20 and 21 are the investigating officers of the case.P.W. 19, Chandidas Karmakar, deposed on 1.2.2005 he was posted as S.I, of Police at Golabari P.S. He received telephonic information that some anti-social throwing bombs at Pilkhana 3rd Lane.He noted such fact in the general diary and proceeded to the spot.At 11:50 hours he arrived at 3rd lane and came to know that some miscreants shot Md. Akram in the saloon of Ichua Thakur.As a result Md. Akram suffered gun shot injuries and was moved to Howrah District Hospital.He went to Howrah District Hospital and came to know Md. Akram had been brought in a dead condition with gun shot injury.He sent the dead body to the police morgue for post-mortem examination.He collected inquest report, death certificate from the investigating officer of the U.D. case.He proved the general diary (Ext.15), 9 the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 16).He prepared rough sketch map with index (Ext.17).He seized one used bullet head, one empty and used percussion cap, blood, hair cuttings from the place of occurrence under a seizure list.He examined all the witnesses.From the statement of the witnesses he came to know the identity of other accused persons, namely, Aftab, Chand, Sk.Noor, Md. Quader and Irfan.He collected post-mortem report.On receipt of order from superior he handed over the case diary to CID, West Bengal.He identified another sketch map (Ext.B).He claimed the subsequent sketch map was prepared by the next investigating officer.P.W. 20, Jitendra Nath Kairi, is the second investigating officer.He was attached to Detective Department, Howrah as Sub-Inspector of Police.After taking charge of investigation he visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch map with index (Ext.B).He seized the taxi and the rickshaw van.He made requisition for FSL examination of blood samples.P.W. 21, Avash Nandi, is the last investigating officer of the case.He concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet.From the evidence on record it appears that on 01.02.2005 around 11/11:15 a.m. when the victim had gone to the saloon of Ichua Thakur (P.W. 12) to shave his beard, 8/10 persons armed with fire arms and bombs shot at him resulting in his death.P.W. 7 brother of the deceased was proceeding to western side.When he arrived near the saloon of Ichua Thakur he found Ladua, Budhua, Gabbar, Aslam and 5/6 others were coming from western side and entered the saloon of Ichua Thakur.They were armed with revolvers and bombs.Inside the saloon they started firing.Thereafter, they fled away after throwing bombs.When he reached the saloon he found Md. Akram lying with his head at the gate of the saloon with bullet injuries.Md. Akram was shifted to hospital where he was declared dead.Immediately thereafter he went to Golabari Police Station and 10 lodged First Information Report at 12:55 hours naming Budhua, Ladua, Gabbar, Aslam and 5/6 unknown as the miscreants.It is contended that P.W. 7 is not an eye-witness as the correct place from where he had seen the incident is not noted in the sketch map (Ext.17 and Ext.B) prepared during investigation.P.W. 7 has been extensively cross-examined on behalf of the defendants.He has withstood such cross-examination and reading his evidence as a whole, I do not find any infirmity or inconsistency in his deposition to come to a conclusion that he is an untruthful witness.Soon after the incident he lodged the First Information Report and has graphically described the incident therein.All the witnesses have specified that they were near the saloon of Ichua Thakur when they saw the appellant enter the saloon with fire arms.They heard shots being fixed and body of the deceased was found lying at the gate of the saloon.In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I have no doubt in my mind that the said witnesses had ample opportunity to see the miscreants enter the saloon and fire at the deceased resulting in gun shot injuries.Deceased was found lying at the gate of the saloon.These circumstances leave no doubt in my mind that the evidence of P.W.s 2, 3, 4 and 7 establishes the prosecution case beyond doubt.These witnesses have been cross-examined with regard to their criminal antecedents.However, none of the criminal cases registered against the said witnesses were related to the appellants.Hence, it cannot be said that the said witnesses had falsely implicated the appellants due to prior grudge or animosity.It 11 has been contended that Manoj Thakur, employee of the saloon of Paresh Thakur @ Ichua who is the best witness has not been examined.His non-examination would draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case.The Bench in the said report, inter alia, held as follows:-Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree.

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

According to her, A3 after knowing that the illicit intimacy between A1 and P.W.2 abused her in filthy language and had warned not to continue her illicit relationship with A1 and that A1 offered Rs.50/- to take nutritious diet after the abortion.P.W.5 is the uncle of P.W.2 the victim girl.On 24.12.2003, he went to the house of P.W.2 at the request of her parent,after knowing that P.W.2 had developed intimacy with A1 and P.W.2 had also informed him that only under the pretext of marrying her A1 had sexual intercourse with her and in this regard , he along with his other brothers and father of P.W.2 went to the house of the accused for a mediation.But A2 and A3 have abused P.W.2 and at that time A1 and A4 were not available in the house.Ex P5 is the copy of the first information report.Ex P10 is the certificate issued by the doctor, after examination of A1 certifying that he is potent.Ex P11 is the letter of requisition issued by the Court to the Government Hospital requesting the doctor to subject P.W.2 for medical examination to ascertain her age.ExP12 is the age certificate issued by the doctors.Ex P13 is the requisition given by P.W.7 to the doctor.He has also examined the Doctors viz., Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan and recorded their statements.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.This appeal has been preferred by the accused in S.C.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ariyalur, Perambalur District.According to the prosecution, on 10.7.2002 ,A1 under the pretext of marrying the victim girl had subjected her to the offence of rape and in the course of the transaction, the accused had given tablet to abort the featus and in the panchayat conducted in this connection on 17,.2.2003, A1 to A3 have abused the victim girl in filthy language and on the same day, A4 had criminally intimidated the victim girl and the accused under the pretext of marrying the victim girl had committed the offence of rape.So the accused have been charged under Sections 417, 313, 294(b), 506(ii) and 376 of IPC.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, perambalur and on the appearance of the accused, had furnished the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the case is triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court) Ariyalur under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charges against A1 under Sections 417, 313 and 294(b) and 376 of IPC , against A2 and A3 charge under Section 294(b) IPC and against A4 charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC have been framed and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 8 were examined.Exs P1 to P15 were exhibited.P.W.1 is the Doctor who had examined the victim girl P.W.2 on 31.12.2003 at about 1.30p.m., on the basis of the letter of requisition Ex P1 from the Court for ascertaining the age of the victim girl.After hearing that A3 had abused her(P.W.2) , her mother enquired and that she had revealed the entire facts to her and that her uncle and another Ramalingam and Ganapathy took her to the accused's house for mediation.There also A1 had abused her in filthy language and A2 had also intimidated her along with A4 and thereafter she approached the police and preferred Ex P3 complaint.She would corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 to effect that A3 came to her house and abused P.W.2 in filthy language which made her to enquire P.W.2 who had admitted the illicit relationship, she had developed with A1 and that P.W.2 had made an attempt to commit suicide which was prevented by her.When her husband(P.W3's husband) and his brother made an attempt to mediate at the house of the accused, both A2 and A3 have abused and A4 has pushed them on the ground.Thereafter, P.W.2 had preferred the complaint with the police.P.W.4 Chinnaponnu has not supported the case of the prosecution hence she was treated as a hostile witness.Hence P.W.2 has preferred the complaint with the police.She has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Ex P6 is the rough sketch drawn by her.She had sent P.W.2 along with Ex P7 requisition to the Court to subject herself for medical examination by a Government Doctor.She had arrested A2 and A4 on 29.12.2003 and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand.A1 and A3 have obtained anticipatory bail.Under Ex P8, he had given another requisition to the Court on 18.2.2004 with a request to send A1 for medical examination regarding his potency.After completing the formalities, he has filed the final report against the accused.When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime.After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that an offence under Sections 376, 417, 294(b) of IPC have been made out against A1 and accordingly convicted and sentenced A1 under Section 376 of IPC to under go seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/0 with default sentence and has convicted and sentenced A1 under Section 417 of IPC to undergo six months Rigorous imprisonment and was also convicted and sentenced under Section 294(b) to pay a fine of Rs.500/- along with A2 and A3 each.A4 was convicted and sentenced under Section 506(II) to under go six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused have preferred this appeal.Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge against the accused under Sections 376, 417, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?Heard Mr. S.Samuel Rajapandian(Amicus Curiae),the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully considered their rival submissions.8 The Point:A2 and A3 have been convicted by the trial court under Section 294(b) of IPC and A4 has been convicted and sentenced under Section 506(ii) of IPC.On 24.12.2003, P.W.5 along with P.W2's father and other relations like Ramalingam and Chitra went to the house of the accused and at that time A2 and A3 have abused them and A1 and A4 were not present in the house.According to P.W.2, at the time, when P.W.5 and other relations went to the house of A2, A1 had abused her in filthy language and A2 had intimidated her and A4 also criminally intimidated her.In Ex P3 complaint, there is absolutely no allegation against the accused that they have abused P.W.2 at the time when the mediation took place at 7.00p.m., on 24.12.2003 in the house of the accused.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the charge levelled against A2 and A3 under Section 294(b) of IPC and against A4 under Section 506(ii) of IPC have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.So the conviction and sentence by the trial Court against A2 and A3 under Section 294(b) of IPC and as against A4 under Section 506(ii) of IPC is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.Now the remaining charge against A1 is under Sections 376, 417 and 294(b) of IPC.According to the case of the prosecution, the victim girl P.W.2 was a minor at the time of occurrence and it has been proved through the evidence of P.W.1, the doctor who had issued Ex P2 copy of the accident register which shows that the victim girl has been subjected to sexual assault.The doctor has opined in Ex P2 that the age of the victim girl P.W.2 must be below 18 years.Ex P1 is the letter of requisition given by the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur to the Superintendent Government Headquarters Hospital, Perambalur wherein it has been specifically requested to furnish the age certificate and also virgin certificate for the victim girl.P.W.1 has not stated anything in her deposition about the examination conducted by the victim for ascertaining her age.According to P.W.7, the Investigation Officer, P.W.2 was subjected to radiology test by two doctors viz.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan to ascertain her age.Ex P13 is the letter of requisition given by P.W.7 to the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.In the letter of requisition, the Investigation Officer P.W.7 has stated that as per the opinion of P.W.1 the doctor Premasakunthala, the age of the victim girl P.W.2 is below 18 years.But the complainant has stated her age in the complaint as 19 and according to her school certificate her date of birth is 15.4.1986 and on that score, he had requested the Court to subject P.W.2 for a radiology test to ascertain her correct age.But unfortunately in this case, even according to P.W.7, P.W.2 was examined by the Radiologist viz., Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan neither Dr.Saravanan nor Dr.Karthikeyan was examined before the trial Court and the X-rays were taken for the victim girl to show that ossification test was conducted on her and the Radiologist report showing her age are all not produced before the trial Court.So absolutely there is no medical evidence to fix the age of the victim girl at the time of occurrence.To prove ExP14, school record sheet, the author of Ex P14 namely the headmaster of the school which issued Ex P14 was not examined.According to P.W.5, P.W.2 had preferred a complaint with the police at 5.00p.m., on 24.12.2003 itself on the date of occurrence.According to P.W.1, she had informed about the occurrence ie., the offence of rape committed by A1 on her (P.W.2) to one Chinnaponnu.But she has not supported the case of the prosecution.Hence she was treated as a hostile witness by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.According to P.W.2, A1 had raped her for the first time on 10.7.2002 and according to her, A1 used to continue the same on several occasions and that she became pregnant and the accused had advised her to take tablets for aborting the featus.But the trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 313 of IPC on the ground that the charge has not proved against him.But unfortunately in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove through convincing and acceptable medical evidence to show that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was a minor.Even according to P.W.7, the Doctor, radiologists viz., Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan who have examined P.W.2 the victim girl were not examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the age of the victim girl.But still the fact remains that the victim girl P.W.2 has been deceived by A1 in having sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marrying her for nearly one year.It is in evidence that subsequent to the occurrence, P.W2 has been married to another person and she is now settled in life.The trial Court is directed to secure A1 to undergo unexpended portion of the sentence.The set off is ordered under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The fine amount paid by A1 for an offence under Section 376 of IPC and A2 , A3 and A4 are to be refunded to them.

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/3/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Umaria, in Sessions Trial No.97/09, whereby respondent nos. 1 to 5 namely Amritlal, Sitaram Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Vijay Singh Gond and Pushpendra Singh Gond have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the occasion of Dusshera, after the idol of Goddess Durga was consigned to water, respondent nos. 4 and 5 along with co-accused Suresh Singh Gond, Omprakash Gond, Gangaram and many others, assembled near the tent installed for worshipping the Goddess, and started abusing the Villagers and also assaulted Ramvishal Singh and Viranjan Singh with Gurda.Ramvishal Singh escaped form the spot.Next day Viranjan Singh informed Ramvishal that his wife Chironjiabai had been forcibly taken by the miscreants and assaulted leading to her death and her deady body concealed in a sack, was hidden by them in the Jungle.Ramvishal lodged the report to that effect at Police Station Naurozabad on 6/10/06 and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was delivered without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserves to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.Evidence of material witnesses viz. Ramvishal (PW1), Meenabai (PW2), Chintamani (PW3), Viranjan Singh (PW7), Gulab Singh (PW8), Komal Singh (PW11), Madan Singh (PW15), being full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, was not believed by the trial Court.They also denied the prosecution story.Dead body of Chironjiabai was already seized on 6/10/06, therefore, recovery of the same at the instance of the respondents on 8/10/06, was not found credible by the trial Court.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

The relationship between various persons who are concerned in this case is as described below.Nukati was married1 to Radu; Radu died.Later she was kept by Damdia as his wife.Deceased Joharu was her son from Radu.He accompanied her at Damdia's house.A day prior to the incident Nanbu had beaten his wife.He then left but returned next morning.While he was thus returning he found Joharu coming back home with some 'Ma-huwa fruits.The accused stopped him and abused him and ran after him.Joharu tried to escape but the accused struck him with an arrow.Nankya by that time had arrived there and he tried to save him but before this could be done the arrow had been shot.Nukati, mother of the deceased, too had come out and seen the incident.The arrow pierced through the thigh of the deceased through and through.JUDGMENT Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Nanbu was convicted by Sessions Judge, Ratlam (camp Alirajpur) for an offence under Section 302, I, p. Code and sentenced him to transportation for life.This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction.Damdia had a first wife named Nahali.Through Nahali, Damdia had two sons, accused Nanbu and P. W. Nankya.The case of the prosecution is that Joharu had illicit connection with the wife of accused Nanbu.The latter nursed a grievance against Joharu for this.The femoral artery in his thigh was cut and there was profuse bleeding.The deceased died within an hour.First Information Report was lodged by Damdia in which he mentioned Nanbu as the culprit.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination at the hospital at Alirajpur where it was examined by Dr. Joshi who gave his report indicating the nature of the wound and cause of death as described above.At the trial Damdia and Nankya took up the position that it was Nukati who had stated to them that Nanbu had killed Joharu.The only evidence was that of Nukati who supported the prosecution case about the incident.The accused pleaded 'alibi'.He stated that he had been to Thandla at the house of his wife's brother Kala, on Thursday.He stayed there that day.Later he went to Udegarh Hat and after returning therefrom again stayed at Kala's place.On Saturday Damdia and Balsingh called him.The incident is of Friday.The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the statement of Nukati and disbelieved the evidence of alibi.According to him Nukati had named the accused immediately after the incident as is clear from the First Information Report made by his own father Damdia.He therefore held that it was the accused who shot an arrow which pierced through the thigh of Joharu.He relied upon it and made a First Information Report against his own son.These circumstances and the natural reluctance which would be expected from Nankya and Damdia to involve the accused in a murder charge should in my opinion be sufficient to place reliance upon the statement of Nukati.

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

JUDGMENT Sen, J.It is admittedly within the Original jurisdiction of this Court.Ordinarily this case ought to have, therefore, been tried in a court of a Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta on a complaint being filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate.It is stated by the petitioner that after the evidence was gone into in this case by the learned Magistrate it came to his (Petitioner's) notice that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on admission.Heard on I.A.No.17990/2017 under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant Shoyaib Ali @ Chotewala.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that appellant stands convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 354 (a)(1)(1) and 294 of the Indian Penal Code.He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine in the sum of Rs.1,500/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been released on bail under Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 24.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, and the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 07.05.2018 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sp/-

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

The prosecution case as portrayed on the face of written complaint is that on 22.09.2007 at about 4 p.m. the cock and hens of the accused persons allegedly had damaged the thatches of kitchen of one Tahera Khatoon wife of late Samirul Haque, hereinafter called the de-facto complainant, situated at Khemcharan Ganch within Chopra Police Station and when she was driving those hens and cocks therefrom the accused Jarifa Khatoon abused the de-facto complainant using filthy languages which said Samirul Haque raised objection.At the very moment, the accused Amirul Haque assaulted said Samirul on his head and in the right hand with a bamboo stick 3 and the accused Jarifa Khatoon caught hold the testis (Andokosh) of Samirul with pressure.As a result, he fell down senseless on the ground.Thereafter, he was shifted to the Islampur hospital for treatment but the doctor referred him to North Bengal Medical College for better treatment but on the way he died near Ramganj Bus Stand.On the basis of the written complaint, the Police started the Chopra P.S. Case No. 136/07 dated 23.09.2007 against the accused persons as mentioned in the cause title punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC and the same was endorsed to one S.I. of Police namely, Sanat Kr.Ghosh for investigation who after completion of the investigation, submitted Charge-sheet No. 170/07 dated 22.11.2007 under Section 304/34 of IPC against both the accused persons, the appellants herein.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed a trial.After completion of examination of as many as 07 witnesses by the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of incriminating material emerging from the evidence to which they declined to adduce defence witness.Upon hearing the prosecution and defence the Trial Judge convicted appellant Amirul Haque was sentenced to suffer for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) 4 in default to suffer further R.I. for one year, however, the appellant Jarifa Khatoon was sentenced to suffer RI for a term of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default to suffer further R.I. for one year for the charge under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code This is the judgment impugned under appeal preferred by the appellants, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the discrepancies in the evidences laid by the prosecution as there are contradictory evidences between the witnesses which ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge to hold that there was reasonable shadow of doubt.Mr. Ayan Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pointed out that the learned trial Judge failed to consider that the deceased was sent to Islampur hospital but the doctor referred to the deceased for better treatment at North Bengal Medical College at Siliguri and on the way he died.Dr. Sanjay Dey, PW 7 was Medical Officer posted at Islampur SD hospital on 24.9.2007 who held post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found on examination(i) blood stained discharged from mouth and nose; (ii) linear bruise of 2" over right arm and another bruise of 1" over left side 1.5" of orbit of the eyes; (iii) swelling over right parietal region and left fronto temporal region of scalp;(iv) intra cerebral hemorrhage over the said areas; (v) mild scrotal swelling over right testis but no hematoma seen.5 In the opinion of doctor Sanjoy Dey, PW 7 as per P.M. Report, Exhibit- 4 the cause of death was due to subdural and intra cerebral hemorrhage over the area of scalp.Mr. Basu submits that during cross-examination the PW 7 has clearly stated on oath that there was no fracture injury sustained by the deceased anywhere else on the body and the injury of hematoma could be the cause of injury but the injury described in the PM Report might be due to various other caused.But evidence in cross- examination of PW 7 has not been appraised by the learned trial Judge.Mr. Basu has relied on a decision in the case of K.Rmakrishnan Unnithan vs. State of Kerala reported in 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 410 to argue that the question then remains for consideration is whether on the materials on record can it be said that the appellants gave the blow on the deceased with the intention of causing murder of the deceased so as to be convicted for the charge under 304(II)/34 IPC.In the cited decision considering the eye witness account of the three eye witnesses and that of the doctor conducting Autopsy and in considering the nature of injury inflicted on the body of deceased with a part of the intestine protruding out due to stab on the abdomen of the deceased with the knife the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accused did not commit the offence under Section 302 IPC but under part II of Section 304 IPC and 6 accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was set aside and instead convicted him under Section 304(II) IPC and the appellant/ accused period of sentence under gone was treated as the sentenced imposed upon the appellant of the cited decision.In second fold argument Mr. Basu submitted that IO who conducted the investigation was not examined and the doctor of Islampur hospital who referred the patient party to North Bengal hospital for better treatment has also not been examined and no medical report of Islampur hospital was produced.It is also submitted that Safirul PW 2 who deposed on the basis of learning about the incident has learnt that on the relevant date of incident quarrel between Samirul and Amirul had taken place in which Amirul assaulted Samirul with the help of a bamboo stick which was on the issue of hen of Amirul which has damaged the roof of Tahera.It is submitted that the evidence of PW 2 is hearsay but I find that PW 2 has categorically stated that he had appeared between Samirul and Amirul and he separated them when they were fighting.In cross- examination PW 2 stated that when he was proceeding towards local market the dispute had cropped up between Jarifa and Samirul which took place at 4 P.M. as Samirul had caught hold hair of Jarifa who had become unconscious and referred to hospital and other members of the family of Jarifa when Amirul was not there.In cross- examination PW 2 stated that at the time of quarrel several villagers 7 were present and out of them some of villagers tried to rescue Jarifa from the clutch of Samirul and there was some sought of scuffling between villagers and Samirul.The dispute between Samirul and members of family of Jarifa and Amirul took place for couple of hours and he had learnt about the assault on Samirul inflicted by Amirul from one Akbar who happened to be the cousin brother of Amirul.This witness has testified the fact that Amirul accompanied said Samirul to admit him in the hospital, admittedly, Samirul was sick person suffering from various ailments.Mr. Basu submitted that this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.So his version has to be accepted as the independent witness.It is also submitted that Amirul Haque the appellant is the full brother of the deceased Samirul and brother-in-law of the appellant Jarifa Khatoon and fact remains that over petty dispute between them was over the issue of damage of the thatched roof of the deceased, the deceased Samirul was injured by the appellant Amirul by blow on his head with a bamboo stick.I am of the view that though the IO who held investigation and the doctor of Islampur hospital who referred the deceased to North Bengal Medical Collage hospital were not examined, nevertheless, prosecution case cannot be doubted and their non examination is not also prejudicial to the appellants.PW 3 is also an independent witness whose evidence is hearsay and was declared hostile.PW 4 a seizure list witness could not say how the deceased died but he is a witness to seizure of a bamboo stick which was used as a weapon to beat the deceased.PW 5 Mr. Soleman has proved the written complaint scribed by him on the basis of version of Tahera Khatoon which finds corroboration by its maker Tahera.PW 6 father of PW 1 is a witness to the inquest report in respect of the inquest held on the deceased Samirul who has deposed about the injured being shifted to the hospital and death during the treatment.According to him the dead body was brought back to the house from the hospital for burial but Tahera Khatton wife of the deceased did not allow the dead body to be buried.PW 8 is the Inspector of Police who had drawn up the formal FIR on the basis of the complaint and endorsed the investigation to SI Sanat Kr.Ghosh and the latter held investigation but SI Ghosh could not be availed of for his examination but PW 8 has substantially proved the FIR, sketch map with explanatory index of the place of occurrence Exhibit- 6 and the seizure of weapon under Seizure list Exhibit-1, inquest report Exhibit-2, dead-body Challan Exhibit-7 and Exhibit- 8 for the collection of the PM report from the hospital. 9Mr. Basu further refers to a decision in the case of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1050-- to argue that PW 2 did not support the prosecution case as he was not declared hostile as I have discussed above that PW 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence of assault on Samirul by Amirul with the help of a bamboo stick.There was no reason for declaring him hostile by the prosecution.In the cited decision it was held that if the dying declaration passes the test of scrutiny it can be relied on as the sole basis of conviction.Though, there appears exaggeration in the evidence of PW 2 during cross- examination when he deposed that the quarrel was due to holding of locks of hair of Jarifa by Samirul and for that Jarifa fell unconscious and was referred to hospital by her family members in a rickshaw van and that several villagers present at the scene tried to rescue Jarifa from the clutch of Samirul and there was some short of scuffling between the villagers and Samirul.PW 2 learnt about the assault by Amirul upon Samirul from one Akbar who happens to be their cousin brother but substantially his version supports the prosecution case.The facts scenario as reflected from the prosecution case is that in the mids of quarrel incident took place between the two full brothers and the appellants did not flee-away from the spot rather evidence on record in unequivocal term points 11 out that Amirul took his injured brother Samirul to hospital for treatment.This is undoubtedly a mitigating circumstance to hold that the assault on Samirul by Amirul was not with an object to kill his brother Samirul rather on being provoked on certain trifle issue, the appellant Amirul gave blow on the head of Samirul who ultimately succumbed to hematoma injury on his head as he was admittedly a sick person.In regard to appellant Jarifa as I have found injury on the scrotum in the right testis of the deceased which in my opinion was of simple in nature.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

by complainant Manishabai w/o Kalu Mankar at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore (MP) about missing of her minor daughter from 17.03.2018 (05.00 PM).She wanted to marry with the applicant, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.06.18 11:03:13 +05'30'

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

At that time, at about 1 'O' Clock in M the afternoon various persons numbering more than 200 gathered of together along with Lathis/Dandas in their hand and violated the order passed under section 144 of Cr.P.C. by raising slogans and adopted rt recourse to violence.On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been ou implicated in the present case.C The applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.rt C.c.as per rules.ou C (G.S. AHLUWALIA) h V. JUDGE ig Arun* H Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.06.12 14:16:46 +05'30'C. No.21020/2018 arising out of the same crime number.sh Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for e ad grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 81/2018 registered in Pr relation to the offences punishable u/S. 188, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.a As per prosecution, short facts of the case are that the District hy Magistrate, District Bhind vide order dated 02/04/2018 has imposed ad section 144 of Cr.P.C. in that area.On 03/04/2018, the SDM, Gohad along with his team were on duty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.of A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

allowed debajyoti CRM No.8792 of 2018 In re : Sri Dilip Yadav & Ors...... Petitioners.Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Ms. Somsuvra Mukherjee ..... For the Petitioners.Mr. Iqbal Kabir ..... For the State.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

The prosecution case is as follows:There are three deceased in this case and some injured witnesses.All of them belonged to Village Narasapuram in Anantapur District.The deceased Hanumanthappa became the Vice-President of Local Panchayat and he had been residing with his family in Kottam erected by him in his garden.One Rajasekharareddy was the successful bidder for sale of arrack.A3 and some other accused were desirous of obtaining the subcontract.Thathanna, Gopal and Gopalappa, (original accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7) are the appellants.They along with 27 others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 324, I.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted all of them.The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the High Court after re-appreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses and subjecting the same to a close scrutiny confirmed the acquittal of the other accused but convicted the present appellants only under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment.There was bitter enmity between the two groups.There was a quarrel.In the course of the said quarrel A3 declared that if Hanumanthappa returned to the village he would be killed.On the following day, namely, 13-10-78 he came to know that there was illicit distillation detrimental to the contract held by Hanumanthappa.The deceased and PW 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 gathered together and proceeded to Beluguppa hills where the illicit distillation was said to be going on.In the morning of 13-10-78 PW 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 along with three deceased got up and were proceeding to the fields.PW 1 and 4 also joined them.While so, accused 1 to 8 came opposite to them raising cries.When the deceased, PW 1, 4, 7 and 8 reached the field they were chased and were attacked by the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons like axes and sticks.In the course of the same occurrence the other two deceased persons, namely, Hanumantharayudu and Hanumanthudu were also done to death.PW 3, 8 and 9 also received injuries.PW 15 registered the crime and along with the Constables reached the scene of occurrence in the night.The Inspector of Police came into the scene later as he was away to Anantapur in connection with the 'Bandobast Duty' of the Village.The injured were taken to the Hospital and they were treated and the three dead bodies were also sent for post-mortem.The doctor found several incised injuries on all the three dead bodies.PWs3, 8 and 9 were medically treated and the doctor who examined them found several lacerated wounds and contusions which could have been caused by blunt weapons.The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge was framed.The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9, the injured witnesses and also on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 who witnessed the occurrence.For the purpose of the present appeal it may not be necessary to consider the evidence of other witnesses.The Trial Court acquitted all the accused holding that the eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses have given different versions and to a large extent they differed with the version given in the First Information Report and to some extent the medical evidence also does not support the testimony regarding the alleged crime.In the appeal against the order of acquittal the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 8 in detail.In view of the discrepancies and the omissions, the High Court did not find it safe to convict any of the accused for inflicting injuries on PWs 3, 8 and 9 themselves.While considering the same aspect the High Court has taken into consideration the medical evidence and the nature of the weapons and the injuries.The High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the acquitted accused.It may be mentioned at this stage that the High Court, however, taking into consideration the broad circumstances, held that it was a free fight and in that view the High Court was not prepared to hold that there was an unlawful assembly but it proceeded to consider the case of individual accused on the basis of the part played by them.The High Court in the first instance has taken the evidence of PW 3, the injured witness into consideration.The High Court also held that PW 2 is an independent witness.Similarly the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 8, 9 and other two injured witnesses.After considering the evidence of PW 3 in the light of the earlier statement, the medical evidence and with reference to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, the High Court felt that the part played by A3 alone could be accepted in respect of the attack on the first deceased.Likewise the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9 who spoke about the attack on the 3rd deceased and there again after a close scrutiny held that the parts played by A4 and 7 could be accepted in view of the fact that the other eye-witnesses also corroborated their evidence.In that view of the matter the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to other accused but held that A4 and 7 should be held liable for their individual acts in respect of the attack on the 3rd deceased.The High Court, however, took the view that since the injuries inflicted by these three accused are only of grievous nature and that those injuries were not responsible for the death of the deceased persons they should be convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. only.The evidence of A3, 8 and 9 though is not accepted in respect of their own assailants but the fact that the occurrence has taken place is accepted and that in respect of these appellants the other witnesses have also consistently spoken regarding the parts played by the three appellants.The nature of the injuries inflicted by these three accused to that extent is corroborated by medical evidence and also spoken to by the other eye-witnesses consistently and the same has been accepted.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

ORDER R. Balasubramanian, J.The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No. 13397 of 1982 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras.He was tried in the said case for offences Under Sections 304(A), 337 I.P.C. on five counts and Section 116, 89(A) and (B) read with Section 118(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.The case of the prosecution is that on 8.9.1982, he drove a lorry bearing registration No. AAW 2266 in a rash and negligent manner in a road called C.P. Road, Madras.Alliammal, Kothandan, Shanthi, Rajalakshmi and Vijaya sustained injuries.Those injured witnesses had been examined as P.Ws.Not content with causing the accident as stated above, the revision petitioner did not even bother to give any first-aid to the injured but curiously ran away from the place of occurrence.On the complaint lodged with the police, the Investigating Agency, after completing all the formalities regarding investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused petitioner as stated above.P.Ws. 1 and 3 speak about the identity of the person who drove the vehicle.The Motor Vehicles Inspector who was examined as P.W.2, inspected the vehicle and gave a report that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle.Since the vehicle was abandoned in the place of occurrence itself, the Investigating Officer was able to trace P.W.5 who is running an office in the name of "Andhra Transport" which is a lorry booking office.On enquiry, the said P.W.5 caught hold of the accused and surrendered him to the police.It is his evidence before court that vehicles which enter the Tamil Nadu from Andhra Pradesh could be looked after at his transport office and the drivers hailing from Andhra Pradesh, after a long journey would be taking rest in the lorry shed.At that time, the accused used to drive those lorries for hire.Though the accursed contended before the trial court that he was not the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, yet the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5 who surrendered the accused to the police, clinchingly establishes that it was the accused who drove the vehicle and there cannot be any doubt about it.The trial court, after going through the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as that of the Motor Vehicles Inspector came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged against him and thus convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year for offence Under Section 304(A) I.P.C. three months R.I. for offence Under Section 337 I.P.C. (on five counts) and a fine of Rs. 50 for each of the offences Under Sections 89(A) and (B) read with Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act.The appellate Judge, after going through the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment of learned trial Judge.Mr.S. Baskaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, apart from contending that the evidence on record do not implicate the accused with the guilt, also raised a legal plea that the appellate Judge had erred in hearing the appeal in the absence of the accused and his counsel and that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in the manner in which he has done.

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

Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 1 of 13The factual matrix emerging from the record is that on 21.04.1997, on receipt of DD No.17A, SI Sanwar Mal along with Ct.Subash Chand reached at House No.Q-6/105, Mangol Puri where a dead body of deceased Mithlesh was found lying at a takhat.There were ligature marks on the front side and left hand side of the neck of the deceased.It was revealed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging.One saree was produced by appellant Malti which was seized.On 22.04.1997, SDM got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased.On 23.04.1997, statements of Jawahar Lal and Yogesh Kumar, father and brother of the deceased respectively were recorded.Thereafter, the SDM had ordered for registration of FIR.In the marriage, he gave dowry articles though no dowry was settled.After 2/4 months of marriage, his daughter fell ill and came to his house.She told that her in-laws used to tell her that she had brought insufficient dowry and used to demand scooter or motorcycle.She also told that accused Rajinder Kumar Kohli was having illicit relations with her Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 2 of 13 mother-in-law; he used to reside there; they used to take liquor; eat meat and appellant Sham Sunder also used to take liquor.After taking liquor, appellant Sham Sunder used to beat her and abuse her and say that motorcycle was not given in the dowry.He used to tell the deceased to bring scooter or cash in lieu thereof.Deceased came to the house of the complainant; started weeping and asked him to pay the cash or scooter else her husband, mother- in-law and Rajinder Kumar Kohli would beat her.The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to his daughter.After two months, his daughter called him again and stated that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her for dowry and demanded cash.In July 1996, his daughter was pregnant but she was beaten up for demand of dowry which led to a miscarriage.The deceased used to send letters to the complainant demanding money; complaining against her mother-in-law, husband, Malti and Kanhiya Lal that they used to give beatings to her.Thereafter, accused persons and others came to the house of the complainant and took the deceased.In the said panchayat, they promised not to demand dowry and not to beat the deceased.Thereafter also, the complainant received letters from the deceased that she was being harassed on account of dowry and the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- in instalments.In February 1997, appellant Sham Sunder came to his house and demanded Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 3 of 13 Rs.40,000/- for running a factory and after mortgaging his agricultural land, the complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to him.On 21.04.1997, the complainant received a call that his daughter Mithlesh had expired.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 2 of 13Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 3 of 13During investigation, the police seized the letters allegedly written by the deceased.Mahesh, PW11 Dr.K.K. Goel, PW12 HC Naresh Kumar, PW13 Ct.Subash and PW14 SI Sanwar Mal.The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.The grounds challenging the judgment of conviction is that Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 4 of 13 there is no iota of evidence against the appellants to substantiate the charge against them.During the matrimonial life, the deceased had been living with appellant Shyam Sunder and had been visiting her parental home but neither she nor any of her family member ever make any complaint regarding any demand of dowry or harassment by the appellants.No independent witness from the locality of the house of the appellants or from the house of the deceased had been produced by the prosecution.He was working in a factory at 395, Gali No.6, Tuglakabad Extn.as a tailor.He used to visit the deceased.Mithlesh told him that accused Satyawati had relations with one Rajinder as husband and wife; they both used to drink liquor together and Rajinder used to sleep with Satyawati; PW1 produced the letters and photographs handed over to him by Mithlesh and proved the same as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW2 Yogesh Kumar, brother of the deceased had deposed that on 26.02.1995, his sister Mithlesh was married to accused Sham Sunder.Whenever his sister used to come to their house, she used to tell that her mother in law Satyawati was living with Rajinder Kohli and used to take liquor with him.Sham Sunder also used to take liquor with them.His sister was beaten by them.He further deposed that all the accused persons used to demand motor cycle and cash and used to harass his sister.His father agreed to pay money in instalments of Rs.2,000/- or Rs.3,000/-.Once, his father gave Rs.15,000/- to accused Sham Sunder to purchase motor cycle.His sister used to write letters to them.In Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 6 of 13 the year 1996, his sister became pregnant and she was beaten and the doctor informed that the child had died inside her womb.In the month of December 1996, 10-12 persons including the accused persons came from Mangol Puri and said that the sister of PW2 would be kept properly and would not be harassed.After one/two months, they received a letter from Mithlesh and also by telephone, she informed that she was being harassed and beaten and money was being demanded.In February/March 1997, accused Sham Sunder came to their house and demanded Rs.40,000/- for running a factory.His father after mortgaging agricultural land gave Rs.20,000/- to accused Sham Sunder.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 6 of 1314. PW4 (PW9) Mohan Singh was the neighbour of the appellants.In his deposition, he had deposed that on 20.04.1997 when he was going to attend the call of nature and was passing from the house of the appellants, he heard Rajinder Singh and Satyawati saying to Mithlesh that she was asked to bring Rs.40,000/- and why she had brought Rs.20,000/-.She was asked to bring Rs.20,000/- more else she would be killed.He deposed that he gave Crl.P.S.TEJI, JAggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2001 convicting the appellants, namely, Smt.Satywwati, Shyam Sunder, Kanhiya Lal, Subhash Chand and Smt.Malti finding them guilty under Sections 304B and 498A/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 31.05.2001 vide which the appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC and also to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they were ordered to further undergo Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 1 of 13 simple imprisonment for one month, the present appeal has been preferred.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.5. Charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.The prosecution had examined as many as fourteen witnesses, namely, PW1 Bhagwan Singh, PW2 Yogesh Kumar, PW3 Rajinder Kumar, PW4 Mohan Singh (also PW9), PW5 Jahwar Singh, PW6 Ramesh, PW7 HC Ram Chander, PW8 Vinay Bhushan, PW10 Ct.The letters produced on record by the prosecution allegedly written by the deceased do not suggest any demand of dowry.It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to say that there was demand of dowry or that the deceased was ever harassed or beaten by any of the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 4 of 13Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State are that the appellants have been rightly held guilty under Sections 498A/304B IPC by the trial court.The father as well as other relatives of the deceased have duly supported the case of prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by the appellants.There is sufficient evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty for the offences of harassment on Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 5 of 13 account of demand of dowry and of dowry death.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 5 of 13Arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State were heard.In his testimony, PW1 Bhagwan Singh had deposed that the deceased was his real brother's daughter.A. No.437/2001 Page 7 of 13 Rs.2,000/- to his daughter on three occasions and Rs.4,000/- on two occasions and Rs.15,000/- on one occasion.In February 1997, accused Sham Sunder came to his house and demanded Rs.40,000/-.This witness gave Rs.20,000/- to accused Sham Sunder after mortgaging his land.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 7 of 13From the testimony of PW1 to PW5, it is amply clear that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or demand of dowry.In their testimony, these witnesses have deposed that after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Sham Sunder, she was harassed and beaten up by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.They have stated that the appellants used to demand motorcycle or cash in lieu thereof from the deceased and for the same, they used to harass her and also gave beatings to her.It is also stated by the witnesses that Jawahar Singh, father of the deceased gave Rs.2,000/- or Rs.3,000/- to the deceased on several occasions.It is also stated by the witnesses and specifically by PW5 Jawahar Singh that PW5 gave Rs.20,000/- to the appellant Sham Sunder after selling his agricultural land.Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, there is enough evidence on record from which it has been established that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.Therefore, the conviction of Crl.It was further observed that before an accused is found guilty for commission of an offence, the Court must arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof have been established.It was held that statement of a witness for the said purpose must be read in its entirety.It is not necessary for a witness to make a statement in consonance with the wording of the section of a statute.What is needed is to find out whether the evidences brought on record satisfy the ingredients thereof.Necessary ingredients of dowry death as provided under Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 9 of 13 Section 304B of IPC are :Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 9 of 13(i)Deceased was the subject matter of cruelty on account of dowry and culminates into guilt of accused under Section 498A IPC;(ii)The death should have taken place due to bodily injuries other than normal circumstances; and(iii)Such death was the subject matter of cruelty soon before death.As far as death of the deceased Mithlesh is concerned, it is not in dispute that she died due to hanging which shows that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances and was due to the bodily injuries which fulfil the first ingredient for the commission of offence under Section 304B IPC.The second ingredient that death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage with the appellant is established from the evidence, as marriage had taken place on 26.02.1995 and her death took place on 21.04.1997 i.e. within three years of her marriage.The next and the most important ingredient required to be proved from the evidence is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband and that was done soon before death.The prosecution has produced PW1 to PW5 to prove these ingredients.PW1 happened to be uncle of the deceased, Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 10 of 13 PW2 & PW3 happened to be brothers of the deceased, PW4 happened to be neighbour of the appellants and PW5 happened to be father of the deceased.The detailed discussion of their testimony has already been made.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 10 of 13Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 12 of 13The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 09, 2017 dd Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 13 of 13Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 13 of 13

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

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.239 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 239 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 505(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 65, 66(A), 67 Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Due to political enmity, the defacto complainant has lodged a false complaint as agaisnt the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.25.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.The Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 13334 of 2019 25.09.2019 7/7http://www.judis.nic.in

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

In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has agreed to pay to the second respondent/Ram Sewak, a sum of Rs. Rs.20,000/-.However, after due consideration, and further examination of the matter by this Court, the petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.50,000/- instead, to the second respondent.Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is stated to have been received by Shri Ram Sewak earlier.This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.50/2013 dated 23rd February, 2013 registered under Section 304 A IPC at Police Station Chhawla and all emanating proceedings therefrom filed at the instance of the complainant/Ram Sewak, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition, against Ramanand, who is the owner of the plot, where the infant daughter aged about 5 years, of the second respondent/Ram Sewak, is stated to have drowned in a water tank located on the said property.Issue notice to the respondents.Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice.Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed and the case is pending trial.CRL.M.C. 2959/2014 Page 1 of 6Parties are stated to have compromised the matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21st April, 2014, which is also annexed to this petition.CRL.M.C. 2959/2014 Page 5 of 6FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and the same deserve to be quashed.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.50/2013 under Sections 304A IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

2- Prosecution case in short is that on 01/12/2005 around 4-5 am in the morning at Village Hinotiya Gird, in the house of Mullo Bai, her son Bal Kishan s/o Bhagwan Singh was sleeping in the cattle shed.At that time, appellants/ accused while sharing common object to murder Bhagwan Singh, caused murder of Bal Kishan.Undisputed facts of the case are that mother of the deceased Bal Kishan i.e. Mullo Bai (PW-8) was living in the house alongwith her family members which is situate at agriculture field at Village Hinotiya Gird.Pahalwan Singh (PW-2), Kamal Singh (PW-3), Nathan Singh (PW-4) and Diman Singh (PW-10) were acquainted with the accused persons.Husband of Mullo Bai -Bhagwan Singh and her son Bal Kishan went to Gwalior High Court to attend a date of a case and on the date of incident, her daughters-in-law-Kamla and Sarda, her grand son and daughter, namely Rameshwar and Gaytri, brother-in-law of Mullo Bai -Diman Singh and son-in-law -Prakash were in the house.Around 3-4 am in the morning, barking of dogs prompted Mullo Bai to wake up and in the light of torch, she saw that in the cattle shed, accused Bal Kishan wielding an axe and other accused appellants No.2 to 5 wielding sticks (Lathis) in their hands were standing and thereafter accused Bal Kishan entered into cattle shed and with intention to kill her son Bal Kishan gave a blow of axe and thereafter they ran away from the spot.3- After incident, Mullo Bai went to the cattle shed and found a deep wound over the neck of her son Bal Kishan oozing blood and immediately then and there only Bal Kishan died on the spot.On shouting of Mullo Bai, family members got up, to whom Mullo Bai narrated the incident.Village Chowkidar -Kamal Singh (PW-3) informed the Police Station Bajarang Garh about the incident around 8:40 am vide Ex.P- 42 and responding to the same, Investigating Officer -Mahesh Sharma (PW-12) went to the place of incident.Safina Form Ex.P-1 was issued.Around 9:45 am 3 Cr.Injuries mentioned in the postmortem report reads as under:-As per the testimony of Mullo Bai (PW-8) she categorically submitted that she was sleeping in the area adjacent to cattle shed and got up by the sound of barking of the dog (Shekhu) and in the torch light she saw appellant No.1- Bal Kishan wielding axe and other appellants with sticks in their hands and they killed her son Bal Kishan s/o Bhagwan Singh.In her deposition, she referred that the lamp was being lit in the cattle shed at the time of incident and therefore, she saw the assailants.(Pronounced on 19th day of April, 2018) Per Justice Anand Pathak, Appellants -accused have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17/07/2006 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (fast track), Guna in S.T.No.18/2006, whereby appellant No.1 -Balkishan has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof one year additional RI and further convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced of 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Appellants No.2 to 5 have been convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year RI each with fine of Rs.500/- each and further convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof one year additional RI.2 Cr.A.No.574/2006 Mullo Bai gave information which was recorded as Dehati Nalshi vide Ex.P-37 on which marg report was registered vide Ex.P-36 and case was registered vide Crime No.180/2005 under Sections 147 and 302 of IPC at Police Station Bajarang Garh vide Ex.At the time of inspection, Senior Scientific Officer S.P. Sharma (PW-5) alongwith Mahesh Sharma (PW-3 Cr.12) visited the spot and prepared a report (Ex.P-20) and spot map Ex.P-21 was also prepared.4- From the spot, part of blood stained mattress and plain pieces of mattress were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P- 19 and appellants/ accused were arrested on 05/12/2005 (vide arrest memo Ex.P-4 to P-8) thereafter, on their information, axe and sticks were seized.Meanwhile, postmortem over the body of the deceased Bal Kishan was conducted and postmortem report vide Ex.P-35 was prepared by Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-7).Statements of witnesses Mahendra, Kamla, Gaytri, Kamal Singh (PW-3), Diman Singh (PW-10) were recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302, 450 r/w Section 149 of IPC was filed.Accused abjured their guilt therefore, trial was conducted.5- Appellants/ accused took the defence of false implication.Their main defence was that due to enmity they have been falsely implicated.Evidence was led by the prosecution in which total 12 witnesses were examined wherein Mullo Bai (PW-8) was the sole eye witness and other witnesses were in support of the prosecution out of which Ratan Singh (PW-1), Pahalwan Singh (PW-2) did not support the story of prosecution therefore, they were declared as hostile by the prosecution.In support of defence, two witnesses were examined and they tried to bring home the theory of alibi in respect of accused/appellant No.1-Bal Kishan.6- After appreciating the evidence led by the parties and considering the documents, the trial Court convicted the 4 Cr.7- Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants raised the ground about the evidence led by the prosecution for implicating the appellants.Mullo Bai (PW-8) was the sole eye witness and she narrated the course of events.Only one injury of axe was found on the body of the deceased and no overt act of appellants No.2 to 5 was referred by the eye witnesses.In para 28 of her deposition, she submitted that she had seen the incident as well as accused persons through torch light which is not practically possible.There is material contradiction in her statements made before the police authorities under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as in the Court.She had not seen the incident because the place where she was sleeping was far off from the place of incident therefore, it was not possible that she could have seen the incident.He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Govindaraju alias Govinda Vs.State by Sriramapuram Police Station and Another, (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 533 as well as AIR 1957 SC 614, Chinniah Servai Vs.The State of Madras.4 Cr.8- Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the testimony of the sole eye witness is to be seen with doubt and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants.It is further submitted that Kamal Singh (PW-3) village Chowkidar around 8:15 am informed the Police Station Bajarang Garh about the incident and vide entry No.946 in Rojnamcha Ex.P-42, the incident was jotted down.Therefore, it amounts to registration of FIR and subsequent documentation in the form of Dehati Nalshi and the marg intimation report were like statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and cannot be taken into account and the statements of the witnesses were not under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in fact the statements were under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. He submits that Mullo Bai (PW-8) signed the Dehati Nalshi and therefore, it was hit by the provisions of Section 162 5 Cr.A.No.574/2006 of Cr.P.C. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.While relying upon the testimony of Kamal Singh (PW-3), it is submitted that Kamal Singh did not intimate the police authorities about the assailants who murdered the deceased Bal Kishan.This material omission smacks doubt over the story of the prosecution.5 Cr.9- Similarly, non-examination of Mahendra Singh and Kashi proved fatal for the case of prosecution because Mahendra Singh was the person who informed Kamal Singh about the incident and Kashi visited the spot immediately after the incident therefore, they were material witnesses and their omission rendered the prosecution case a weak semblance of effective prosecution.While referring the application for autopsy/ postmortem of the corpse (Ex.P-35), no information has been detailed out regarding cause of death (and the names of probable accused) and it also prejudicially affects the case of the prosecution.While referring testimony of Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-7) who had conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased, learned counsel submits that unless the Doctor refers that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, it could not have been presumed that the death was homicidal in nature.He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh and Others Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 SCC (Cri.) 571 as well as Parsuram Pandey and Others Vs.10- It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that common object of the other co-accused has not been established by the prosecution.In absence of any cogent material to advance theory of common object viz. appellants No.2 to 5, liability under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC is not attracted.He referred AIR 2010 SC 3580, Sikandar Singh and Others Vs.State of Bihar and AIR 1989 SC 754, Lalji and Others Vs.6 Cr.12- Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment and material available on record."xnZu ij nkfguh rjQ ,d vkMk dVk gqvk ?kko Fkk] tks dku ds yksc ds uhps Fkk] rFkk esUMhcy ls ysdj LvwuksZesLVkbM Hkkx rd Fkk] vkdkj 9x4 lseh 6 lseh xgjkbZ rd FkkA nkfguh dku dk ykso dVk Fkk rFkk 'kjhj ds lkFk ugh ik;k x;k FkkA "14- From perusal of the postmortem report and testimony of expert witness Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-7), no iota 7 Cr.She also submits in categorical terms that her family and appellants' family were sharing animosity and therefore, she could easily recognize them and could recognize their voice.Appellants belong to one family and 2-3 days prior to the date of incident, Bal Kishan, Santosh and Parvat Singh were roaming around the house with an axe in their hands although Mullo Bai had not referred the factum of lamp and torch light in marg intimation report (Ex.P-36) and Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P-37) but in her statements which was taken by the Investigating Officer on the same day of incident i.e. 01/12/2005 vide Ex.D- 1, she referred the factum of torch light.She categorically stated in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that she could recognize the appellants because of torch light and their voice.Being the residents of same vicinity and with shared animosity, it was much possible that she could have recognized the assailants/ appellants immediately.16- So far as the question of placement of Mullo Bai (PW-8) vis a vis the place of incident is concerned, the same is clarified by the Investigating Officer -Mahesh Sharma (PW-12).8 Cr.When a specific question was asked to him by the Court about the visibility of place of incident from the place where Mullo Bai was sleeping, Investigating Officer categorically replied that the spot of incident is clearly visible from the place where Mullo Bai was sleeping at the time of incident.This aspect is further corroborated by the spot map prepared by Senior Scientific Officer, S.P. Sharma vide Ex.Investigating Officer also prepared a spot map vide Ex.P-38 and the said spot map is a bit different than the spot map prepared by the Patwari Manish Shrivastava (PW-9) vide Ex.The trial Court rightly considered the said aspect while dealing with the question and rightly relied upon the spot map prepared by the Senior Scientific Officer vide Ex.Therefore, it was established that visibility was there for Mullo Bai to see the incident.17- One important aspect of the case in hand is that the eye witness Mullo Bai (PW-8) through Dehati Nalsi (Ex.37) and vide police statement Ex.D-1, referred the name of all the accused persons and through out her statement, she referred the name of all the accused persons therefore, the credibility of eye witness cannot be treated as shaken to the extent of disbelief.Appellants on the basis of some contradictions between her submissions and Dehati Nalshi report and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., tried to contend that this witness does not deserve to be believed because of contradictory nature of statements but the contradiction is not to the extent of discarding the statement of this witness.It is the general human response that on reiteration of narration of facts, the fact which was earlier lost in the narration got included subsequently.Mullo Bai (PW-8) is a rustic villager aged about 55 years therefore, those contradictions are not such grave in nature rendering the evidence discarded out rightly.Even Ratan Singh (PW-1) who 9 Cr.A.No.574/2006 did not support the story of the prosecution and declared hostile, but in his examination-in-chief, he referred the fact about mentioning of names of appellants by Mullo Bai (PW-8) to him.This aspect is material piece of evidence, corroborates the narration of events by Mullo Bai.9 Cr.18- Another ground of defence was non-appearance of Mahendra Singh, Kashi in the witness box but since Mahendra Singh and Kashi both were not eye witnesses of the incident and reached at the spot, after the incident therefore, their non- examination does not have material bearing in the case.Village Chowkidar-Kamal Singh (PW-3) although referred the incident on the basis of information given by Mahendra Singh that somebody in the night killed Bal Kishan but Kamal Singh did not visit the spot and met Mullo Bai after the incident and before intimating the police about the incident.When Kamal Singh did not meet Mullo Bai before intimating the police about the incident then it cannot be inferred that Mullo Bai did not refer the name of accused to Kamal Singh.19- Another ground of defence in respect of plea of alibi taken in respect of accused Bal Kishan does not hold ground due to the fact that Neelam Singh (DW-1) has made statements supporting the case of appellant No.1-Bal Kishan that Bal Kishan was engaged by him to perform agriculture work over his field in commissioning of bore well at his agriculture field but any documentary receipt/ agreement etc., have not been produced in support of the story therefore, the plea of alibi is not established by the defence in support of appellant No.1-Bal Kishan.According to him, Police arrested Bal Kishan on 01/10/2005 whereas the Police caught hold of Bal Kishan on 05/12/2005 which is clear from deposition of Investigating Officer Mahesh Sharma (PW-12).Therefore, said witness was not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.20- The judgments relied upon by the appellants move in different factual realm.The fact situation of the present case gives sufficient differentiation vis a vis those judgments.Here 10 Cr.In her initial Dehati Nalshi report, marg report, police statement and deposition she maintained the course of incident as it was and since beginning she referred the names of appellants as perpetrator of the incident who caused death of her son.Her location was proximate enough to infer about her credibility.10 Cr.21- The Sessions Judge has critically examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses in a comprehensive manner and rightly reached a conclusion that the evidence of eye witness is worth credence.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

That one written complaint was lodged by the Block Development Officer, Patashpur-II Block on 24-12-2002 with the Officer-in-Charge of Patashpur Police Station, District - Purba Medinipur to the effect that the Headmaster of Baharda Jagannath Primary School, i.e., the appellant before this court had misappropriated the government money given to him for construction of the court building.On receipt of the F.I.R., Patashpur P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 dated 04.01.2003 was registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.It was the prosecution case that Patashpur II Panchayet Samity sanctioned Rs.60,000/-for construction of school building of Baharda Primary School and sent a letter to the Headmaster and Pradhan of Khar Gram Panchayet for opening a joint account and the joint account bearing no.3032 was accordingly opened with the Mallabhum Gramin Bank, Kharaigar Branch by the said Headmaster (the appellant) and Ranjit Mondal, Pradhan of Khar Gram Panchayet who were the joint operators of the said account.It was further mentioned in the F.I.R. that at first Rs.30,000/- was sanctioned and the appellant vide cheque no.707109 dated 11-02-1997 deposited that cheque dated 11-02-1997 through voucher no. 203 in that account no. 3032 and in that account Rs.29,890/- was credited after deducting the collection charge.As per the statement of accounts of the bank marked as Ext. 4, out of that amount Rs.29,850/- was withdrawn on the same day, i.e. on 09-04-1997 on which date the same was credited to the bank after clearing.This appeal has been directed as against the judgement and order of conviction dated 24-04-2013 and 25-04-2013 as passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, within the district of Purba Medinipur, in Special Trial No. 31 of 2007 in which learned trial court was pleased to convict this accused appellant in respect of the charge punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.It is also the prosecution's case that the present appellant thereafter on 13-05- 2002 deposited Rs.16,000/- in that joint account maintained for that building purpose and subsequently on 28-05-2010 he again withdrew Rs.10,000/-.As per the complaint the appellant was asked to submit the adjustment bill for Rs.30,000/- through letter but the said letter returned back with intimation that he was out of station.The investigation was taken up by P.W.3, one S.I. Debidas Mukherjee, of Patashpur Police Station and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, held raid to apprehend the accused, sent the requisition to the Sub-Inspector of Schools of Protaplighi, South Circle, Patashpur and also to the B.D.O. - II for supplying the documents.The accused appellant could be apprehended only on 07-11- 2005 and he was produced at first before the S.D.E.M., Egra of the same District and he was directed to be produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur in Special Case No. 10/03 of the Special Judge, Medinipur (undivided).The case was transferred to the 3rd Special Court of the said District.Summon was ordered to be issued.Accused was produced on 14-11-2005 in custody.After the new district was created the case record was transferred to the District Judge, Purba Medinipur as per notification no. 10157/R-Ins.Dated 20-12-2003 and ultimately it came to the present learned trial court.The trial started.The charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable 409 of the Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Before the trial court in all four witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Some documents were marked as exhibits.The defence did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence and the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.Thereafter before the learned Trial Court as many as four witnesses were examined out of eight charge-sheeted witness.It may be mentioned that Charge-sheeted witness 5 died during the course of trial.The witnesses examined by the prosecution are Ranjan Kr.Pal (PWI) who at that point of time was allegedly one clerk of the BDO office.On behalf of the prosecution several documents were marked as exhibits but I have failed to gather how Exhibit Nos. 3 & 5 were marked as exhibits.As per exhibit list exhibit 1/3 is the written complaint.It may be mentioned that the said Block Development Officer who lodged complaint was not examined.This witness identified the accused-appellant on block.He also admitted that Rs.10,000/- was also withdrawn from that account but at the same time claimed that it was his personal money.He was asked vide question no.13 as to whether Rs.29,890/- was deposited vide outstation cheque on 09.07.1987 and on that date the said amount was withdrawn.This witness answered to this question that "By deductions the amount of commission cash money was withdrawn".The Trial Court sentenced the convict to suffer RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer further SI for one month.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

For the Appellant/State : Ms. Savita Choudhary, Panel Lawyer For the Respondent : Ms. Kiran Mehta, Advocate---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing : 10.05.2013 Date of judgment : 19.06.2013 (J U D G M E N T) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16/06/1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore in Criminal Trial No. 844/1996, whereby, respondent - accused Mukesh was acquitted from the charges of Section 354, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, this appeal under Section 378 (iii)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State.2. Prosecution case which lead to the trial as essential as follows:On dated 05/6/1995 at about 5 PM prosecutrix (PW-1) was guarding lSoa;k to dry on Otla of the house of accused Mukesh with Preeti (PW-4) and Bulbul.Preeti left the place to drink water, at that time, accused Mukesh came over there and intended Bulbul to go away.Thereafter, accused used criminal force on prosecutrix intending to outrage her modesty by forcefully fingering in her private part.At about 06:00 p.m. when Prosecutrix (PW-1) came to house, was weeping, by the night she did not have the dinner.On next morning at about 09:00 a.m. on enquiring by mother Amri bai (PW-2), she narrated all the facts and complained pain in private part.She also narrated this fact that accused threatened him, if she will tell this incident to anybody, he will harm her.Amri bai (PW-2) after informing the matter to husband Ram Narayan, lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Kotwali, Sehore.The Investigating Officer Shri Sukhram Choudhary, (PW-5) ASI went to the spot, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and managed to send prosecutrix for medical checkup.At District Hospital, Sehore Dr. Neera Shrivastava (PW-3) examined her.After required investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused.Learned trial Court framed charges as mentioned in para 01 against accused, who abjured his guilt, therefore, he was put to trial.In order to establish guilt of accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses, the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother Amribai (PW-2), Preeti (PW-4), Dr. Neera Shrivastava (PW-3) and Investigating Officer Shri Sukhram Choudhary (PW-5) and also exhibited documents.The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in which, he denied all the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and falsely implication due to old enmity.Contentions of the learned counsel for the State is that learned trial Court committed an error while relying upon the facts that there was old enmity between families of complainant and respondent.It is further contended that the learned trial Court also committed an error that FIR was delayed, instead of that there was sufficient reasons to explain the delay as the prosecutrix was aged about 8 - 9 years old and she was under forceful stage.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.The case in hand, except the prosecutrix (PW-1), others witnesses are hearsay witnesses.As per the statement of Preeti (PW-4), the prosecutrix did not tell him about the incident directly, her source of information was a third person i.e. her sister Seema.It is pertinent to mention here that oath were not administered to the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Preeti (PW-4) looking to their age 4 and 10 years respectively.The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated all the facts as mentioned above, therefore, need not to repeat again.During cross- examination she admitted enmity between her father and respondent family, though, in answer to the question asked by learned trial Court, she corrected herself saying that this enmity is after this incident.But, Preeti (PW-4) also admitted enmity between two families.This admission of prosecutrix (PW-1) is also very much damaging for the prosecution that whatever her mother father has narrated her, she is stating in the Court.Prosecutrix (PW-1) categorically stated that due to incident blood was oozing out, so she went to her aunt (kaki), who applied oil on her private part.Amribai (PW-2) admitted that when weeping prosecutrix came to the home and explained the incident, then she also applied powder on her private part.Both the admissions proved that whole incident was in the knowledge of Amribai (PW-2) and kaki, other relative of prosecutrix, on the same day in the evening itself after the incident.Amribai (PW-2) during cross-examination admitted that prosecutrix narrated her all the facts regarding the incident by the evening of the same day.She further admitted that at about 07:00 p.m. on same day, she narrated all the facts to her father also.As per the statement of Preeti (PW-4) this fact is also established that after the incident, the prosecutrix visited her house and narrated whole incident to her sister Seema.She further stated that Seema narrated this fact to the prosecutrix's sister Archana and her mother i.e. aunt (kaki) of prosecutrix.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that not only to Seema, sister of Preeti (PW-4) and her mother, kaki, the prosecutrix narrated all the facts on the date of incident at evening but also to her mother Amribai (PW-2) and father.It means, that when Amribai (PW-2) saying that in the next morning prosecutrix narrated about the incident is totally contradictory, hence doubtful.Inspite of above facts, as per the First Information Report Ex.P/1, the incident took place on 05.06.1996 in between 5 - 6 pm, the report was lodged on the next day on 06.06.1996 at 15.30 hours.The distance from the place of occurrence to police station Kotwali Sehore is only one kilometer.P/1 at police station which was situated only one k.m. away from the place of incident.This unexplained delay regarding lodging of First Information Report Ex.P/1 is the sole fact which is fatal for the prosecution.Dr. Neera Shrivastava (PW-3) during her cross-examination admitted that contusion which was found on private part of the prosecutrix (PW-1), can be inflicted by the prosecutrix herself.The learned trial Court in light of above discussed facts and circumstances rightly disbelieved the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother Amribai (PW-2) and Preeti (PW-4) due to unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report Ex.

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

This MCRC stands allowed.C.C. as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE akanksham Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 10/01/2020 10:35:58Arguments heard on application filed u/s 439 of Cr.on 07.09.2019 for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Chotelal @ Chotu Bhartiya.Case Diary of Crime No. 184/2019 registered at Police Station Bichiya District Mandla for the offences punishable u/s 363, 366, 376 (2) (N) of I.P.C. & Section 5L/6, 5Q/6, 5(J) (ii)/6 POCSO has also been perused.The prosecutrix was in love relationship with the accused since one year back.During the period of 08.12.2018 to 16.07.2019 they made sexual relationship for several times and the prosecutrix became pregnant.Thereafter, when the accused denied to marry with her then on 18.07.2019 an FIR was lodged.It is directed that applicant Chotelal @ Chotu Bhartiya be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond worth Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.It is directed that applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated u/s 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

The application is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.38 of 2018 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur at the instance of respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 323 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::It is alleged in the application that after marriage the differences arose between the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2- wife and she started residing separately.Thereafter the applicant No.1-husband approached the Superior Court at Washington, Country of Kind Seattle, Washington State, United States for dissolution of marriage and on 19.08.2016 decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.It is further alleged that the respondent No.2 after returning to her parental house in the month of May 2016 lodged FIR bearing Cr.No.643 dated 11.05.2016 in Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 354-D, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Pending investigation parties have settled their dispute amicably.Understanding arrived between the parties for quashing the N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 ::: p-503-apl-484-2018 subject FIR by consent.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::In paragraph No.3 she has stated that the subject FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations.She has also stated that her dispute with applicants is now been settled.In paragraph No.4 she has stated that she do not want to proceed further with the subject FIR and therefore she has given no objection to quash and set aside the subject FIR.The respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court.On behalf of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 through power of attorney- parents-applicant Nos.3 and 4 present before the Court.In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the subject FIR is required to be quashed.The application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of as such.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::

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

In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.12.2014 in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.915 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Sanjib Rana. ... Petitioner.Ayan Bhattacharjee ... for the Petitioner Mr.Amanul Islam ... for the State.Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.915 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 498A/307/34of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner is the husband.At the very outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he is not admitting any of the allegations made against his client in the FIR and it is case of the petitioner that those are absolutely false, but as a matter of good gesture and having regards to the moral obligation of a good husband, the husband is now agreeable to pay monthly maintenance to the wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month.The learned advocate for the State, however, submits that there are materials to show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence, but when the husband voluntarily offered maintenance to his wife, he is not standing on the way.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 3(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

P.C claiming that the Station House Officer Kotwali Guna for allegedly committed offence under Section 323, 294 of IPC.That crime was being investigated by Head Constable Satish Singh Raghuvanshi.5 M.Cr.By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973, the petitioner wants to seek the relief for setting aside the order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned 1st A.S.J, Guna in Cr.Revision No.74/2013, by which the learned A.S.J., has allowed the revision and directed the Trial Court that if the complainant (present petitioner) files an application under Section 197 Cr.P.C, direct the complainant (present petitioner) that he can prosecute the complainant only after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution against the proposed accused person (Non-petitioner No.3 Sukhlal).2 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013The petitioner Sandeep Kushwah went to Police Station, who was manhandled by the non-petitioner No.3, Sukhlal, SHO of Police Station, Kotwali Guna.It is alleged that he abused him and on the basis of this complaint, the learned JMFC registered a case under Section 294, 323 of IPC against non-petitioner No.3 Sukhlal.Aggrieved by this the non-petitioner No.3 filed Cr.Revision No. 74/2013, which was decided by the impugned order dated 16.5.2013 by the learned 1st ASJ, Guna.On perusal of order dated 3 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013 16.5.2013, it is evident that criminal case was registered against the present petitioner (Sandeep Kushwah), that was being investigated by Head Constable Satish Singh Raghuvanshi.According to non-petitioner the complainant insisted to be released on bail from the police station in the non- bailable offence registered against him.He also tried to flee from the police station.At that time DSP was also present in the police station.3 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013The learned Revisional Court held that the Station House Officer was on official duty and the complaint was filed without any valid sanction.S.197 (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with th sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall 4 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013 take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-4 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013C. No. 5114/2013**(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued 6 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013 under Clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.6 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/20137 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proposed accused / non-applicant No.3 was not on official duty at the time of incident.The incident took place in the police station as per allegation.Non -applicant No.3 is the Station House Officer.The complainant contended that he was not on duty.But the petitioner had come up with the document to show that the non-applicant No.3 was not on duty at that time.P.C, the Magistrate has to apply his mind, which should be reflected in his order that a detail expression of his view neither required nor warranted.At the same time, if sanction is required under the provisions investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C cannot be ordered without previous sanction.8 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013The purpose of obtaining sanction is to see that the public servant be not unnecessarily harassed on a complaint, failing which it would not be possible for public servant to discharge his duty without fear and favour.P.C as has been held Anil Kumar and others (supra).In Baijnath VS.State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1966220),Hari Ram Singh Vs.Emperor (AIR 1939 FC 43) R.R. Chari Vs.The State of U.P. (AIR 9 M.Cr.9 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred for quashing the order dated 3.12.1998 in Criminal Case No. 843/8 of J.M.F.C. Baloda Bazar and the order dated 21.7.1997 in Criminal Revision No. 413/88 by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.On account of maltreatment by petitioner No. 1 she was compelled to reside separately.The matter was reported by non- applicant to the police, thereafter a private complaint was filed by her, which after due enquiry has been registered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baloda Bazar, Distt.Raipur and process under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code was issued for the petitioners/accused.The present petition has thereafter been filed praying that the order dated 3.12.1988 and that of Revisional Court dated 21.7.1997 be quashed.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition has urged that applicants' petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court was wrongly dismissed.It has been urged in this connection that Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code provides that the offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of Indian Penal Code 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 marriage or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.It has been urged that since the non-applicant has alleged in his complaint that petitioner No. 1 solemnised his second marriage with petitioner No. 2 at Bhotia, Tehsil Sakti, Distt.Bilaspur; hence the alleged offence was committed at Village Bhotia, Tahsil Sakti, Distt.Bilaspur, i.e. within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sakti.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

(02.06.2020) The present application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashment of First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the "FIR") in respect of Crime No.270/18 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jabalpur, on the basis of complaint made by the respondent No.2, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC").As per the case of the prosecution, as reflected from the FIR, a complaint was made by the respondent No.2 stating that he runs a shop under the name of 'Archana Garment' for manufacturing and selling of salwar and fancy salwar suits.In the year 2015-16, the applicant and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna came to his shop and started doing business with him on cash basis; due to this, the respondent No.2 started trusting them.Thereafter, both of them 2 M.Cr.C. No. 9894/2019 started taking goods on credited and also made payment in respect of the same.But, payment was not made in cash and instead of same, eight cheques were issued against the bank account in the name of M/s Sunita Fashion, maintained with Bandhan Bank Erode Tamil Nadu.However, when the aforesaid eight cheques were presented in the bank for encashment, they were bounced due to insufficient funds in the said bank account.It was further stated by the respondent No.2 that the applicant and Late Shri GyanchandBafnahas not paid an amount of Rs. 13,86,188 to him and an amount of Rs. 60,98,806 to his fellow businessmen.Therefore, payment in respect of a total amount of Rs. 74,84,994 has not been made by them to him and his fellow businessmen.It was further stated that despite knowing that there is sufficient amount in the bank account, the applicant and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna provided cheques to the respondent No.2 and his fellow businessmen with the objective of acquiring wrongful gain.On the basis of aforesaid complaint, preliminary inquiry was done by the concerned police officials and on finding prima facie case, FIR in respect of Crime No. 270/19 was registered against the Petitioner and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafnain respect of offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the IPC.On behalf of the applicant, it has been contended that no criminal case of cheating is made out against the applicant.Further, 3 M.Cr.C. No. 9894/2019 even the demand notice (Annexure A/2) given by the respondent No.2 shows that the present case pertains to dishonor of cheque though no proceedings in respect of the same have been initiated.It has further been contended by the applicant that his father, Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna, has committed suicide by jumping in front of train at Mumbai due to pressure by one Amritlal Purohit.In respect of the same, an FIR has been registered against Amirtlal Purohit at Police Station Vashi, in respect of Crime No. 1970/18 in respect of offences punishable under sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.In support of his submissions, the applicant has placed reliance on decisions given in Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal &Anr, (2007) 7 SCC 373, Binod Kumar &Ors.On behalf of the respondent No.2, a reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that the applicant and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna dishonestly induced the respondent No.2 and other merchants for delivering garments worth Rs. 74,84,994/- and issued them 4 M.Cr.C. No. 9894/2019 cheques which were dishonoured.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 67 A.F.R.Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4191 of 2020 Applicant :- Sachin Dahiya And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi J.[1] Heard Shri Naveen Tiwari and Sri Prashant Manchanda, learned counsels for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.[2] This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by learned Counsels for the applicants.After hearing the arguments at length, learned counsel has raised certain vital legal issues emanating from perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 12, Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 710/2018 U/s 406[3] Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out serious legal fallacy and flaws in the impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2019 as the same is in direct and stark defiance of the true spirit of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., thus, the Court proposes to evaluate the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and decide the issue at the admission stage itself.[4] Before discussing the legal aspect of the issue, it is imperative to give a brief factual insight of the case so as to appreciate the controversy involved in its correct legal perspective;[5] The applicants have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., by challenging summoning order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 12, Baghpat in Complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 In re: Sureshwati Vs.Kadam Singh Dahiya and others in Complaint Case No. 710/2018 U/s 406 I.P.C., Police Station Binolli, District Baghpat and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case including the non-bailable-warrants dated 02.01.2020 against the accused/applicants procuring their attendance to face the prosecution under section 406 IPC.[6] Applicant no.1, Sachin Dahiya is the husband of Ms. Priya (hence deceased) and applicant nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased daughter-in-law.During their stay at Delhi, applicant no. 1 got married with daughter of opposite party no.2 on 28.11.2014 at Delhi itself.[7] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after camouflaging her real address, opposite party no.2 initiated the present criminal case at Baghpat, projecting that she is permanent resident of District Baghpat and this manipulation was done by her, just to harass the applicants and torpedo the applicants with number of criminal cases against them at different places.It is asserted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the real and permanent address of opposite party no.2 is RZ-C 109, Vinodpuri, Vijay Enclave, Palam Davari Road, Delhi but she has obscured her true and permanent address and just to create the territorial jurisdiction at Baghpat, managed to get the complaint filed at Baghpat judgeship.On the same day a first information report No. 654/2015 was got registered under sections 498A, 304B and 34 I.P.C. at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and police too after investigation, has submitted its report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. under the aforementioned sections of Penal Code.[9] Contentions raised by counsel for the applicants are that neither in the first information report nor during investigation there was any whisper regarding criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of valuable belongings of Ms. Priya, ergo, the police submitted its report under the aforementioned sections of Penal Code.[11] The learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the court to the testimony of opposite party no.2 recorded as PW-18 before Sri Ramesh Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 (North), Rohini Court, Delhi during the trial of FIR No. 654/2018, In re: State Vs.While giving her deposition as PW-18, she introduced herself as Smt. Sureshwati wife of late Shri Raj Kumar Rana resident of RZ-C, 109, Vinodpuri, Palam, Vijay Enclave, Delhi.Thus contended that in the present complaint case, she has mislead the court, by demonstrating wrong address at village Dhanora, Silvar Nagar Police Station Vinolli, Baghpat U.P. for that purpose and it is vigorously contended that the learned Magistrate has probably overlooked this legal fallacy and entertained the said complaint case filed by complainant Ms. Sureshwati, without verifying her correct proper address.Besides this, it is also canvassed that daughter of opposite party no.2 had initiated proceeding before Crime Against Women Cell, (CAW Cell), Delhi in year 2015 wherein a list of articles were furnished by opposite party no.2 and responding to that list, the applicants have already handed over those articles, lying in the sealed flat, during course of trial at Delhi.Contentions raised, that before every upcoming forum, she painted new picture and new list of the articles.[12] This Court while entertaining the instant 482 application ex-parte, is not in position to adjudicate anything on factual merits of the case, with regard to submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to alleged discrepancies in the list of articles but certainly the Court can arbitrate and gauge the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the process adopted by the learned Magistrate while passing the cognizance order dated 02.05.2019 for the offence under section 406 IPC while summoning the applicants.[13] Contention raised by the counsel for the applicants that the learned Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case on the ground that- contesting parties are permanent residents of Delhi; the marriage was solemnized at Delhi; unfortunate incident of demise of daughter of opposite party no.2 took place at Delhi and the applicants are facing prosecution under section 304B I.P.C. and allied sections pending before the competent Sessions Judge at Rohini Court, Delhi.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

No.7823/2017 and FIR and all subsequent proceedings have been quashed.Umesh was driving the motorcycle and Goldy was sitting pillion.As they reached near the car of the complainant, suddenly, Goldy took out a pistol and with intent to kill him fired a gun shot targeting the head of Anchal.The bullet hit on his temporal and he fell down on the road.The petitioner Pawan Agrawal, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.The only difference is that as per statement of Manish Yadav, co-accused Hemant had revealed before him that after the incident he dropped the main accused persons Umesh and Goldy at the house of Pawan Agrawal and the present petitioner is same 2 MCRC No.21455/2019 Pawan Agrawal but nothing is recovered from his house or no other evidence is produced by the police with the charge sheet against him.Therefore, on the ground of parity, he is also entitled for the same relief granted to the co-accused Hemant.2 MCRC No.21455/2019Order dated 9.4.2019 passed in the petition preferred by co-accused Hemant in MCRC.No.7823/2017 reads thus:-" This petition is filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing crime no.39/2017 registered at police station Lasudiya District- Indore under section 307/34, 109, 112, 120- B, 467, 468 of the IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and proceedings of Sessions Trial No.337/2017 qua the petitioner Hemant.It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.01.2017, when after meeting his brother Jitendra Awasthi in jail, the complainant Anchal Awasthi was coming back by his Alto car, Umesh and Goldy chased him on motorcycle.After firing, they both (Umesh and Goldy) ran away from the spot.Driver of Anchal took him to Bombay Hospital, where he was admitted and provided treatment.After receiving information, the police reached at Bombay Hospital and recorded Dehati Nalishi.The police also recorded dying declaration of the complainant Anchal and investigated the case.During the investigation, the police recorded statement of one Manish Yadav under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., who revealed that in fact two and half month prior to the incident, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons prepared a plan to eliminate the complainant to grab his property.They gathered in the house of Umesh and discussed the plan.He was also part of the plan and was present in that meeting, but later withdrew himself.On the basis of this statement the police impleaded and charge-sheeted 3 MCRC No.21455/2019 the petitioner as one of the co-accused along with 12 other co- accused persons.3 MCRC No.21455/2019Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his name neither find place in Dehati Nalishi nor in the dying declaration of the complainant.During the investigation, the police arrested co-accused persons Kantilal and Anuj who first revealed about the conspiracy hatched by the co-accused persons but they also did not name the petitioner.The petitioner is impleaded on the false pretext.There is an old rivalry between two groups, who are indulged in attacks and counter attacks.Many other criminal cases have been registered against the persons connected to both the groups.He is also not named the petitioner as a conspirator, when actually the co-accused persons gathered to finalize the plan to eliminate the accused.He also dropped his name in his statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class u/S 164 Cr.P.C.5 MCRC No.21455/2019The prosecution against the petitioner pending before the Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.337/2017 is hereby set aside.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

It is noted that this application is preferred alongwith affidavits of some victims as well as copy of the entire chargesheet alongwith the Police report filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C. In such chargesheet case-diary statements of as many as 08 witnesses, namely, Vikas Sharma, Sudhir Sethia, Mahesh Katare, Kamal Singh Parihar, Vinod Kumar Joshi, Akhilesh Ojha, Vinod Kumar Shivhare and Sunil Shrivastava are annexed and available on record.In the course of arguments, in response to some query of the Court based on the evidence available in the chargesheet including the interrogatory statements of Akhilesh Ojha and Sunil Shrivastava instead to argue, the learned counsel for the applicant at this stage seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage by mentioning some additional facts and circumstances.Considering the aforesaid, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed with aforesaid liberty.Before parting with the matter we would like to mention here that during the course of the arguments, applicant's counsel has referred the photocopies of certified copy of the order dated 2 MCRC No.3429/2016 (Udai alias Kanhai Chauhan Vs.State of MP) 09.06.2016 passed by the CJM Bhind (Shri Dhanraj Dubela) and the depositions of the examined prosecution witnesses, namely, Vikas Sharma (PW1), Sudhir Sethia (PW2) and Mahesh Katare (PW3), the same are taken on record.On perusing such ordersheet dated 09.06.2016 passed by said subordinate Court in Criminal Case No.435/16, we have found that such Court has permitted to the victims Mahesh Katare and Sudhir Sethia to compound the offences of Sections 420 and 406 of IPC with the applicant herein and subsided such offences and pursuant to that, the charges of Sections 420 and 406 of IPC were not framed against the applicant.On mere perusal of the Police report, it is apparent that as per list of the documents, various case diary statements of witnesses have been annexed with the chargesheet.On record alongwith chargesheet as many as 08 case-diary statements of witnesses have been placed.Mere perusal of the interrogatory statements of Akhilesh Oza and Sunil Shrivastava, prima-facie it is apparent that they were also victims of the applicant with whom also the alleged offence was committed and such evidence was very well before the trial Court, but such police statements of the victims were ignored.According to which, the offences of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were also committed by the applicant in connection of victims but Presiding Officer of the trial Court contrary to such record has permitted the parties to compound the offences only at the request of the victims Vikas Sharma (PW1), Sudhir Sethia (PW2) and pursuant to such compromise the applicant has been acquitted from the charge of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.We are of the considered view that the Presiding Officer of 3 MCRC No.3429/2016 (Udai alias Kanhai Chauhan Vs.State of MP) the trial Court while dealing with the compromise applications specially in the cognizable matter was duty bound to examine the matter thoroughly including the aforesaid case-diary statements of the other victims, but in the impugned matter Presiding Officer has considered the compromise application filed by some of the victims in a very casual manner contrary to the papers of the chargesheet.It is apparent from the chargesheet, that as per the prosecution case in the alleged scheme as many as 1200 members were made and from them the applicant was collecting the money in monthly installments by giving them the offer in the shape of Chit Fund Yojna.Although in the investigation all such members were not interrogated by the Police but in any case the aforesaid named two witnesses were also interrogated as victims.But in any case to consider the compromise application, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court merely on the basis of the application of the two victims named above could not acquit to the applicant.In such premises the trial Court by ignoring the material evidence of the chargesheet has wrongly acquitted the applicant from the charge of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.Apart aforesaid in the available circumstances, the Principal Registrar of this Bench is hereby directed to register suo motu 4 MCRC No.3429/2016 (Udai alias Kanhai Chauhan Vs.State of MP) Criminal Revision against the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the CJM Bhind (Shri Dhanraj Dubela) in Criminal Case No.435/16 as early as possible within 07 days and place such revision before the appropriate Bench for admission and further consideration.as per rules.

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

The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court reads as under:It is case of prosecution that on 30.08.93 at about 10 pm, Raj Kiran was present in the compound of his house situated in Village Khera Kalan.At that time, his younger brothers Narender and Om Singh and their uncle Balwant were also present there.All of them heard someone calling Raj Kiran.Raj Kiran sent his younger brother Narender but at the same time, he himself also got up and went out of his house.Sushil Kumar (accused) was seen pulling Narender out of the house by his hand.Surender took Narender in his grip from his backside.Sushil Kumar accused stabbed Narender.Sushil Kumar accused exhorted Ashok to stab Raj Kiran whereupon Ashok stabbed Raj Kiran in the middle of his abdomen,right side of his waist and on his buttock.As a result of the stab wound, Raj Kiran fell down and became unconscious.The occurrence was witnessed by Om Singh and Balwant Singh.Om Singh raised alarm for being saved.Accused persons then ran away from the spot towards their house.Many persons from the public also gathered there.About 10/15 days prior to the aforesaid occurrence, at about 4/5 pm, Raj Kiran and his brother Om Singh were present near their house.Sushil accused came towards them driving a jeep at a high speed.Om Singh and Raj Kiran had a narrow escape.Complainant party went to house of Sushil accused to lodge protest with his father Randhir Singh.Sushil accused was scolded by his father.On the same day, Sushil accused threatened to deal with them one by one.On 30.08.93 at about 10/10.30 pm, Inspector Harshvardhan, SHO, PS S.P. Badli received information on wireless that an incident of stabbing had taken place in Village Khera Kalan.Thereupon, he accompanied by Ct.Ramesh Kumar reached the spot i.e. near the house of Baldeva.SI Darshan Lal and Ct.Satanand were also found present there.The SI and the Constable had reached there on receiving call of quarrel at the Crl.Inspector Harshvardhan left Constable Ramesh at the spot to guard it and himself accompanied by SI Darshan Lal and Ct.Satanand reached Hindu Rao Hospital and from there collected MLC of Narender.As per MLC, Narender had been declared brought dead.Raj Kiran, injured was allegedly declared by the doctor unfit to make statement.Balwant Singh met the Inspector at the hospital and made statement.The Inspector appended endorsement whereupon ruqqa was sent from the hospital through Ct. Sadanand and present case was registered.The Inspector prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence as pointed out by Balwant Singh.From the spot, the Inspector once again visited Hindu Rao Hospital and enquired about fitness of Raj Kiran to make statement.Still Raj Kiran was unfit to make statement.Balwant Singh PW produced before the Inspector one underwear of Raj Kiran.The underwear was found blood stained and having a cut.It was turned into a parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression HV and then taken into possession vide a memo.It is also case of prosecution that on 30.08.93, Dr. R. Bhagi medico legally examined Narender and Raj Kiran at Hindu Rao Hospital and opined that sharp weapon was used in causing injuries on their person.In this respect, reports were given by the doctor.Lateron, Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Santom Hospital appended endorsement in MLC declaring Raj Kiran unfit to make statement.Dr. Ashok Jaiswal conducted autopsy on the dead body of Narender and prepared report.In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were antemortem in nature; injury No.1 and 2 were caused with a sharp edged weapon; injury No.3 and 5 were caused by fall and friction against hard surface; and injury No.2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.In the opinion of the doctor, Narender died due to haemorhagic shock consequent to the injuries to the abdominal viscera.Mahender Singh delivered special reports to senior police officers and learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Constable Satanand produced two sealed parcels and sample seal of the seal of Dr. B. Singh, before the Inspector who seized the same vide a memo and in turn deposited the same in the malkhana.The dead body of Narender was delivered to the relatives of the deceased.It is further case of prosecution that in the evening of 31.08.93, the Inspector was present on G.T. Road, within the area of PS S.P. Badli.He received secret information to the effect that Sushil accused was present at the railway station, Khera Kalan and was about to flee away.Thereupon, the Inspector accompanied by SI Darshan Lal, Ct.Satanand and secret informer reached railway station, Khera Kalan, apprehended Sushil accused at the pointing out of secret informer.He was arrested and his personal search memo was prepared.He also made disclosure statement before the Inspector and in pursuance thereof he got recovered a knife from the grass under a bench at the railway station, Khera Kalan.The Inspector prepared rough sketch i.e of the knife, turned the knife into parcel and seized the same vide a memo.The Inspector visited Hindu Rao Hospital thrice/four times to record statement of Raj Kiran but every time he was found unfit to make statement.PW-9/A).The first site plan (Ex.The role assigned by him to the accused Surender was that he took his brother (deceased) in his grip from his back side and the accused Sushil stabbed his brother on the left side of his abdomen and on the face near his nose.The accused Sushil exhorted his brother Ashok that he should stab him.As a result of which the accused Ashok stabbed him in the middle of his abdomen, right side of his waist and buttock.Thereafter, PW5 fell down and became unconscious and when he re-gained consciousness, he found himself at Hindu Rao Hospital.With regard to motive, PW5 Raj Karan reiterated the incident which took place 10/15 days prior to the instant case.i) that on 30.08.1993, at 11.20 PM, he was brought by HC Vijender Singh (PCR R-87) to Hindu Rao Hospital;ii) that the injured was brought with alleged history of fight (stabbed) as told by the relations of the injured;iii) that the injured was unconscious, gasping and his blood pressure was not recordable;This led to Balwant Singh (PW-12) and Tara Chand complaining to the father of the respondent Sushil.Other persons also accompanied them.Father of accused Sushil begged forgiveness and reprimanded Sushil causing him to harbour a grudge against them.A. 731/2007 Page 25 of 42Om Singh (PW-4) deposed before the Trial Court that about 15-20 days prior to the incident, the respondent Sushil had drove the jeep at a very high speed near their house and at the time, he had a narrow escape.At this, the witness goes astray of the story of the prosecution.He further deposed that he himself had complained to the father of the respondent Sushil, who had scolded Sushil.He deposed that earlier also, the respondent Sushil had driven his vehicle at a high speed and it was only when the incident was repeated, the incident was reported to the father of the respondent Sushil.He also deposed that at the moment of narrow escape, he was standing with his brother Raj Karan and then they both had gone to lodge a complaint to the father of Sushil.After the complaint, the respondent Sushil had threatened to kill them.During cross-examination, PW-4 categorically denied the suggestion that his uncle Balwant and tau (uncle) Tara Chand had gone to complain to the father of the respondent Sushil.He affirmed the suggestion that prior to the incident, there was no enmity with the family of the respondent Sushil.Thus, it is difficult to believe that PW5 Raj Karan was not medically fit to make a statement on 30.08.1993 when he was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital or soon thereafter.In this regard, we concur with the findings of the learned Trial Court that the contents of rukka showing that the doctor declared Raj Karan unfit to make statement are not in consonance with the contents of the MLC Ex.PW6/B. In this regard, PW16 who was Investigating Officer deposed that he had visited Hindu Rao Hospital three to four times to record the statement of PW5 Raj Karan but he was found unfit every time and the statement of PW5 was recorded on 13.09.1993 by him upon his visit to Santom Hospital, Rohini.The statement of injured witness PW-5 Raj Karan was recorded after about 14 days from the incident, the delay in doing so remained unanswered and unexplained.It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.08.1993, the respondent Sushil made a disclosure statement and then got discovered a blood stained knife from the Railway Station of village Khera Kalan.The said recovery was made in the presence of PW2 Kartar Singh, SI Darshan Lal (since deceased), PW15 HC Satanand and PW16 Insp.PW2 Kartar Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 31.08.1993, at about 7.00/7.30 AM while he was returning from his fields, he saw Police Officials standing near Railway Station of village Khera Kalan.Some public persons were also found standing there.The respondent Sushil who was correctly identified by PW2 in Court alongwith the Police officials and PW2 entered the platform.The respondent Sushil picked a knife which was blood stained from the platform which was subsequently sealed and turned into a parcel.PW15 HC Satanand deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was accompanied by PW16 Harshvardhan and SI Darshan Lal (since dead) to the village Khera Kalan where they were being informed by a secret informer that the respondent Sushil who gave stab injuries during the incident which took place last night was sitting at the Railway Station of village Khera Kalan.Thereupon, they reached the said Railway Station and found respondent Sushil sitting on a bench.Enquiry was made to him.One knife was found lying in the grass under the cement bench where he was sitting.The said knife was found blood stained.PW15 further deposed that PW2 Kartar Singh, a resident of the same Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 31 of 42 village had also come to the Railway Station who had attested the recovery memo.In his cross-examination, it was stated by PW15 HC Satanand that a secret informer met them on 31.08.1993, at about 5.00 PM.Disclosure statement of the respondent Sushil was recorded whereupon he disclosed about a knife.It was stated by PW15 that he did not remember as to whether respondent Sushil had disclosed that he had concealed a knife under the cemented bench, or that the said knife was used by him in causing injuries to the deceased and PW5 Raj Karan.It was also stated by PW15 that pursuant to the secret information received, firstly they had gone to the village Khera Kalan and then PW2 Kartar Singh was taken along from the village.A. 731/2007 Page 31 of 42PW16 Harshvardhan who was posted as SHO, Police Station S.P.Badli on the day of incident and was the Investigating Officer in the present case deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the evening of 31.08.1993, while he was present on G.T.Road within the area of Police Station S. P. Badli, he received an information through a secret informer that the respondent Sushil was present at Railway Station Khera Kalan and was about to flee from there.PW16 accompanied by SI Darshan Lal (since dead), PW15 HC Satanand alongwith the secret informer reached the Railway Station Khera Kalan.After pointing out by the secret informer, PW16 apprehended the respondent Sushil and then interrogated him after arresting him.His personal search memo was prepared by him.The respondent Sushil made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/D) stating that the knife used by him in the stabbing was concealed by him in the grass under the bench of the Railway Station.Thereafter, respondent Sushil pointed out the place where he had concealed the knife and at the same time took out the said Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 32 of 42 knife form the grass under the bench at the Railway Station.The evidence on record establishes that on 30.08.1993 at about 10:00 PM, Om Singh (PW4), Raj Karan (PW5) and deceased along with their uncle Balwant Singh (PW12) were sitting in their house.The accused Sushil called for Raj Karan, whereas Raj Karan sent the deceased Narender out of the house as to see who was calling him.The Crl.Present appeal has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') against the judgment dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge: Fast Track Courts, Rohini ('Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 02/2006 arising out of FIR No.359/1993 PS Samaypur Badli under Section 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') whereby all the accused persons/respondents herein have been acquitted.Initially the State had filed a Petition seeking Leave to Appeal being Crl.L.P. 188/2007, which Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 1 of 42 was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2007 and the case was converted into a regular appeal.A. 731/2007 Page 1 of 42A. 731/2007 Page 2 of 42 house of Ram Kishan.On reaching the spot, they learnt that two persons had been removed to hospital by PCR staff.A. 731/2007 Page 2 of 42On return to the spot, the Inspector collected sample of blood from there, turned it into a parcel and sealed the same with seal bearing impression HV.The sample of blood was then seized vide a memo.On 31.08.93, the Inspector once again reached Hindu Rao Hospital, carried out inquest proceedings in respect of dead body of Narender, recorded statements of Ram Kishan and Radhey Shyam in respect of identification of dead body; prepared inquest Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 3 of 42 proceedings and submitted request for conducting autopsy on the dead body.A. 731/2007 Page 3 of 42It was on 13.09.93 that the Inspector recorded statement of Raj Kiran after visiting Santom Hospital.On 15.10.93, the Inspector got dispatched sealed parcels Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 4 of 42 lying deposited with MHC(M), to CFSL, Chandigarh through Ct.Jaswant Singh.On analysis, report was received.A. 731/2007 Page 4 of 42On 30.09.93, SI Manohar Lal visited the spot, where Om Singh was present, and he prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence...."The chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court and after hearing the parties, charge was framed on 16.09.1999 against the accused Sushil/respondent No.1 under Section 302 IPC and later on 09.11.2005, charge was framed against the other two accused persons/respondent No. 2 and 3 under Section 302/34 IPC.All the respondents pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.When the matter was listed before the Trial Court for final arguments on 14.03.2007, an additional charge was ordered to be framed against the accused Ashok/respondent No.2 under Section 307 IPC and against the other two accused persons/respondent No. 1 and 3 under Section 307/34 IPC.To bring home the guilt of the accused persons/respondents, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all.Statements of the accused persons/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances against them and claimed false implication.The accused Surender/respondent no.3 raised the plea that he was not present in the village on the day of the offence.Two witnesses were examined by the respondents in their defence.After examining the evidence before it, the Trial Court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW-4, 5 and 12) to be unreliable as being contradictory and being improved on material aspects, the prosecution had failed to show the exact location of the incident, recovery was found to be unreliable, motive was not established and Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 5 of 42 there was delay in lodging of FIR opening scope of tutoring and ultimately, acquitted all the accused persons/respondents herein.Aggrieved, the State had filed a leave to appeal, which was allowed and converted into the present appeal.The State is assisted by the counsel for the complainant.A. 731/2007 Page 5 of 42Kolluru, learned APP for the State, submits that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is not in consonance with the law as well as facts which emerged during the trial.The Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that there were three eyewitnesses account, i.e. Om Singh (PW-4), Raj Karan (PW-5) and Balwant Singh (PW-12), whose testimony is cogent and reliable and the defence was unable to impeach their veracity even during the cross-examination.Kolluru submits that grave miscarriage of justice has occurred by recording acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein by the Trial Court and thus, warranting interference by this Court.Learned counsel submitted that the three eyewitnesses have been consistent on all the material counts including that (i) the complainant party was sitting at home when the incident occurred; (ii) someone called out to Raj Karan (PW-5); (iii) the deceased was sent out and the respondent no.1/accused Sushil pulled him out and stabbed him while accused Surender held him; and (iv) The accused Ashok had stabbed Raj Karan (PW-5).It is next submitted that there are very minor inconsistencies between the ocular account and the medical record and cannot cast any doubt upon the Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 6 of 42 ocular account.As regards motive, Ms.Kolluru has submitted that 15-20 days prior to the incident, respondent Sushil had driven his jeep at very high speed and in a reckless manner barely avoiding Om Singh (PW-4).The family members then went to complain to respondent Sushil's father about this, which enraged the respondent Sushil and he threatened them.It is submitted that as regards the inconsistencies highlighted by the Trial Court to throw out motive, the same were very minor and did not go to the root of the matter.The second reason of the Trial Court that Raj Karan (PW-5) was neither the victim of the rash driving nor the complainant and there was no reason for the respondent Sushil to call him out is also fallacious.Learned counsel submitted that both PW-4 and PW-5 were witnesses to the rash driving incident and even if some other family member complained about the same, it was only at their instance and thus, it was natural for the respondent Sushil to nurse a grudge against them.Further, Raj Karan (PW-5) being the eldest brother, it was natural for the respondent Sushil to call him over anyone else.Kolluru next contended that there was no delay in the recording of the FIR which would have allowed deliberation to falsely implicate the respondents.The incident occurred at about 10.00 PM, the DD No. 18-A was recorded at 10:20 PM, the victims were brought to the Hospital at 11:20 PM while Narender succumbed to his injuries at Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 7 of 42 11:45 PM and the statement of PW-12 Balwant Singh was recorded at the Hospital and tehrir endorsed at 12:50 AM.The total time gap between the death of Narender and the registration of FIR is only 1 hour and the rukka statement clearly mentions the presence and role of all the three respondents.Accordingly, Ms.Kolluru submits that there was no delay in the recording of the FIR.A. 731/2007 Page 7 of 42It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the reason why the statement of Raj Karan (PW-5) was recorded on 13.09.1993 is that even though he was conscious, he was not oriented.R.Bhagi (PW-6) had prepared the MLC and deposed before the Trial Court that he had referred both the deceased and PW-5 Raj Karan to emergency surgery and hence, the IO would not have got a chance to record his statement.The MLC (Ex.PW-6/B) contains two endorsements to the effect that PW-5 Raj Karan was declared unfit to make a statement, one dated 02.09.1993 and the other undated made by PW-8 Dr.V.K. Sehdev of Santhom Hospital (where PW-5 Raj Karan received treatment after leaving Hindu Rao Hospital).The IO (PW-16) has also deposed that he went to the Hindu Rao Hospital 3-4 times for recording of the statement of PW-5 Raj Karan, but found him unfit.Learned counsel concluded that the delay in recording the statement of PW-5 Raj Karan stood duly confirmed and even otherwise, the names of the respondents already figured in the rukka on the same day the offence was committed.Further, Balwant Singh (PW-12) is not a planted witness.The mere omission of the doctor to mention his name in the MLC is not a ground to disbelieve his presence on the spot.All the eyewitnesses have categorically deposed about the presence of PW-12 at the spot and both PW-4 and PW-12 have stated that PW-12 accompanied the injured in Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 8 of 42 the PCR vehicle.PW-4 stated that Tara Chand later went to the Hospital and it is possible that at the time of recording of the MLC, the doctor spoke to him and his name got recorded.It was never contended that the bodies of PW-5 and the deceased were moved single handedly by Balwant Singh (PW-12) and the finding to this effect is in the realm of sheer conjecture.At the spot, admittedly PW-4 was also present and he could have assisted PW-12 in the endeavour.A. 731/2007 Page 8 of 42Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the Trial Court has erred in not relying on the recovery of the blood stained knife at the instance of the respondent Sushil.The public witness (PW-2) and the police witnesses (PW-15 and PW-16) are consistent to all the material aspects of the recovery and the difference in the time of recovery is immaterial.Further, it is contended that the presence of the respondents namely Surender and Ashok also stands established from the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.Neither DW-1 nor DW-2 can serve as alibis with regard to the presence of respondent Ashok and even if they are believed, respondent Ashok could have accompanied his brothers/co-accused bidding DW-1 and DW-2 goodbye and entered his house.Even the failure of the prosecution to examine public witnesses is of no consequence in view of the clear and consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses.Kolluru submitted that the failure to seize the clothes of Raj Karan (PW-5) would make no difference as the knife used by the respondent Ashok was never recovered and the analysis of correlation between the stab injuries and the marks on the clothes would not be possible.It is next submitted that the spot of the occurrence was also identifiable.The mere statement by PW-15 and DD No. 18-A of the spot at the Crl.Even the two site plans are consistent as the site of the occurrence being infront of the house of Baldeva.Further, the absence of the location of PW-12 in the site plan (Ex.PW-16/B) from where he witnessed the incident is of no consequence and amounts to creating issues out of non-issues.As regards the position of the respondent Surender not being mentioned in the site plan (Ex.PW-16/B) is concerned, the same is clearly identifiable as point 'A' as the respondent Surender had caught hold of the deceased Narender and the place he was attacked would also be the location of the respondent Surender.A. 731/2007 Page 9 of 42The final contention of Ms.Kolluru is that the non-examination of the PCR staff, though a lapse on the part of the IO, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.Even the anomaly between the date of dispatch and receipt of the sealed parcels at Chandigarh cannot lead to the conclusion that there was a possibility of tampering as no suggestion has been made to any of the witnesses to this effect during cross-examination.The learned counsel for the State concluded by submitting that the eyewitness accounts of PW-4, 5 and 12 are clear, consistent with each other and assign specific roles to each of the respondents.Statements of PW-4 and PW-12 are recorded soon after the incident, at different locations, without any time for family discussion for the purposes of meeting of minds for false implication of the respondents herein or for planting of PW-12 as a fake eyewitness.The ocular accounts are corroborated by medical evidence and police investigation.The defence witnesses do not provide Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 10 of 42 alibis to the respondent Ashok during occurrence of incident.Similarly, no witnesses or evidence has been led to disprove the presence of the respondent Surender at the time and place of incident.Narender suffered a hasty death consequent to the stab injuries and Raj Karan (PW-5) was hospitalized for over 2 weeks and underwent multiple surgeries.A. 731/2007 Page 10 of 42Learned counsel for the complainant adopted the arguments of the State and further submitted that the non-examination of Tara Chand, even if he was present at the site, would not reduce the credibility of the eyewitnesses account.As regards motive, Mr.Choudhury relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, reported at (2011) 9 SCC 115 (paragraph 12 and 14) to submit that even in the absence of specific evidence as to motive, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved owing to eyewitness account.Reliance was also placed on Badru Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported at (2015) 11 SCC 476 (paragraphs 5-7) to submit that eyewitnesses account corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapons are sufficient to convict the accused even if there are minor discrepancies in the ocular account.Controverting the contentions of the State and the complainant, Mr.Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the respondents, submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.The Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence before it and acquitted all the respondents.Learned senior counsel submitted that the prosecution was unable to ascribe any motive to the respondents to attack Raj Karan (PW-5).There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of PW-4, 5 and 12 Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 11 of 42 about the incident of rash driving.PW-4 and PW-5 have deposed differently about the group of persons who went to lodge a complaint to the father of the respondent Sushil.Both have in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. omitted to name each other when the incident of rash driving happened.Balwant Singh (PW-12) has given a completely different account and did not name PW-5 to be present when the respondent Sushil drove the jeep and also deposed that he alongwith his brother Tara Chand had gone to lodge a complaint as opposed to the testimony of PW-5 that he had gone with Balwant Singh (PW-12).Similar statement was made by PW-12 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr.Hariharan further submitted that even if it is believed that Balwant Singh (PW-12) and Tara Chand had gone to lodge a complaint, the same would not supply any motive to the respondent Sushil to call out Raj Karan (PW-5).A. 731/2007 Page 11 of 42Learned senior counsel next contended that the presence of Balwant Singh (PW-12) was rightly doubted by the Trial Court.Though, the prosecution had alleged that he was the only public person to accompany the injured to the Hospital but his name has not been recorded in the MLCs.Even the staff of the PCR Van, whose name figures in the MLCs, has not been examined to corroborate the presence of PW-12 at the spot and in the Hospital.In the MLC of PW-5 Raj Karan (Ex.PW-6/B), it is recorded: "Alleged h/o fight (being stabbed by someone) as told by one Tara Chand, s/o Sis Ram, r/o village Khera Kalan".Name of PW-12 is nowhere mentioned.Additionally, it is improbable that PW-12 would accompany the injured persons to the hospital and would not himself give the history of assault, especially when the accused persons were very well known to him.Tara Chand, Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 12 of 42 who could have deposed as to the presence of PW-12, was also not examined by the prosecution.Learned senior counsel contended that the account given by PW-12 is also unbelievable as it is not possible for him to shift two injured persons to the cots and in the process not get his clothes stained with blood.The testimony of PW-4 to the effect that Balwant Singh (PW-12) had accompanied the PCR Van to the hospital also cannot lend any credibility as the same was not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and PW-4 was duly confronted with the same.The doctor would not give the underwear to Balwant Singh (PW-12) and not seal it in a pullanda especially when the police officers were admittedly present in the Hospital.Further, neither Raj Karan (PW-5) identified the said underwear before the police nor the same was put to him during his testimony in Court; nor he himself deposed anything about his underwear being taken by somebody while he was admitted in the Hospital.It was also submitted that PW-12 himself cannot identify the underwear as the one worn by Raj Karan (PW-5) as he never removed it nor saw him wearing it.He can only identify the underwear as the one handed to the police and he never disclosed the source of the underwear.The fate of the other clothes of PW-5 is also unknown.A. 731/2007 Page 13 of 42 evening waiting for the same to be seized by the police at his instance; second, different accounts have been stated by PW-2, 15 and 16 about the manner in which the police party proceeded, was joined by PW-2 and the time of recovery; and third, as the public witness (PW-2) only deposed that the knife was similar to the one seized and not the same one.As an alternative submission, learned senior counsel contended that even if the recovery is believed, there is nothing to link the same with the offence as the opinion of the doctors was not sought nor the origin of the blood determined by the FSL.Further, out of the two knives used, only one was ever recovered.None of the eyewitnesses ever deposed that the knife changed hands.A. 731/2007 Page 13 of 42The initial DD No.18-A (Mark PW-16/B) records the location as the house of Pradhan Ram Kishan in Khera Kalan.Thereafter, the police was bound to reach the spot and they eventually did reach there.PW-15 deposed to the effect that other police officials also reached there and Ct.Ramesh (PW-10) was left to guard the same and blood was lying there.There is no evidence from the prosecution as to not only the site of the incident changed from there, but also the position of the blood.Hariharan next drew our attention to the Site Plans (Ex.PW-16/B and Ex.PW-16/B) was allegedly made at the pointing of Balwant Singh (PW-12), however, PW-12 nowhere in his entire testimony deposed that the site plan was prepared on his pointing.Further, as per the case of the prosecution two stabbing incidents took place and hence, blood should be found on two spots, but the blood was found only at one spot.The site plan does not show the presence of respondent Surender.Even the Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 14 of 42 scaled site plan (Ex.PW-9/A) does not show the presence of Balwant Singh (PW-12) nor does it show the presence of the respondents Surender and Ashok.It was next contended that the prosecution is also guilty for non-examination of important witnesses as neither Tara Chand nor the PCR officials were ever examined.A. 731/2007 Page 14 of 42It was next contended on behalf of the respondents that there is no explanation for the recording of the statement of the injured witness Raj Karan (PW-5) belatedly after a gap of about 14 days.R.Bhagi (PW-6) had examined both the injured at first in point of time, however, he never made any endorsement on the MLC that the patient was unfit for statement nor deposed before the Trial Court.Even the MLC (Ex.PW- 6/B) records that the patient was fully conscious at the time of admission and his blood pressure is shown as 110/80, therefore, there was no reason for his statement not being recorded at the first instance.On the other hand, though Dr.V.K. Sehdev (PW-8) deposed that he had made an endorsement to the effect that the patient was unfit for statement, but no such endorsement is found on the MLC.The only endorsement made stating that the patient is unfit for statement was made by Dr.Shanti on 02.09.1993 and she was never examined as a witness.Hariharan also pointed out to the contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 wherein he stated to have learnt about the death of his brother Narender while he was unconscious in the Hospital for about 10-15 days.While Balwant Singh (PW-12) negated the version by deposing that PW-5 was unconscious for 2-3 days and thereafter, started talking.PW-12 also deposed that Raj Karan (PW-5) was discharged after about a week and at the time, he could speak and talk.Learned senior counsel submitted that the presence of Om Singh (PW-A. 731/2007 Page 15 of 424) has not been conclusively established by the prosecution.It was contended that his conduct was unnatural as he neither accompanied the deceased and injured (PW-5) to the Hospital nor came forward and approached the police while they reached the spot.Similarly, PW-15 and PW-16 never deposed that they met Om Singh (PW-4) upon reaching the spot.It was next contended that the veracity of the FSL Report was also questionable as there was a possibility of the parcels being tampered with.The parcels were dispatched on 05.10.1993, while they were deposited only on 07.10.1993 and the officer entrusted with the same, i.e. Ct.Jaswant Singh, was never examined.Further, even on their return, the parcels were sent to the SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh and not SHO, PS Samaypur Badli, who had sent them in the first place.Hariharan contended that as there is no explanation for the same, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the report of the FSL.It was also contended that the ocular account given by PW-12 and PW-5 is not in consonance with the injuries found during medical examination of the deceased and injured (PW-5).Our attention was also drawn the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-2 to show that the prosecution was never able to establish the presence of respondent Ashok at the site.A. 731/2007 Page 16 of 42 Om Singh has been recorded as 26 years on the date of deposition and thus, would have been atleast 19 years old on the date of the incident and not 13 years as alleged by the State.A. 731/2007 Page 16 of 42In rejoinder, Ms.Kolluru submitted that Om Singh (PW-4) was 13 years of age on the date of the incident and therefore, he did not accompany the deceased and the injured (PW-5) to the Hospital.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival submissions and perused the record.At the outset, it would be necessary to analyse the testimonies of the eyewitnesses account.PW4 Om Singh (brother of PW5 Raj Karan and the deceased) deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.08.1993 at about 10 PM, while he was sitting in the inner portion of his house and PW5 Raj Karan, deceased and their uncle Balwant were sitting in the compound of their house.The accused Sushil Kumar called his elder brother Raj Karan whereupon Raj Karan sent the deceased out of the house to see as to who was calling him out.As soon as the deceased went out of the house, the accused Sushil pulled him from his hand and took him out of the house.After watching this, they immediately rushed towards the deceased and saw that the accused Surender caught hold of the deceased from his back and had taken him into his grip whereas the accused Sushil stabbed the deceased with a knife causing injuries to the left portion of his body as well as on the left side of his abdomen.As regards injuries on the person of PW5 Raj Karan, PW4 Om Singh deposed that when PW5 Raj Karan stepped out of their house in order to save his younger brother, the accused Sushil exhorted his elder brother Ashok to stab PW5 Raj Karan and it was thereupon he inflicted knife blows to the hip and stomach of Raj Karan.PW4 cried for help Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 17 of 42 due to which the accused Sushil alongwith his other brothers ran away towards their house.People gathered at the spot.Somebody made a call to the Police.Subsequently, Police reached the spot and took his brother PW5 Raj Karan, the deceased and his uncle Balwant to the hospital and PW4 was left at the spot.A. 731/2007 Page 17 of 42With regard to motive, it was deposed by PW4 Om Singh that about 15-PW5 Raj Karan had lodged a complaint with the father of the accused Sushil who had scolded him.The accused Sushil had also driven his jeep near their house at a very high speed on earlier occasions but at that time they thought that the accused Sushil had done it innocently and had not complained about it.But, when the accused Sushil had done it again, while PW4 Om Singh was standing alongwith his elder brother PW5 Raj Karan, near their house, to which PW5 had a narrow escape, they complained about the said incident to the father of the accused Sushil due to which the accused Sushil threatened to take their lives.The accused Sushil and his elder brothers Surender and Ashok were known to him since childhood as they were residing next to their house.On 30.09.1993, some draftsman visited his house whereupon PW4 pointed out the place of incident to him and the said draftsman took the necessary drafting notes and measurements.In his cross-examination, PW4 Om Singh stated that when he raised alarm at the time of the incident, no person came forward and reached the spot on hearing the noise since it was night time and people in his neighbourhood were inside their houses and watching Television in closed doors.PW4 Om Singh admitted that his uncles Tara Chand and Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 18 of 42 Ram Kishan had reached the spot after the incident and he narrated the entire incident to them.PCR also reached the spot after about half an hour of the incident.PW4 Om Singh further stated that his uncle Tara Chand did not accompany the deceased and Raj Karan when they were removed to the Hospital or gave the alleged history of the incident to the concerned doctor.It was further stated by PW4 that his statement was recorded by the Police on the night of the incident at 1.30/2.00 AM at his house but he did not remember the exact time when local Police met him.A. 731/2007 Page 18 of 42It was further stated by PW4 Om Singh that he had informed the Investigating Officer that the accused Sushil had exhorted his elder brother Ashok to stab PW5 Raj Karan.However, the said fact does not find mention in the statement Ex.PW4/DA, dated 31.08.1993, recorded by the IO.PW4 further stated that he had stated to the Police in his statement that PCR had reached the spot and took his uncle Balwant Singh alongwith his brothers Raj Karan and the deceased.The said fact was also not found mention in his statement Ex.PW4/DA wherein it stands recorded that PCR vehicle had removed his brothers to the hospital and the name of Balwant Singh was not found mention in it.PW4 further stated that the Police officials did not record the factum of Balwant Singh going to the hospital in the company of his brothers because the concerned SHO was favouring the accused persons.PW4 denied that he had subsequently introduced the name of his uncle Balwant as the instant case was registered on the basis of the statement of Balwant Singh.PW4 also denied that his father's elder brother namely Tara Chand had accompanied his brothers to the hospital.It was voluntarily stated that Tara Chand had visited the hospital subsequently.A. 731/2007 Page 19 of 42The house of Tara Chand was situated on the left side of their house.PW4 also stated that house of his uncle Balwant Singh was adjacent to their house and their houses were separated by a wall.The next eyewitness to the incident is PW5 Raj Karan who deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW4 with regard to the date, time and the manner in which the incident took place on the fateful day.He deposed that at about 4/5.00 PM, while he was standing alongwith his younger brother PW4 Om Singh, the accused Sushil had driven his jeep rashly to which they had a narrow escape.PW5 further submits that he alongwith his uncle PW12 Balwant Singh had gone to the house of the accused Sushil and complained to his father about the said incident who had inturn scolded the accused Sushil.As a result of the complaint, the accused Sushil threatened on the same day that he would kill them for complaining to his father.All the three accused persons were known to him for the last 15/20 years as they were residing in his neighbourhood.A. 731/2007 Page 20 of 42With regard to the motive, he had deposed in his examination-in-chief that 15/20 days prior to 30.08.1993, the accused Sushil had driven his jeep at a high speed in front of his house.The nephew of PW12 namely Om Singh (PW4) saved himself with great difficulty.In the evening, PW12 Balwant Singh alongwith his brother Tara Chand and two-three persons of his village went to the house of the accused Sushil and complained to his father.His father apologised and also warned his son (accused Sushil).The accused Sushil threatened them by saying that he would see them one by one.The testimony of PW12 Balwant Singh is identical to other eyewitnesses including the date, time, place and the manner in which the accused Sushil called his nephew namely PW5 Raj Karan.The role assigned by him to the accused Sushil is that he pulled the deceased outside whereas the other brother of the accused Sushil namely Surender caught hold of the deceased from back.The deceased cried for help as a result of which PW12 alongwith his nephew PW5 Raj Karan reached the spot.The accused Sushil gave knife blows to the deceased on his stomach and his face whereas the other accused Ashok Kumar gave knife injuries on the back, stomach and on the left buttock of PW5 Raj Karan.PCR reached to the spot.PW12 Balwant Singh took both his injured nephews in the PCR to Hindu Rao Hospital.After 20/25 minutes of reaching to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.The entire incident was witnessed by him, together with his other two nephews and other persons from the village.PW12 Balwant Singh failed to disclose the names of other persons from his village who had witnessed the incident.The statement of PW12 Balwant Singh was Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 21 of 42 recorded by the Police in the hospital which was proved by him as Ex.PW12/A. On 30.08.1993, PW12 Balwant Singh produced one underwear having blood stains and also having a cut belonging to PW5 Raj Karan before the Police officials which was turned into a parcel and was sealed.The said underwear was subsequently identified by PW12 in the Court.A. 731/2007 Page 21 of 42In his cross-examination, PW12 Balwant Singh stated that none from his neighbourhood came to the place of occurrence and they were standing in front of their respective houses.While injured persons were removed to the cot and then to the PCR van, the clothes of PW12 were not blood stained.It was voluntarily deposed by PW12 Balwant Singh that his hands were stained with blood while removing the injured persons to the PCR.PW12 did not state this fact to the Police in his statement to the Police.PW12 was given the underwear of PW5 Raj Karan while he was operated by the doctors and also other Police officials were present there.PW12 further denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the Police on the next date of the incident i.e. 31.08.1993, at about 11.00 AM while he was present at the mortuary.It is noteworthy to mention that PW12 in the latter part of his cross-examination stated that it is correct that PW5 Raj Karan could speak and talk at the time of discharge from the Hindu Rao Hospital.In this backdrop, it would be relevant to discuss the medical evidence in detail.A. 731/2007 Page 22 of 42PW6 R.Bhagi deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.08.1993, he was posted as a Casualty Medical Officer and had examined injured persons namely Narender (deceased), aged about 18 years with the alleged history of fight (stabbed by someone as told by his relative) and also examined Raj Karan, aged about 28 years with the alleged history of fighting (stabbed by someone as told by one Tara Chand).His detailed report was proved by him as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.After examination, the injured persons were referred to EMO, Surgery for detailed examination.Reading of MLC of the injured Narender (Ex.PW6/A) would show as under:iv) that he was having incised wound on the left side of his abdomen with omentum protruding coming out of the wound,v) that the injured had expired on 30.08.1993, at 11.45 PM.Reading of MLC of the injured Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) would show as under:i) that on 30.08.1993, at 11.20 PM, he was brought by HC Vijender Singh (PCR R-87) to Hindu Rao Hospital;A. 731/2007 Page 23 of 42ii) that the injured was having alleged history of fight (being stabbed by someone) as told by one Sh.Tarachand s/o Sis Ram r/o Village Khera Kalan;midline, right side of the abdomen and also on the posterior side of left thigh (below hip joint);v) undated endorsement made by Dr. V. K. Sehdev (Santom Hospital) declaring him as medically unfit for the statement,vi) that on 02.09.1993, at about 11.45 AM, he was declared medically fit for the statement by Dr. R.Shanti.Testimony of PW8 Dr. V. K. Sehdev assumes importance in the background that he gave endorsement on the MLC of PW5 Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) and declared him medically unfit for the statement.He deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1993, he was serving as a Consultant Surgeon in Santom Hospital, Prashant Vihar.On that day, injured Raj Karan was brought to their Hospital from Hindu Rao Hospital on reference.He further deposed that after examination of the injured Raj Karan, he gave endorsement on Ex.PW6/B and declared that the said injured was unfit to make the statement.PW7 Dr. Ashok Jaiswal conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Narender and deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 31.08.1993, he was working as a Senior Medical Officer at Sabzi Mandi Mortuary where he examined an 18 years old person namely Narender with alleged history of stab injuries.The following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased:A. 731/2007 Page 24 of 42omentum seen coming out of the wound (total depth of the wound from surface was found to be 10 cm);PW7 Dr. Ashok Jaiswal further deposed that injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 were caused by fall/friction against hard surface.The cause of death was opined as haemorrhagic shock consequent to the injuries on the abdominal viscera.Time since death was stated about 14 hours.The detailed report was proved by him as Ex.PW7/A. In his cross-examination, it was admitted by him that weapon of offence was never shown to him and the opinion with regard to the use of such weapon in the alleged offence was never sought.Reading of the testimony of PW8 Dr.V.K. Sehdev shows that he had not deposed in his examination-in-chief the date and time on which injured PW5 Raj Karan was brought to Santom Hospital and was declared as medically unfit for the statement which is evident upon reading the sentence 'on that date' emerged in his evidence in Court.Since, various contentions have been raised by the parties; we deem it appropriate to deal with them under separate heads.The case of the prosecution is that about 15-20 days prior to the incident, while Om Singh (PW-4) was present in front of his house, the respondent Sushil drove his jeep at a fast speed leading to PW-4 having Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 25 of 42 a narrow escape.The injured witness (PW-5) deposed that about 10-15 days prior to the incident, at about 4-5 PM, when the witness was standing near his house with Om Singh (PW-4), the respondent Sushil came driving a jeep at high speeds and the witness and PW-4 had a narrow escape.Thereafter, PW-5 and his chacha Balwant had gone to the house of the respondent Sushil and complained against him to his father Randhir Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 26 of 42 Singh.The respondent Sushil had threatened the witness on the same day stating that he will kill them for complaining to his father.A. 731/2007 Page 26 of 42Balwant Singh (PW-12) deposed that about 15-20 days prior to 30.08.1993, the respondent Sushil had driven his jeep at a high speed in front of their house.His nephew Om Singh (PW-4) saved himself from the incoming jeep with great difficulty.In the evening, PW-12 with his brother Tara Chand alongwith 2-3 persons of their village went to the house of Randhir Singh and informed about the incident.Then Randhir Singh apologized and warned his son.However, respondent Sushil threatened that he will see them one by one.The witnesses remain consistent to the extent that about 15-20 days prior to 30.08.1993, an incident took place when respondent Sushil drove his jeep and drove past Om Singh at high speed.Thereafter, the party informed the father of respondent Sushil which led to him being reprimanded and in turn respondent Sushil extending threat to deal with them one by one.However, the witnesses have been inconsistent on numerous material aspects as neither the victims of the first incident can be clearly identified nor the members of the party who went to lodge the complaint with the father antagonizing the respondent Sushil.Further, even the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 are at odds to the extent that they depose differently about whether PW-4 only narrowly escaped the jeep or both of them.Thereafter, there is no consistency regarding the party who went to the house of respondent Sushil to protest against his behaviour.As per Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 27 of 42 PW-4, he and Raj Karan (PW-5) had gone; as per PW-5, he and Balwant Singh (PW-12) had protested; while as per the account of PW- 12, he alongwith his brother Tara Chand had gone to lodge a complaint.Both PW-4 and PW-12 have been categoric to the extent that Raj Karan (PW-5) was not the person who had a narrow escape from the speeding jeep.As to who protested about the behaviour to the father of the respondent Sushil also remains unclear.Kolluru that the complaint being lodged by anyone would have been at the instance of PW-4 and PW-5 only, however, as the victim of the speeding jeep was Om Singh (PW-4) and not PW-5, whose presence at the incident is doubtful.The circumstance established ascribes no motive to the respondent Sushil against Raj Karan and thus, running contrary to the case of the prosecution that Raj Karan (PW-5) was first called out by respondent Sushil.Further, nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show any motive for attacking and killing Narender (since deceased).DELAY IN RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF PW-5 RAJ KARAN:A. 731/2007 Page 27 of 42The Trial Court has returned a finding that there was delay in recording of the statement of Raj Karan (PW-5) by the Investigating Officer and during his admission in Hindu Rao Hospital opened the scope of his tutoring and raised doubt over the statement (Ex.PW-12/A) of Balwant Singh (PW-12).Kolluru and Mr.Chaudhary have assailed the finding on the grounds that as the names of all the accused persons have been stated in the rukka (Ex.PW-12/A) prepared at 12:50 AM on the intervening night, merely 1 hour after the death of the deceased which was at around 11.45 PM; and the delay was occasioned as though PW-5 Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 28 of 42 Raj Karan was conscious, he was not oriented while being admitted in the Hospital and was unfit to make a statement.A. 731/2007 Page 28 of 42A cumulative reading of the MLC's of the deceased Narender and PW5 Raj Karan would show that in the column of name of relative or friend accompanying the injured, name of HC Vijender Singh of PCR stands recorded.It shows that both these injured were brought to Hindu Rao Hospital by HC Vijender Singh of PCR on 30.08.1993 at about 11.20 PM.It nullifies the statement made by PW-12 that he was the only public witness who had accompanied the injured persons to the Hospital.Had PW-12 accompanied the injured persons to the Hospital, he would have given the alleged history to the attending doctor and his name would have been mentioned in both the MLCs.Thus, we find merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents that it is improbable that PW-12 had accompanied the injured persons to the hospital, but did not give alleged history of the incident to the attending doctor especially when the accused persons were well known to him.On the contrary, the name of one Tara Chand son of Sis Ram has been mentioned in the MLC of PW-5 Raj Karan who gave alleged history to the attending doctor as PW-5 having been stabbed by 'someone'.We have not found the name of PW-12 Balwant Singh in any MLC.Interestingly, both the witnesses namely HC Vijender Singh and Tara Chand were not examined by the prosecution who could have been a possible link to unfold the case of the prosecution.There is nothing on record to suggest if the Investigating Officer recorded statement of HC Vijender Singh of PCR.In his cross-examination, PW16-Inspector Harshvardhan stated that house of Tara Chand was situated adjacent to the house of the injured persons.PW-16 displayed ignorance about Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 29 of 42 relationship of Tara Chand with the injured, but stated to have interrogated Tara Chand.A. 731/2007 Page 29 of 42Moreover, a careful reading of the MLCs would further show that the deceased Narender was semi conscious and gasping at the time he was brought to the hospital and died at about 11.45 PM, on the fateful night.However, Raj Karan was fully conscious despite having three incised wounds on his person at the time of his admission in the hospital.PW6/B) would also show that he was not declared unfit to make statement at any point of time.It is noteworthy to mention that Ex.PW6/B is silent with regard to the date and time of the endorsement made by PW8 declaring PW5 as unfit for making a statement.The evidence of PW12 is further belied by this fact that though he had removed both the injured persons to the cots and then to the Hospital, despite this his clothes were not stained with blood which is absolutely Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 30 of 42 unbelievable considering deceased had suffered two stab wounds and PW5 Raj Karan suffered two stab wounds.A. 731/2007 Page 30 of 42RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED KNIFE:The total length of the knife was 11 inch and its blade was found blood stained.A. 731/2007 Page 32 of 42A careful reading of the evidence of PW2, PW15 and PW16 would show that the testimony of PW2 Kartar Singh is silent on various aspects including as to whether the said knife was recovered at the instance of the respondent Sushil from any hidden place or it was found lying in an open place.PW15 Const.Satanand also deposed that PW2 Kartar Singh, a resident of the same village had also come to the Railway Station who had attested the recovery memo, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that pursuant to the secret information received, firstly they had gone to the village Khera Kalan and then PW2 Kartar Singh was taken along from the village.Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW2, PW15 and PW16 and we find there are contradictions favouring the respondents.The linkage could also be established through lifting of finger prints from the handle of the knife or the blood found on the knife.It is evident from Ex.PW16/F that the blood found on the knife was insufficient for determination of origin.As soon as the deceased went out, the accused Sushil pulled him from his hand and Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 33 of 42 took him out of the house.After watching this, as per Om Singh (PW4), they immediately rushed towards the deceased and saw that the accused Surender caught hold of the deceased from his back and had taken him into his grip whereas the accused Sushil stabbed the deceased with a knife.As per the evidence of PW-4, accused Sushil exhorted his elder brother Ashok to stab PW-5 Raj Karan and it was thereafter he inflicted knife blows to the hip and stomach of Raj Karan.PW-4 has also deposed that the accused Sushil along with his brothers ran away.A. 731/2007 Page 33 of 42On a careful analysis of the testimony of PW-4 Om Singh who claims to be present at the spot would show that PW-4 Om Singh, his brother Raj Karan (PW-5), deceased Narender and their uncle Balwant (PW-12) were present at their house.Out of the three accused, one called out for Raj Karan (PW-5), however Raj Karan sent Narender to find out as to who was calling.This evidence would establish that there were three accused persons and four persons from the family.No doubt rukka named all the three accused persons and it is claimed to have been sent within one hour of the incident.On this aspect, the following questions remain unanswered.Firstly, as to who accompanied the injured persons to the Hospital.As per the evidence of Balwant Singh (PW-12), he took both the injured persons in the PCR to the Hindu Rao Hospital.However, PW-12 has claimed that there was no blood on his clothes.It is completely unbelievable that Balwant Singh removed the two injured persons with multiple stab wounds and one of the injured died within 15-20 minutes of the incident and there was no spot of blood on his clothes.This aspect gains importance for the reason that even in the MLC there is no Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 34 of 42 mention that the injured was brought to the Hospital by Balwant Singh.This aspect gains further importance with the fact that as per MLC, injured was brought to the Hospital by one Tara Chand.There is no explanation as to why Tara Chand was not examined as the evidence of Tara Chand would have been extremely important to establish presence of Balwant Singh at the Hospital or at the place of the incident.Accordingly, the evidence of Balwant Singh is unreliable.A. 731/2007 Page 34 of 42The other eye witness Om Singh (PW-4), brother of the deceased as well as brother of the injured, also claims to be an eye witness.There is no evidence to show that Om Singh made any attempt to save his brothers or whether he helped his uncle in removing the injured persons in the PCR van or whether he accompanied his injured brothers to the Hospital.There is also no evidence to show that Om Singh (PW-4) claimed that he became so scared that he hid himself.It has also come in cross-examination of PW-4 Om Singh that his Tau Tara Chand did not accompany his injured brothers Narender and Raj Karan to the Hospital on the night of the incident.He further stated that Police had reached the spot and took his brothers Raj Karan, Narender along with uncle Balwant to the Hospital, however, he remained at the spot.We find this in stark contradiction to the fact that as per the MLC, the history was given by one Tara Chand.In the absence of these questions not being answered, even the presence of Om Singh becomes suspicious.We are conscious of the fact that the evidence of injured witness is placed at a highest level.The presence of the injured witness would be established by the injuries sustained by him, however, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the statement of PW-5 Raj Karan Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 35 of 42 was recorded after 14 days and after he was removed from Hindu Rao Hospital to Santom Hospital.While MLC of Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) shows that the injured was brought to the Hospital on 30.08.1993 at 11:20 PM by HC Vijender Singh with alleged history of fight (being stabbed by someone) as told by one Sh.Tarachand s/o Sis Ram r/o Village Khera Kalan.He was fully conscious and his blood pressure was recordable.This MLC nowhere records that the injured was unfit for making a statement.Although, as per the testimony of PW16 Harsh Vardhan (Investigating Officer), who had testified that he visited the Hospital on 3-4 occasions, but Raj Karan was not found fit for the statement but this is not borne out from the record.The delay of 14 days in recording the statement of the injured witness PW-5 Raj Karan is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.From the MLC (Ex.PW6/B), it stands established that the injured persons were brought to the Hospital by Vijender Singh with alleged history of fight.There is nothing on record to suggest that Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of HC Vijender Singh of the PCR.There is also no evidence on record to show as to whether Tara Chand was anywhere related to the injured/deceased persons.We may also note that the MLC of Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) contains only two endorsements to the effect that PW-5 Raj Karan was declared unfit to make a statement on 02.09.1993 and another undated endorsement by PW-8 Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Santom Hospital where Raj Karan received the treatment after leaving the Hindu Rao Hospital.A. 731/2007 Page 35 of 42We find this also to be very strange in the light of the testimony of PW-16 (IO) who has deposed that he went to Hindu Rao Hospital 3-4 times for recording of statement of the injured but found him unfit.We Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 36 of 42 also find this to be highly unusual that a simple statement has been made by the IO that he visited the hospital 3-4 times for recording of the statement of PW5 but found him unfit while there are only two endorsements on the MLC, one of Hindu Rao Hospital and another undated by Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Santom Hospital.In this backdrop, it would be relevant to analyse the testimonies of all the three eyewitnesses.A. 731/2007 Page 39 of 42As far as the respondents Ashok and Surender are concerned, it would be necessary to analyse the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW16 Harsh Vardhan who stated in his cross-examination that he had enquired from the persons living in houses near the spot after having come to know that the accused Sushil had inflicted injuries.

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

17.12.2020 Court No.28 SL No.168 AP CRM 10467 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No.190 of 2020 dated 24.08.2020 under Sections 341/323/325/ 354B/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a dispute over sharing of common property.Earlier the petitioner had lodged complaint against the de facto complainant and his family members.In retaliation the petitioner have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.We have considered the materials on record.Allegation of assault including sexual abuse may be assessed at the appropriate stage of the proceedings in accordance with law.We note that there was prior enmity between the parties owing to property dispute.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 2 Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner while on bail shall not enter the jurisdiction of Panchla Police Station until further orders except for the purposes of investigation and/or for attending the court proceedings and shall provide the address where the petitioner shall presently reside to the Investigating Agency as well as the Court below and shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction the petitioner shall presently reside once in a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.The parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this court.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 3586 of 2007 Sri Arup Banerjee versus Smt. Anindita Banerjee For Petitioner : Mr.Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the complaint Case No. C/480 of 2007 under Sections 193/196/197/198/120B of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah as well as the order of issuance of summons.The allegations made in the impugned complaint are as follows;The said application being filed before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, the Misc.Case No. 120 of 2003 was registered and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah for disposal.(b) The complainant in his aforesaid application categorically stated that the accused no. 1 was working in a software company at Bangalore and subsequently she came to know that he took an employment at M/s. IBM at Salt Lake.(c) In connection with the aforesaid maintenance proceeding the accused no. 1 was examined in Court on November 16, 2005 and November 18, 2005 and while disposing on oath in Court he stated that he is an employee of the accused no. 2 knowing fully well that his statement is false.(d) The accused no. 1 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused no. 2 for their wrongful gain.While the accused no. 1 stated in his deposition on oath that the accused no. 2 is his employer, the accused no. 2 stated in his deposition on oath that the accused no. 1 is his employee working at his office since July, 2005 which is absolutely false.(e) One Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, Manager of IBM India Ltd. deposed in the aforesaid case as P.W. 4 and in his deposition he stated that the accused no. 1 was the employee of his company since April 4, 2005 and submitted an authenticated document in respect of his employment and his salary, which were duly marked as exhibits.(f) Both the accused nos. 1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy in between themselves and made false statement on oath before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah while deposing in connection with Misc.(g) The accused persons fabricated and manufactured false evidence in the aforesaid maintenance proceedings and thereby both of them committed offence punishable under Section 120B/192/193 of the Indian Penal Code.The complainant/opposite party in her initial deposition also alleged that the accused no. 1 while deposing in connection with the aforesaid maintenance proceeding as O.P.W. 1 on September 7, 2005 and September 15, 2005 falsely stated on oath, at that point of time he was working at Simmex Infotech under the accused no. 2 Mriganka Khan, similarly the accused no. 2, Mriganka Khan in his deposition in court falsely stated on oath that the accused no. 1 used to work in his concern and was getting a salary of Rs. 9,200/- per month.Accordingly, Mr. Mukherjee prays that the impugned order of issuance of summons be set aside and the impugned complaint be quashed.On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party except submitting that there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned proceedings has not been able to make any submissions to meet or repudiate the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee.Considered the rival submissions of the parties.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

Allegations were to the effect that "Letter Heads" ofKarnataka Bank Ltd., were removed surreptitiously and with fakeseals, fake bank guarantees were typed out on the "Stamp Papers"purchased from "Koratagere Stamp Vendor" and were signed byaccused no. 2 posing to be the Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd.,Koratagere Branch.These bank guarantees were submitted as ifthey were genuine in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Excise,Tumkur.Order of learned Single Judge by which proceedings initiatedagainst the respondents in CC.No.1613/1998 on the file of the CJM,Tumkur, were set aside is subject matter of challenge, in this appeal.Background facts in nutshell essentially are as follows: -The Inspector of Police, Fraud Squad, COD submitted acharge-sheet against the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as"accused") in the aforesaid case alleging commission of offencespunishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short 'IPC').The said charge-sheet was submitted after investigation, on receipt of complaintmade by one Police Inspector attached to the Fraud Squad, COD,Bangalore.Cognizance was taken by the CJM.Respondents -accused nos. 1&2 filed application before the Karnataka High Courtunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in shortthe 'Code').They inter alia contended that the allegations madehave not been borne out by the materials/evidence collectedduring investigation and continuance of proceedings against themwould be against the ends of justice.Learned single Judge notedthat the substance of charge-sheet as stated in Form No. 7 was tothe effect that for the year 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the ExciseContractors Ranganatha Group were awarded the contract to actas excise contractors for the Tumkur District.The said RanganathaGroup sub-leased by way of General Power of Attorney (in short'GPA') to accused no. 1 to act as Excise Contractor of Koratagereof Tumkur District.As a part of the arrangement, the said accusedno.Similarwas the position for the year 1993-1994 except that the originalcontractors were Yallappa and Ramachandrappa and the Bankguarantee required to be furnished was for an amount ofRs.64,29,500/-.On 17.7.93, accused no. 1 took Excise Sub-Inspector to ahouse at Asok Nagar, Tumkur where he introduced accused no. 2 tobe the Manager of the Bank and caused service of a notice whichwas addressed to the Manager of the Bank by the DeputyCommissioner of Excise.Under the above circumstances, it wasalleged that with fraudulent intention, fake bank guarantees,confirmation letters, extension letters were submitted and there wasimpersonation.Therefore, it was stated that offences werepunishable as noted above.Learned Single Judge analysed the background facts andcame to hold that the involvement of excise officials cannot beruled out and when they have been indicated to be witnesses,likelihood of prejudice cannot be ruled out.It was also noted thatthere was no "definite evidence" to show that accused nos. 1&2were directly involved.Finally, it was observed that there was nomaterial to hold that the accused persons had committed theft of"Letter Heads" from Karnataka Bank Ltd., and/or they hadcommitted forgery for the purpose of cheating or have usedgenuine forged documents or had cheated the government.Aggrieved by the said Order directing quashing of theproceedings, this appeal has been filed.The appeal isallowed.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

According to the prosecution, on 17.8.1999, there was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the deceased ofM.S. Nagar and A1 to A7 of Mangalapuram, while playing carrom in 7th Street, Mangalapuram, Chetpet, with respect to which, a complaint was lodged by one Surendran in the Chetpet Police Station.Again, on 18.8.1999, there was a quarrel between both the parties at Ambedkar ground, Chetpet and a complaint was lodged by one Manimaran.In view of the above, there was an enmity between both the parties.Apprehending danger to their lives at the hands of A7, who is a big rowdy, P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased stayed in the house of P.W.3 at T.P. Chathiram.On 29.8.1999, at about 10.15 pm, when P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased went to Indian Wines shop at Shenoy Nagar to purchase brandy, A1 to A4 along with two unknown persons, armed with patta knives, came in two autorickshaws.On seeing them, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased tried to escape from the place.But, A1 to A4 and the two unknown persons, surrounded P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased.2.4. A1 cut P.W.1 on his left leg with patta knife.A2 cut P.W.2 on his right thumb and wrist.A1 cut P.W.2 with patta knife on his left wrist and left thumb.A3 cut P.W.3 on his head.A4 cut the deceased on his left ear and left hand.The two unknown persons stabbed the deceased on his stomach with the patta knives.A1 and A3 also cut P.W.3 on his right hand and head.The public, who gathered at the place of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry, were threatened by the accused by showing the patta knives.A3 cut two people who were in the wine shop.The gravamen of the prosecution case is that A1 to A6, who were the hooligans acting for and on behalf of A7, due to the prior enmity in playing carrom board, entered into a criminal conspiracy in the residence of A7 to murder the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, on 29.8.1999 at 10.15 p.m., in front of Indian Wine Shop, No. 10B, Link Road, T.P. Chatram, at the instance of A7, attacked the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash and caused his death.It is also the case of the prosecution that A1 to A6 attacked P.Ws.1 to 5 and caused injuries to them.It is not in dispute that there were two groups of rowdy elements, one led by A7 and the other led by the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash and there was prior enmity between the two groups in playing carrom.JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, J.The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2003 made in Sessions Case No. 205 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Chennai, whereunder the appellants herein were tried along with three other accused namely A5 to A7 therein and convicted and sentenced as mentioned below.A1 to A6 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC and A7 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) IPC, in connection with the occurrence said to have taken place at about 10.15 p.m. on 29.8.1999 in front of Indian Wines shop at Link Road, within the jurisdiction of respondent Police Station, Chennai, for having said to have murdered one Udaya @ Udayaprakash.Based on the said statement, Ex.P1, a First Information Report, Ex.A1 hurled a bottle on the road.Thereafter, they ran away from the scene of occurrence.2.6. P.W.1 gave a statement, Ex.F.I.R. was registered on 29.8.1999 at about 11.45 pm on the file of K6, T.P. Chatiram Police Station, which was marked as Ex.The investigating officer, P.W.21, on the basis of the F.I.R., Ex.P23, undertook the investigation, visited the place of occurrence in the early hours of 30.8.1999, prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P24 and a Rough Sketch, Ex.The blood stained dresses, MO7 to MO16, worn by P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased were seized under Mahazar Exs.Two petrol bombs, MO2 and six blood stained patta knives, MO1 and MO22 series were seized from the house of A7 under Mahazar, Ex.Two autorickshaws, MO5 and MO6, in which the accused came to the scene of occurence were seized under Mahazar, Ex.2.8. P.W.8 is the Doctor who examined P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased and issued Accident Register Extracts, Exs.P6, P4 and P5 respectively.P.W.6 is the Doctor who examined P.W.3 and issued wound certificate, Ex.P2 stating that the injuries are grievous in nature.P.W.7 is the Doctor who examined P.W.4 and issued wound certificate, Ex.P3 stating that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple.P.W.9 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem at 12.45 pm on 30.8.1999 and found 10 external injuries, as certified in the Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P9, opined that the deceased would have died due to multiple injuries.On 3.9.1999, the material objects were forwarded for chemical analysis through the Court and chemical analyst's report is Ex.Serologist's report is Ex.Since the accused denied the charges framed against them, they were tried in Sessions Case No. 205 of 2003 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Chennai.On behalf of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 23 and marked Exs.P.Ws.1 to 5 are injured eye witnesses.3.2. P.W.1 speaks about the presence of all the accused and overt acts on himself, P.Ws.2, 3 and the deceased, attributed to A1, A2, A3; P.W.2 also speaks about the presence of all the accused and the overt acts of A1 and A2; P.W.3 though speaks about the incident, did not specify the names of the accused; P.W.4 speaks about the incident, but mentions the scene of occurrence at different place; even though P.W.5 speaks about the incident, his evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same.The accused have neither examined any witness, nor marked any document on their behalf.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Chennai, after appreciating the evidence on record and finding that only A1 to A4 were present in the scene of occurrence, acquitted A7 of the charge under Section 120B and A5 and A6 of the charges under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC and convicted (i) A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 (2 counts) and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and 7 years, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (on each count), in default, to undergo three months imprisonment on each count and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months respectively; (ii) A2 under Sections 326 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, imprisonment for three months and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months respectively; (iii) A3 under Sections 326 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, imprisonment for three months and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months respectively; and (iv) A4 under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months.Hence, the above appeal.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused took us to the whole evidence and contended that the prosecution had not been able to establish that it was A1 to A4 who committed the murder of the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash.According to him, when the benefit of doubt is extended to A5 and A6, the same benefit should be extended to other accused also (appellants).He has submitted that the circumstances emerging out of the evidence were too insignificant to connect the accused with other offences under which A1 to A3 were convicted.The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused party and the witness party in playing carrom remain unshaken.Now, coming to the conviction of the accused, the trial Court convicted A1 under Sections 324, 326 (2 counts) and 302 IPC, A2 and A3 under Sections 326 and 302 IPC, A4 under Section 302 IPC.The prosecution rested on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5, injured witnesses.Though P.Ws.3 and 4 are alleged to have sustained injuries in the occurrence and medical evidence also corroborated the same, yet, they have not specified the overt acts attributed to each of the accused and hence, their evidence are not helpful.P.W.8 doctor treated the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash who was brought to the hospital for the injuries allegedly sustained by the attack made by six known persons.P.W.8 found the deceased unconscious.He also found cut injuries on his right knee, left forehead, left thigh and left wrist.He also found cut injuries on his head, right thigh and left knee.For the said injuries on the deceased, he issued Ex.P5, accident register extract.P.W.9, doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found ten external injuries almost all over the body.Most of them are cut injuries.P.W.9 opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the injuries sustained by him.It is therefore evident from the deposition of P.Ws.8 and 9 that the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash was indiscriminately attacked by more than one person and due to the injuries sustained by him, he died, in spite of the treatment given to him.Next, we have to examine whether A1 to A6 are the persons who attacked the deceased and they are responsible for the death of the deceased.In the complaint, Ex.P1 given by P.W.1, it is stated that A1 to A4, along with other two unknown persons armed with knives, came in two autorickshaws and attacked P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased, from which, it is evident that P.Ws.1 to 3 were present at the time of occurrence.Though P.W.5 claimed that he saw A1 to A6 armed with knives boarding autorickshaws and that he witnessed the occurrence, in the first information report, Ex.P1 there is no mention about the presence of P.W.5 in the scene of occurrence.Further, though P.W.5, in his chief examination, has stated that he heard the accused party saying that only after the death of Udhaya (deceased), the Chetpet area would be secured, in his cross-examination he has stated that he did not inform the same either to the police, or to the public or to the persons who were present at P.W.3's house when he immediately visited there.P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that A2 cut the deceased on his right knee, whereas P.W.2 has deposed that A1 to A6 cut the deceased indiscriminately.Even though in Ex.P1 complaint, the names of A1 to A4 are found mentioned, P.W.1 has given evidence specifying the name of A2 stating that A2 cut the deceased.P.W.2 in his evidence has only stated that A1 to A6 cut the deceased indiscriminately and his evidence does not specifically attribute the overt acts to a particular accused.The trial Court based on Ex.P1 wherein the names of A1 to A4 were mentioned and the evidence of P.W.22 doctor who has stated that P.W.2 informed him that he was attacked by four known persons, convicted A1 to A4 under Section 302 IPC for the death of deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash.But, the approach of trial Court is not appreciable, as, except P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other witness to speak about the attack on the deceased.Among the two, P.W.1, in his chief examination, has specifically implicated A2 in the attack on the deceased, but in cross-examination he has stated that A1 to A6 indiscriminately cut the deceased.As already noticed, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that A1 to A6 indiscriminately attacked the deceased.Therefore, when there is no evidence roping in a particular accused in the attack on the deceased, it is not safe to convict A1 to A4 also under Section A href="javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','16125','1');">302 IPC for the death of the deceased.It is pertinent to note that the trial Court discharged A5 and A6 from the charge of murder giving the benefit of doubt on the basis that their names were not mentioned in Ex.P1, complaint and that the prosecution witnesses have not stated that A5 and A6 attacked the deceased.We find substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that when the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to A5 and A6, the same benefit should also be extended to other accused.It is a settled proposition in criminal jurisprudence that eye-witnesses having been disbelieved partly, resulting in acquittal of the co-accused, it would not be safe to believe them qua other accused and other accused are also entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal [vide: Lakkappa Ningappa Ittappannavar v. State of Karnataka 1993 Supp (2) SCC 755].In the instant case, there is no cogent and convincing evidence by any of the prosecution witnesses specifically attributing the overt acts to each of the accused.Under such circumstances, we hold that A1 to A4 are also entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in respect of the murder of the deceased and accordingly, they are discharged from the charge under Section A href="javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','16125','1');">302 IPC.The trial Court recorded its finding on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, injured witnesses.P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that A1 cut him on his left leg.P.W.8 doctor, who examined P.W.1, found an incised wound, 5 x 2 cm.in size on his left ankle.It is his evidence that bones were found protruding.P.W.10 doctor, who treated P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that there was a fracture on his left leg and issued Ex.P11 wound certificate opining that it was a grievous injury.The above facts would reveal that A1 had inflicted a grievous injury on P.W.1 explicitly implicating him for the offence under Section 326 IPC.It is the prosecution case that P.W.3 sustained injuries on his hands and head.Though P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that he was attacked by a mob, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear that A1 cut P.W.3 on his left thumb.The above statement is corroborated with the evidence of the doctor P.W.6 who deposed that he did not find the left thumb of P.W.3, at the time of examination.According to the medical evidence the above injury is grievous in nature.Further, the severed thumb was seized under mahazar, Ex.So far as P.W.3 is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that A3 also inflicted injury on him.As already observed, P.W.3 has not stated anything as to who had inflicted injury on him, but from the evidence of P.W.3 it is deducible that he sustained injuries on his hands and head.The doctor P.W.6, who examined P.W.3, found injury on his right hand and opined that the said injury is grievous in nature.However, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that P.W.3 in his evidence has not stated as to who attacked him and though the other injured witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have attributed specific overt acts in respect of injuries on P.Ws.1 to 3 to A1 to A3, in the absence of corroboration by P.W.3, it is not safe to convict A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 326 IPC.We are unable to accept the above contention, because, it would be practically impossible for any injured witness to exactly notice and memorise which accused was causing injuries on him and if any such statement is made, it may amount to an exaggeration because when a number of assailants are there, injuries are not inflicted in a manner which could be exactly noted by the witnesses [vide: State of Rajasthan v. Major Singh ].But, P.W.2 has only stated that A1 caused injury on his left leg.P6 and Ex.P11 are also silent as to the injury on the left wrist.As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has only proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 326 IPC as follows:(i) 1st accused ... under Section 326 IPC (2 counts)(ii) 2nd accused ... under Section 326 IPC(iii) 3rd accused ... under Section 326 IPC However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 under Section 302 IPC and the guilt of A1 under Section 324 IPC.In the result, the conviction and sentence in respect of A4 under Section 302 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, are set aside; and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment alone in respect of A1 to A3 under Section 302 IPC and that of A1 under Section 324 IPC are also set aside.The conviction in respect of A1 to A3 under Section 326 IPC, as stated above, are confirmed, however, considering the circumstances placed before us, A1 to A3 are each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four (4) years, instead of seven years as awarded by the trial Court plus the fine amount as ordered by the trial Court.The fine amount imposed as against A1 to A3 under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount under Section 326 IPC, in addition to the fine already imposed.The sentence against A1 for two counts under Section 326 IPC shall run concurrently.The period already undergone by A1 to A3 is ordered to be set off.The bail bond, if any, executed by A4 shall stand cancelled.Out of the fine amount imposed on the A1 to A3 under Section 326 IPC, including the one originally imposed under Section 302 IPC and subsequently treated as fine under Section 326 IPC, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 as compensation.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

ORDER Sadasivam, J.Petitioner Raju alias Edly Rajoo has been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 75, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.According to him, the petitioner would have a right of appeal if he had been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment in the mofussil.There are separate Civil and Criminal Courts in the City of Madras with separate jurisdiction and they differ widely from the Civil and Criminal Courts in the mofussil.The reasons for the difference could be understood only by a person having knowledge of legal history.Such difference may be justified as one of reasonable classification based on geographical division.It should be noted that the petitioner would have been tried by a Second Class Magistrate in the mofussil, but he was tried in the City by a Presidency Magistrate who should at least be of the cadre of Sub-Divisional Magistrate.In fact, in this case the petitioner was tried by the Third Presidency Magistrate who was a District Magistrate before he came as the Third Presidency Magistrate.On the facts of the case, there can be little doubt about the guilt of the petitioner.P.W. 1, Krishnamoorthy is a Junior Engineer.he travelled in a bus with five-ten rupee notes and one one-rupee note in his left shirt pocket.He suspected the movements of the petitioner who constantly came near him.When he got down from the bus, he found his money missing.He saw the petitioner running and gave him a chase but was unable to catch him.At 7-30 p.m. on 7th April, 1961 itself, the petitioner was caught by the Police when he was creating disturbance in a drunken mood.A sum of Rs. 48 in currency notes was recovered from him.P.W. 1 was sent for, and he went to the Police Station and identified the petitioner as the person whom he chased that evening.The learned Third Presidency Magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of the defence witnesses, and no argument was advanced in respect of the same.Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1, and the recovery of the note, M.O. 1 clearly prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']

This application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.154/2017 registered at Police Station Nai Garhi, District Rewa for offences punishable under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The arrest of the applicant is required in the aforesaid case allegedly for assaulting and causing hurt to the complainant for not giving him Rs.200/- for purchasing liquor.Vide order dated 11.10.2017, this Court had requested the learned counsel for the State to call for the MLC as the same was not in the case diary.Today also the MLC is not there in the case diary.Except the offence under Section 327 of the I.P.C. all other offences are bailable in nature.The offence under Section 327 of the I.P.C. deals with voluntarily causing hurt for the purpose of extortion.Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2017.10.27 03:19:54

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

ALLOWED In the matter of An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28th February, 2017 in connection with Udaynarayanpur Police Station Case No. 93 of 2015 dated 23.7.2015 under Sections 341/323/ 326/307/354B/ 379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Prashanta Bag & Others ... Petitioners MSk.Samim Akhter For the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Manoaranjan Mahato .. For the State Mr. Arijit Ganguly .. for the de-facto complainant.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

The agreement requiredthe appellant to complete all the accounts and prohibitedfrom borrowing money in the name of the firm.It requiredhim "to use his best efforts to realise all pending bills,security deposits, claims etc." as well as to dispose of theplant, machinery etc. The agreement also provided thatpartners, other than the appellant, would procure, if theneed arose, further finance to the maximum limit of Rs.25,000/- but that if a sum in excess of this amount wasrequired, that excess was to be brought in by all thepartners including the appellant "individually pro rata inproportion to their shares of profits and losses in thefirm".Clause 8 of this agreement permitted the appellantto withdraw on his own account a sum of Rs. 10,000 "nosooner he is able to realise any of the pending claims ofbills of the firm or security deposits".We have dealt withthis agreement at some length because it will be relevant toconsider these matters in the context of the argument of Mr.Rana to the effect that the appellant as working partner wasentitled to utilise the realizations made by him forcarrying on the work of the firm.According to the complainant the appellant committed mis-appropriation to the tune of Rs. 8,905/- consisting of thefollow-ing six items Rs. 2,871/-Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedFebruary 1, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal AppealNo.O.P. Rana, for the appellant.P. K. Chatterjee and B. R. G. K. Achar, for therespondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMudholkar J. In this appeal from the judgment of the BombayHigh Court the question which falls to be considered iswhether a partner can be convicted under s. 409, IndianPenal Code on the ground that his failure to account formonies belonging to the firm in which he was a partneramounts to criminal breach of trust.The admitted facts are briefly theseThe firm, Messrs. Bharat Silp Pramandal, which was formedfor carrying on the business of building construction,originally conisted of eight partners and the appellant wasits working partner.But on February 6, 1957 three of the partners retiredand the business was continued by the remaining fivepartners.The trial court acquitted the appellant with respect to thelast two items but convicted him in respect of the firstfour items.The appellant admits that he realised these four items buthe says that he did so in his capacity as partner and heutilised them for the business of the partnership.Surendra Mohan Das(1).in the result we allow the appeal and set aside theconviction and sentence passed against him.Appeal allowed.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Pudukottai Village.All the accused belonged to the same place.His brother Theoplus, the first deceased (D1) and one Jayaprakash, the second deceased (D2) also belonged to the same place.A-1 was carrying on the illicit arrack business in which all the other accused were employed under him.A few days prior to the occurrence, when D1 and D2 along with others went over there for the sale of illicit arrack, there was a quarrel between them, and at that time, they were warned by A-1 and others not to sell so.(b) On 26.5.2002 the date of occurrence, both the D1 and D2 along with one Albert went over there.At that time, when they were about to sell the illicit arrack, it was objected to by the accused party, and when the same was also questioned by both the deceased whether they could alone do.At that time, P.Ws.3 and 4 also came over there to get arrack from the deceased.This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3 and both the persons died at the spot instantaneously.The accused persons along with the aruvals ran away from the place of occurrence.(c) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.13 was the Sub Inspector of Police.At about 8.00 P.M., he gave Ex.P1 complaint, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.299 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC and the printed FIR Ex.P9 along with the report, Ex.P1, was despatched to the Court.(d) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on intimation from the Sub Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P.W.10, the Photographer, was called to take photographs of the place of occurrence and also the dead body which were also photographed, and accordingly they were marked as M.O.6 series.Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of D1 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Thereafter on the dead body of D2, he conducted inquest and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Then both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.(e) P.W.11, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of Theoplus and has given his opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P7, that he died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained.(f) Equally, the dead body of Jayaprakash was subjected to postmortem by P.W.12, the Doctor.The Doctor has also given opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.(g) Pending the investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, and an application was taken before the Court for police custody.He came forward to give a confessional statement.The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P6 pursuant to which he produced six aruvals which were marked as M.O.1 series.Then A-1 was sent for judicial remand.(i) Pending investigation, A-3 also surrendered before the Court.Then he was taken to police custody.He gave a confessional statement.The same was recorded, and he was sent for judicial remand.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Perambalur, made in S.C.No.67 of 2007 whereby the appellants ranked as A-1 to A-4 and A-6 respectively, along with another ranked as A-2, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESFINDINGPUNISHMENTA-1 to A-6147 IPCGuilty under Sec.148 IPC1 years Rigorous ImprisonmentA-1 to A-6341 IPCGuilty1 month Simple ImprisonmentA-1, A-3 & A-5302 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-2, A-4 & A-6302 r/w 149 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-2 & A-4302 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-1, A-3, A-5 & A-6302 r/w 149 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:Accordingly, police custody was ordered.During the police custody, their statements were recorded, and they were sent for judicial remand.(h) On 15.6.2002, A-1 was arrested by the Investigator.(j) The further investigation, pursuant to the directions given by the Superintendent of Police, was taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police.He enquired the other witnesses and recorded their statements.All the material objects were sent for analysis.The reports were received and placed before the Court.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 12 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.One witness was examined on the side of the defence shown as D.W.1, and also one document was marked on their side.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found them guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-1, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P1 is the first information given to the police; and that apart from that, in the instant case, though five witnesses were examined as eyewitnesses, they are all either related or intimated to each other.5.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the charge framed against the accused is that A-1, A-3 and A-5 attacked D1 and A-2 and A-4 attacked D2; but, the evidence that was adduced before the Court has got all discrepancies possible; that as regards P.W.1, he has turned hostile and hence his evidence was not useful to the prosecution; that as far as P.W.2 was concerned, he has stated that D1 was attacked by A-1, A-3 and A-5, and D2 was attacked by A-2 and A-4; but, he does not implicate A-6 or does not mention any overt act in respect of A-6; that as far as P.W.3 is concerned, he has stated that A-1 has cut D1, and he has not spoken anything about any other accused or the overt acts which are attributed to any one of the accused; that as far as A-2 was concerned, P.W.4 has stated that A-1, A-3 and A-5 cut D1, and as far as D2 is concerned, he has stated only A-4, but not implicated A-2; that as far as P.W.5's evidence is concerned, he has stated that D1 was cut by A-5 and he has not implicated the other two accused; that as far as D2 is concerned, according to him, it was done by A-2, and he has not spoken anything about A-4; that all these would clearly indicate that though these witnesses have been examined in order to speak about the overt acts, and that too when an occurrence has taken place at 4.00 P.M. i.e., day time, naturally one would expect them to narrate the incident properly; but, those discrepancies what are found in the evidence are not only contra to the charges framed, but also the prosecution was unable to substantiate its case, and hence all would go to show that they could not have seen the occurrence at all.6.It is further urged by the learned Senior Counsel that Insofar as A-6, his name does not find place in the FIR; that according to the prosecution, when A-1 was arrested, he gave a confessional statement and produced six aruvals; that had it been true that A-6 was actually present at the place of occurrence, his name should have been mentioned in the FIR; that the non-mention of the name of A-6 in the FIR would clearly indicate that A-6 could not have been present in the place of occurrence; and that all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.7.Added further the learned Senior Counsel in the second line of argument that there was a rivalry between the accused on the one side and both the deceased on the other as to the sale of illicit arrack; that even on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel when D1 and D2 were about to sell arrack to P.Ws.3 and 4, and in that process, the occurrence has taken place; that under the circumstances, it cannot be stated to be intentional or premeditated; and that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case insofar as the overt acts attributed to the accused, the Court has to consider this aspect also before rendering its judgment.Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the other appellants adopted the above arguments.9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.That apart, the appellants did not raise any controversy regarding the fact that both the deceased died out of homicidal violence.Under the circumstances, no impediment was felt by the trial Court and it has recorded the same accordingly, which has got to be affirmed by this Court.11.Insofar as the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecution has marched five witnesses.Out of these five witnesses, P.W.1 though he was the author of Ex.P1, the report, has deposed that he did not know anything about the overt acts of the accused or incident.Under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 was not useful or available to the prosecution.But, to the extent that the criminal law was set in motion, his evidence could be accepted since according to P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave Ex.P1, the complaint, on the strength of which the case came to be registered under the above provisions of law.Apart from that, the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P1, the report, no question of inferring his presence at the place of occurrence would arise.Hence, as far as A-6 is concerned, this Court is unable to notice any evidence in the case, and hence the presence of A-6 at the time of occurrence is ruled out, and he has got to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.As far as the overt acts attributed to them, it is not in controversy that D1 Theoplus and D2 Jayaprakash were cut and death was caused instantaneously.At that time, number of persons who are the eyewitnesses before the Court and also the number of accused who were arrayed, were all present at the place of occurrence, and if to be so, at the time of occurrence, it is quite natural when two persons are being attacked by number of persons with deadly weapons like aruvals, one cannot expect them to meticulously note what are all the overt acts attributed to them.In the case on hand, the fact that the five persons namely A-1 to A-5, were armed with aruvals would clearly indicate that they have actually constituted an unlawful assembly with the common intention of killing those persons, and thus they have acted so.In view of their presence with deadly weapons and causing death of two persons, the provisions of Sec.149 of IPC would be attracted.The discrepancies brought to the notice of the Court in no way would affect the prosecution case and did not take away the truth of the case.Hence there is no impediment in recording a finding that A-1 to A-5 have constituted an unlawful assembly having deadly weapons and attacked D1 and D2 and caused their death instantaneously.14.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that there was a delay in despatching the FIR to the Court cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case for the reasons that P.W.1 has admitted that he went to the police station and gave the report.P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, has deposed that pursuant to Ex.P1, the report, he registered the case.P.W.14, the Investigator, has admitted that he has gone to the spot, and since it was night hours, he did not do investigation.Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that P.W.14 has stated that only on receipt of the FIR, he went to the spot for investigation.In the instant case, even as per the prosecution case, there was a rivalry as to the sale of illicit arrack between D1 and D2 on the one side and A-1 and his employees namely A-2 to A-5, on the other side.As regards the other charges, the judgment of the trial Court in respect of A-1 to A-5 is confirmed.All the sentences imposed on A-1 to A-5 are ordered to run concurrently.18.As regards A-6, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside, and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.The fine amount if any paid by him will be refunded to him.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 1 of 21CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 2 of 21The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 17.01.2013 vide DD No.26A, a PCR call was recorded regarding rape by father with his own daughter, aged 8 years, at H.No B-1970, Kashmiri Block,Jain Nagar, Delhi.SI Dinesh along with Ct. reached the house where they met the mother of the victim who reported the rape committed by her accused husband, on their two minor daughters, V aged 8 years and M aged 13 years.NGO was called and victims were taken to SGM hospital where they were medically examined.The complainant S, PW-13, gave her statement that she is a house wife and has four daughters and a son and her husband runs a factory.On 11.01.2013, her husband committed wrong act with daughter V after taking her to some other room of their residential dwelling, and also threatened her not to tell anything to anyone or else she will be killed.On 13.01.2013 when she was cleaning the house, she found one blood stained underwear of V under the bed.On inquiry from the prosecutrix PW-3, told by the latter that her father lifted her from the bed in the night and lay her on a sofa and gave her a tablet after which she began feeling sleepy, and then he inserted his 'shushu wali jagah' in her 'shushu wali jagah'; and when the prosecutrix felt pain, her father again brought her CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 3 of 21 back to the bed.PW-3 stated that she conferred about this incident with her family members and did not report the commission of the offence to the police at that stage, but when her elder daughter M, who was living with her maternal grandmother came and informed her that, her father committed wrong act with her as well, which the former did not disclose because of fear, the complainant came to Police Station and lodged the subject FIR.Allowed.) XXXXXXX by Ld.Addl.It is correct that me and my children are completely hand to mouth and there is no other earning member in my family, I want to get my husband released.It is also correct that my both daughters were produced before CWC and from there the custody of my daughters were handed over to me.It is wrong to suggest that I have left my daughter M at my mother's house due to acts of sexual assault upon her by my husband.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.P.C has been granted to the appellant.Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been convicted, is for having committed rape upon his own daughter/the CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 2 of 21 prosecutrix, a girl aged about 8 years, at the time of commission of the offence.After medical examination of the victim, her exhibit (one underwear having darker stains) was seized and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.IO collected the date of birth proof of the victim and sent samples to Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'FSL').The accused was arrested and was medically examined; and while awaiting FSL result, the present chargesheet was filed.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 3 of 21By way of order dated 20.05.2013, charge was framed against the appellant for offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act read with u/s 376(2)(f) IPC and u/s 328 IPC for the offences committed against daughter V, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereafter the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case by his wife PW-13 (the mother of CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 4 of 21 the child victim) due to a matrimonial dispute.The Appellant chose to examine three witness in his defence including himself.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 4 of 21Broadly, the Trial Court has based the conviction of the Appellant on the testimony of victim V, PW-3 as hereunder :"24.08.2011 Q. Kya hua tha ?Me so rahi thi, papa aaye mujhe dawai khilayi.Meri kachhi uttari, apni kachhi uteri aur meri susu me apni susu laga rahe the.Q. Aap kaha so rahethe ?Hall me Q. Papa kahan so rahe the ?Lakdi wale kamre me.Hamare ghar me 3 kamre hain.2 me farsh (floor) par mate lagawaya tha aur ek me lakdi lagawayi thi.Q. Lakdi wale kamre me kaun kaun sota hai?Wahan par mummy papa sota hai Q. Kya aap pehle bhi court me ho ?Ha At this stage, the witness has been shown her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex-PW- 2/D and identifies her signatures at point "A" thereupon.Q. Kya apne yeh baat kisi ko batayi thi ?Nahi Q. Mummy ko bataya tha ?Nahi, mummy ki tabiyat kharab thi sara din behosh padi rehti thi Q. Aur kisi ko bataya tha?Nahi, papa ne dhamka rakha tha ki kisi ko nahi batana hai CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 5 of 21 XXXX By Sh.Ravi Kant Singh, learned counsel for accused.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 5 of 21Q.Aap kashmiri colony se pehle kaha rehte the ?Shashtri Nagar Q.Aapko mummy jyada pyar karti hai yah papa ?"I am a housewife and residing at the abovementioned address with my five children out of which four are daughters and one son.My husband, who is present in the court today as accused Jitender Sharma (witness has correctly identified the accused), was having his own work and running a factory of hydraulic machines.My eldest daughter M, who is aged about 15 years at present, is residing at the house of my mother.I do not want to say anything about the present case as to why and how this case has been registered against my husband.One day a quarrel took place between me and my husband and my husband gave beatings to me and my daughters, due to which I got annoyed and went to PS.I had told to the police officials that my husband was harassing me but the police officials did not record my said statement and I do not CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 6 of 21 know why the police official had recorded my statement in such manner.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 6 of 21At this stage, witness is shown her complaint from the judicial file and she identifies her signatures at point "A" thereupon.The complaint is now exhibited as Ex-PW-13/A. My daughter V is aged about 10 years at present.My husband did not do anything wrong with my daughters M and V. Vol.He only gave 2/3 slaps to them.At present I want that my husband should be released as there is no earning member in my family and I generally remain ill.It was a simple quarrel between me and my husband which was given colour in the present form of complaint by the police.(At this stage, Ld. Addl.PP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as she is resiling from her earlier statement.PP for the State.I have studied upto 9th class.I did not go through the contents of Ex.PW-13/A before signing the same.Police officials also did not read over the contents of Ex.PW-13/A to me.With great hardship, I am managing my household affairs and expenses.I get some stitching work from the tailors and do the same at home.All my children are school going and studying in different classes.Neither my in-laws nor my parental side are financially supporting me.The house where I am residing is belonging to my husband, which is constructed on a plot of 67 sq. yards.It is constructed upto first floor.I am residing on the first floor with my children and the ground floor is lying vacant.I am looking for tenant to let out the ground floor.It is correct that my both daughters M and V were got medically examined.It is in correct to suggest that I got my both the daughters internally examined vide my statement encircled at point "Y" on MLC already Ex.PW-9/B. It is wrong to suggest that I had the doctors regarding the sexual assault upon my daughters in the alleged history on the MLC.I have no knowledge if the statement of my daughters was recorded by the police wherein both the daughters had narrated the incident regarding the sexual assault upon them by the accused Jitender Sharma.It is correct that my both the daughters were brought to the Court earlier also where they were examined by the learned MM in chamber.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 7 of 21At this stage, witness is shown site plan from the judicial file and she identifies her signatures at point "A" thereupon.The site plan is now exhibited as Ex.PW-13/B.It is wrong to suggest that my daughters had even disclosed about the conduct of my husband before NGO Anuradha in my presence.It is wrong to suggest that I found blood stained underwear of my daughter V from under the bed or that I got suspicious and I asked about the reason from my daughter V, who had told me that my husband had lifted her from the bed and committed wrong act with her, after giving her some pills to eat.Therefore, the CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 20 of 21 judgment and order on conviction dated 30.05.2018 and the order on sentence dated 05.06.2018 are both hereby upheld.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 20 of 21A copy of this judgment be communicated to the appellant through the Superintendent, Tihar Jail and also be sent for updation of the records.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE) APRIL 29, 2019 dn/di CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 21 of 21CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 21 of 21

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

I. Criminal application is hereby allowed.In the event of their arrest, in connection with crime No. 0128/2017 registered at Sengaon police station, District Hingoli,::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 ::: cran3360.17 -4- the applicants (1) Asaram Laxman Wakale and (2) Sitaram Laxman Wakele be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount by each of them, on the following conditions:-::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::b) The applicants shall not enter in village Dongargaon till filing of charge sheet.Criminal application is disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

And In re.: Upen Biswas. .......... Petitioner Mrs. Jeenia Rudra....... for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P.Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta..... for the State Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for 46 days.We have gone through the case diary, more particularly through the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC.Going through the same, we find both the petitioner and the victim had a love affair.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, Special Court, (under POCSO Act), Jalpaiguri subject to the condition that that after release, the petitioner shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Falakata Police Station except for the purpose of attending the court's proceedings and before release, he must intimate the Officer- in-charge of that Police Station where he shall reside and also meet the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station thrice in every week, until further orders.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The Indian Penal Code offences are triable by the court of Magistrate and the offences of Special enactments are not punishable for sentence of more than six years.The trial will take sufficient time for its conclusion and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for unlimited period.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which bail may 2 M.Cr.C. No.5972/2016 (Virendra Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.) be granted to the applicant Virendra Prajapati.2 M.Cr.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

P.W. 1 by name Kamatchi is the wife of deceased Gurusamy, Servai in the instant case.This incident was informed by P.W. 1 to her husband and her mother P.W. 2 Muthurakku.This was also respondent by her husband that the matter can be reported before the panchayat and for convening the panchayat of the village on the next day morning he paid the fees for the same, and the panchayat was about to convene on the next day.After informing P.W. 2 that she would meet P.W. 3 Gomathi and come back, P.W. 1 went to the house of P.W. 3 and at that time, the accused was loading his cart with mats for taking it to the other village.P.W. 1 asked the accused as to whether he would be going to the other village when the panchayat is going to be held against him, for which, it was stated that the accused asked what is meant by panchayat and by so saying, he beat P.W. 1 on her hand.Then she cried saying that he was beating.It was at this juncture, the accused took the kavai-kambu and by saying that he was the person who is concerning the panchayat and making him to stand in the panchayat and he will be done away with, beat him upon his head.Consequently, her husband fell down and head gave way, there was bleeding and the brain matter came out and she cleaned the oozing blood with M.O. 2 towel, M.O. 3 bits of nylon saree, M.O. 4 bits of petty coat and that thereafter the accused ran away from the said place with the kavai-kambu.Since there was hot sun in that place where her husband fell down, P.W. 1 put him in the pial of one Kumaraiah's house and she along with P.W. 8 name Lakshmanan brought a taxi from Thiruppullant and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, where she narrated the incident that happened to the Police, which was reduced into writing.It was read over to her and her thumb impression was obtained in Ex. P. 1 and in which, P.W. 8 Lakshmanan has attested and that thereafter on the evening of that day, her husband died and that she handed over the saree M.O. 1 which was blood stained at the time of occurrence to the Police.According to her, the above occurrence had happened at about 8 a.m. on the northern side of the house belonging to one Mayalagu.P.W. 2 Muthurakku is the mother of P.W. 1 and she has claimed that P.W. 1 was given in marriage to one Vedaiah, who was her brothers son and the marriage life between them was not cordial always and the marriage was dissolved in the village panchayat and that thereafter P.W. 1 was given in marriage to the deceased Gurusamy and that two years prior to the giving of her evidence before the trial Court, one evening when she was returning from her land, P.W. 1 came to her weeping and complained that she was beaten by the accused, Gunasekaran, Gandhi and Nanmaran and consequently, she went to them and took them to task, for which, they had come to beat her also but however she returned to her house and informed her son-in-law the deceased Gurusamy, who in turn, arranged for the convening of panchayat on the next day morning and that on the next day morning P.W. 1 had gone out to see P.W. 8 Gomathi and after a little while, she heard the noise of P.W. 1 and when she went there and saw by standing near the house of the Pushpam, P.W. 1 was found weeping and accused was found with a small stick in his hand and P.W. 1 complained that the accused had beaten, which was followed by this witness also go to the accused and ask as to why he had beaten her daughter.She would claim further that for her asking so, the accused threw away the small stick, took a kavaikambu kept near the shop and beat her upon her left hand, which caused the bleeding injuries and thereupon she fell down and that when her son-in-law came and questioned the accused as to why he had beat the ladies the other day and he was beating the old lady that day also, by saying that he was the person who has made him to stand before the panchayat and he will be done away with, the accused beat the deceased on the head with kavai-kambu.Consequently, her son-in-law fell down with the brain matter coming out from the head with profuse bleeding and that the accused ran away with the weapon of offence.As it was a hot sun at that place, P.W. 8 Lakshmanan, Kumaraiah, Arumugam, Sahadevan and P.W. 3 Gomathi all took her son-in-law and placed him in the pial of the house of Kumaraiah and that P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 then brought a taxi and took him to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram and that at or about the evening of the same day, she heard that her son-in-law was dead and that when her son-in-law was beaten, P.W. 8 Lakshmanan, Arumugam, P.W. 3 Gomathi were present and that she was given treatment for her injuries.P.W. 3 by name Gomathi of Utharayai Village, has narrated the previous day incident, with reference to the sale of palmirah tree, claiming ownership of the same and asked her to do whatever possible by her and for which, P.W. 3 replied that they had sold away Palmirah tree belonging to her uncle and that by now claiming falsely and that immediately one Gandhi took a small stick and beat Padmini on her forehead and Gunasekaran beat her upon her left elbow and this accused fisted her on the left shoulder.2) A diffused contusion over right wrist of about 2 cm x 3 cm.Ex. P. 8 is the copy of the Accident Register.He would opine that the above injuries are simple in nature and the injured Gurusamy since died at 6-45 p.m. in the hospital, he sent the death intimation Ex. P. 9 to the Police.Dr. Kesavan, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, on the receipt of the requisition given by the Inspector of Police, to conduct the autopsy over the dead body of Gurusamy, at the time of post mortem, he found the following injuries :Contusion 10 cms.x 5 cms.extending from the right side of scalp upto right temporal area and upper part of Cheek.No bony injury over cheek.He found the stomach slightly dilated and contain about 100 ml. of black colour semi solid food with food particles digested rice.All other symptoms were normal.He would opine that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage into the extra dural space due to injury sustained to head and died about 16 to 17 hours prior to post mortem.P. 11 is the post mortem certificate given by him.According to the doctor, injury number one with its internal injury is fatal and is likely, to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.P.W. 8 Lakshmanan is doing cultivation in Utharavayal village, who in his testimony has claimed that he owns land on the western side of the village along with his brother Valampuriyan and that the maternal grandfather of the accused by name Gurusamy also had the adjacent land and that the said Gurusamy on receipt of Rs. 50/- from this witness permitted him to enjoy that land and he was tethering sheep there and that after the death of Gurusamy, his grandson the accused used to pick up quarrels with him to vacate the said land and during the said sojourn one day the accused beat P.W. 8's daughter-in-law by name Padmini and that case was however compromised and that the accused and his brother sold away the land belonging to their mother and in that land there were two palmirah trees, out of which one belonged to this witness and as the deceased Gurusamy had asked for one tree, he had asked him to cut and remove it and that in exchange Gurusamy had asked him to take the palmirah tree standing in his garden and that after the sale of the lands, one day the accused came near the palmirah tree with knife and stick with Chidambaram, Gandhi and all the tree cut the palmirah leaves from the tree while he was grazing the sheeps and when this witness questioned them, they retorted by saying that they were cutting the leaves of their grandfather's palmirah tree and thus he speaks about the several facts of the dispute with regard to the ownership of the pamirah trees and the leaves between him and the accused.This witness also corroborates the convening of panchayat by Gurusamy through one Vellaichamy and the panchayat was to be convened at about 9 a.m. on that day and that on the morning of the occurrence day, he heard the cry of the ladies and when he approached, he saw that the deceased Gurusamy was attempting to lift P.W. 2 and it was at that time the accused beat the deceased Gurusamy on his head with a kavai-kambu and Gurusamy fell down and there was bleeding and brain matter came out.P.W. 9 Sethuraman, Village Administrative Officer of Thiruppullani village claims that when the Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence, and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 12 and recovered M.O. 8 blood stained earth, M.O. 9 sample earth, M.O. 2 towel, M.O. 3 nylon saree pieces 2, M.O. 4 petty coat pieces 2, M.O. 5 torn cloth, M.O. 6 torn saree piece 1 under the cover of mahazar Ex. P. 13 and prepared a search list by conducting search in the house of the accused and after visiting the cut palmirah tree an observation mahazar was prepared and in all these, he has attested along with the village menial by name petchimuthu.JUDGMENT N. Arumugham, J.The convicted accused for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, three years and life imprisonment respectively but however to run concurrently, by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in S.C. No. 185 of 1987 dated 10-12-1987, has preferred this appeal, challenging its correctness and validity.When she questioned all the three as to why they were (sic) she was enceinte by eight months, with the result, she fell down and one Chidambaram also fisted her and that P.W. 1 also came and questioned all of them for their unlawful activity and that the accused held the tuft of P.W. 1 and beat her and all ran away.By about 8-30 p.m. on that day, the village Thandal came and said that there was a village panchayat convened for the next day morning to go into the above said beatings.On the next day morning, P.W. 1 came to her house and went away.After a little while she heard the cry of P.W. 1 and when she approached, she saw the deceased Gurusamy bending down and attempting to lift P.W. 2 and at that time, the accused with the Kavai-kambu beat him and consequently Gurusamy fell down and the accused ran away and in other respects P.W. 3 repeated the same narration of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as exactly as they had claimed.P.W. 4 Dr. Ajmal Khan, Medical Officer attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, at about 11-45 a.m. on 21-10-1985 examined Gurusamy, who was found in an unconscious state and found the following injuries :1. Lacerated injury scalp right side 5 cm x 5 cm size underlying bone broken and brain matter exposed.Contusion 10 cm x 5 cm extending from the right side of scalp upto tight temporal area and upper part of cheek.Ex. P. 2 is the Accident Register copy.According to him since the condition of the patient was found precarious in view of the said injuries, he was admitted as an in patient and Ex. P. 3 is the intimation sent by him to the police.P.W. 4 Doctor examined P.W. 3 at about 12 noon on the same day and found the following injuries :1) Contusion over the upper lip 2 cm in diameter.2) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm over the middle of back.3) Tenderness over the right buttock.He was of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused by beating with stick and assault by more than one person and Ex. P. 4 is the wound certificate given by him.This witness has claimed further that at about 12-15 noon on that day, he examined P.W. 2 Muthurakku for certain injuries said to have been caused on 21-10-1985 at about 6 a.m. and to be done to assault by seven known persons at 1-00 a.m. and found the following injuries :1. Lacerated injury on the left palm about 4 cm.in length in between thumb and index fingers surrounded by contusion of 3 cm size.Contusion 3 cm x 7 cm horizontal lengthy over the middle of back.Vertical contusion 2 cm x 5 cm over the right side of back.X-ray was taken and it was found on account of the injury number 1, the first meta carpel bone was found fractured and that therefore according to the doctor, injury number one is grievous and the rest are simple in nature and those injuries found by him could have been caused with stick and Ex. P. 5 is the wound certificate given by him.P.W. 4 would state further that at about 12-45 p.m. on that day, he examined a lady by name Padmini wife of Vedaiah, for report as to certain injuries said to he been caused on 20-10-1985 due to the assault made by three known persons with kambu at Uthiravai and found the following injuries :1) Pain over left elbow.2) Pain over left buttock.3) Contusion of 1 cm diameter over the right side of forehead.Ex. P. 6 is the wound certificate given by him.P.W. 5 Dr. Ramalingam, the Radiologist attached to the Ramanathapuram Head Quarters Government Hospital has stated that he took the skiogram for the injury found on the left hand of P.W. 2 on 21-10-1985 and found fracture in the finger of the left hand and Ex. P. 7 is the report and M.O. 7 is the skiogram taken by him.P.W. 6 Dr. Jesudass, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, examined P.W. 1 Kamatchi at about 6-05 p.m. on 21-10-1985 and found the following injuries :1) An abrasion of about 1 cm x 1 cm over forearm dorsal aspect 1 1/2 inches above the wrist.An Unshaped sutured incision with base above right ear and a sutured vertical incision present in the middle of the above wound.On opening the wound, a bone deficit for about 5 cms.diameter is found with underlying durasutured obliquely for about 5 cms.length and on opening it, the underlying brain was found to be lacerated for about 5 cms.diameter, with an under running certical vein suture and an undervarying suture found in the middle Maingeal artery right forn stopping the bleeding poppin's stitches were found to be applied around the bone deficit.P.W. 10 the Constable attached to Kenikarai Police Station has claimed that he handed over the requisition Ex. P. 10 to the Medical Officer for the conduct of autopsy at about 10-30 a.m. on 22-10-1985 and escorted during the autopsy and afterwards, he recovered M.O. 10 Dhothi, M.O. 11 kaili from the dead body and handed over the same to the Police Station.P.W. 11 the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ramanathapuram, has claimed that on the receipt of the material objects sent by the police with the requisition to subject the same for chemical examination, packed M.Os.The chemical examiner's report Ex. P. 17 and the serologist's report Ex. P. 18 were received on 28-2-1986 and 30-4-1986 respectively.P.W. 12 Nainar Mohamed, Sub Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, has claimed that on the receipt of Ex. P. 3, he had been to the hospital by 12-15 noon on 21-10-1985 and found Gurusamy in an unconscious state and recorded the statement from P.W. 1 to her narration and read over to her and not thumb impression in Ex. P. 1 and returned to his police station and registered the same in crime number 275 of 1985 for the offence under S. 307, IPC and prepared the printed first information report Ex. P. 19 and sent it to the Court and higher officials.In the hospital he recovered M.O. 1 Saree from P.W. 1 and at about 7-45 p.m. on that day, he received Ex. P. 9 the death intimation regarding the death of Gurusamy and consequently altered the section of law into 302, IPC and sent the express report Ex. P. 21 to the Court and the Inspector of police under express tapal immediately.P.W. 13, the Inspector of Police would claim that at about 2-30 p.m. on 21-10-1985 on the receipt of express report in the instant case, he took up the investigation and had been to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 12 and the rough sketch Ex. P. 22 attested by witnesses.By about 4 p.m. on that day, he recovered M.O. 8, M.O. 9, M.O. 2, M.O. 6 under the cover of mahazar Ex. P. 13 attested by witnesses.Then he sent P.W. 1 for medical treatment.In the night at about 8-15 p.m. on that day, he received the express tapal regarding the alteration of the section into 302, IPC and went to the Government Head Quarters Hospital on 22-10-1985 and conducted inquest over the dead body between 6-30 a.m. and 10-30 a.m. and prepared Ex. P. 20 inquest report by examining the witnesses and the panchayatdars.The accused had denied every one of the claim made by the prosecution witnesses when he was examined under S. 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has stated that on the previous evening of the day of occurrence, all the fencing situated in his house and the backyard had been removed and a frivolous case has also been foisted against him.However, the accused did not choose to examine any witness in his behalf.After recording the oral evidence from P.Ws. 1 to 13 and the documentary evidence Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 22 with the marking of 11 material objects by and on behalf of the prosecution, with none of behalf of the accused, and after having an elaborate discussion on the entire adduced legal evidence, rival contentions and established circumstances in the instant case, the learned trial Judge has found that the prosecution had proved the complicity and guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly found him liable for the charges framed and tried against him and convicted and sentenced him as noted supra, and it is this judgment being challenged for its correctness and validity.We have heard the Bar for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the contra by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting and justifying the impugned judgment on the basis of the verdict recorded the learned trial Judge.In the context of the above rival position, we have to consider the only point as to whether the prosecution had established the guilt and complicity of the accused in the instant case beyond all reasonable doubts and whether the impugned judgment is correct or not ?The fact that P.W. 8 and the accused had misunderstanding and enmity over the enjoyment and right of the palmirah trees situated in the land on the south west of the village for several years is specifically claimed by the prosecution and that in connection with the same, One Padmini was beaten by the accused is seen by this Court very clearly from the evidence made available.P.W. 3 Gomathi is also seen to have been beaten by the accused previously to the occurrence.The further fact P.W. 3 informed the sustaining of the injury at the hands of the accused to P.W. 1 and P.W. 1 questioned the accused and consequently.When P.W. 1 is stated to have informed her husband, the deceased, about the incident and to her mother P.W. 2, the prosecution claims, it is seen that they were able to arrange for the convening of the panchayat on the next day.To this extent, P.W. 8 also renders every support and corroboration, who would claim that by paying the fee to the village menial, village panchayat was arranged to be convened on the morning of the occurrence day has been established.There was no specific denial of the above facts when the prosecution witnesses claim so and no controverting of the same is there during the cross-examination.Therefore, we have been left with no other alternative except to believe their version with regard to the background leading to the occurrence proper.It is the consistent case of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 on the one hand and P.W. 8 also that P.W. 1 was beaten by the accused with a small stick and when it was questioned by P.W. 2, her mother, she was also beaten by the accused with a kavaikambu and on seeing this when P.W. 2 fell down, the deceased, husband of P.W. 1, came to her reascue and attempted to lift her, the accused beat him upon his head with every force saying that he was the person who had convened the panchayat involving himself and that with that beating he should die.This beating, though dealt with at one time, seems to have been given with severe force.Therefore, the head of the deceased gave way and was broken, resulting in the brain matter and blood coming out.As the injured fell down with the bleeding, injury, the prosecution witnesses as a whole, claim that they took him and placed him in the nearby pial of one Kumaraiah.The observation mahazar prepared by the Inspector of Police Ex. P. 12 and the rough sketch showing the topography of the scene of crime Ex. P. 22 would clinchingly prove the place of occurrence and the consequent recovery of the blood stained earth, blood stained materials, and the Chemical Examiner's report and the Serelogist's report render ample corroboration and support to the claim that the occurrence place was, the one the prosecution claims situated near the house of one Mayalagu.On going through the evidence of P.W. 7 the doctor who did autopsy and the post mortem certificate Ex. P. 11, it is seen that injury number one found in the post-mortem certificate is fatal and likely to cause death in its ordinary course of nature, which would show that the head of the deceased Gurusamy was broken into two and through which, the brain matter has come but.We find no reason at all to eschew or suspect the evidence of the doctor who did the autopsy and reject the post-mortem certificate and the opinion of the doctor.P.Ws. 1 to 3 are not only the eye-witnesses but also the injured, who claim that the assailant is the accused and none-else.Their evidence seems to have full support and corroboration from the evidence of the medicos particularly, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 with the Accident Register copy and the wound certificate.The doctors who treated them were positive enough in claiming that all the injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 could have been caused by beating with a stick at the time and manner as alleged.The two discrepancies, namely, caused by several persons' and 'the time is 6 a.m.' as found in the wound certificate have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, but, in our view, the said description of the time and the persons are purely by mistake given by he P.Ws. 1 to 3, because of not only their illiteracy but also because they are the persons injured and brought to the hospital in an injured condition and that therefore their mental faculty has been subjected to severe strains and it is under the said circumstances, no one can expect them to give the accurate narration of every incident happened with strict sequence.In the context of the argument advanced by Mr. K. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel, we have gone through the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 along with the medical evidence.After having our strict scrutiny and marshalling, we are not able to find out a single aspect or laches in this case to suspect their version but on the other hand, their narration of the occurrence and witnessing the overt acts of the accused on P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and the deceased with every sequence, was very natural, cogent, convincing and as such trustworthy, bears all legal credibility.Hence, we accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, the injured occurrences witnesses with the corroboration of P.W. 3, who also sustained injury at the hands of the accused and if so, we have to take into account the core of the evidence of the medicos and their opinion which go to the total support and corroboration of the other evidence.If this is the position, after having gone through the entire gamut of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in its mission of proving the guilt and complicity of the accused herein, not only in causing the injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the day of occurrence but also beating the deceased with 'kavai-kambu' violently and causing an injury, which proved fatal; and led to his death, which however, in accordance with the opinion of the doctor who did the autopsy, would attract thirdly of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.After having inflicted the injury to P.W. 1 and attacked P.W. 2, when the deceased came to the rescue of P.W. 2, who was falling down at that time, if the accused had no intention at all as claimed by the Bar, then, it is noted that he had no business to do away with the deceased but however, he dealt a fatal bit upon the deceased with 'kavai-kambu' which broke his head and the brain matter with bleeding came out.From the very nature of this injury, though a single one, inflicted by the accused, we are able to see the very intention of the accused, after deliberating that the deceased was the person who was responsible for convening the panchayat involving himself and he must die.From the totality of the above circumstances, clearly established by the prosecution, we are fully satisfied, to say, that the learned trial Judge, after having an elaborate discussion and deliberations of the entire adduced circumstances and legal evidence has validly justifiably and rightly come to the conclusion that the accused had landed himself under thirdly of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code and that therefore, he was perfectly correct and justified in finding him guilty and accordingly convicting and sentencing on all the charges.The very effort and strain taken by Mr. Asokan, learned counsel in persuading us to modify the sentence by showing the very mirror inconsistencies in the description of the time and the number of persons, appears to us as too flimsy and bleak and for the said reasoning, we are not inclined to give any legal credance for the same.In the instant case, the legal evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused regarding his complicity and guilt is abundant, more than adequate and overwhelming and when this is the position, one cannot be expected to run the risk of suspecting the same by catching a small thread at the one extreme and go into the root of the prosecution case, which is totally alien to the law.Thus, after having considered the whole gamut of the case, we do not find any merits in this appeal and the various findings and observations given by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment are perfectly valid and justifiable.Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated thus:-(a) The accused/appellants and the deceased one Ramalingam werenatives of Semangalam village.The deceased was cultivating six silk cottontrees for which there was a quarrel and dispute between the parties.P.W.1 isthe daughter of the deceased.Due to enmity that arose on the cultivation ofthose trees, on 27.3.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. A1 to A4 came to the house ofthe deceased.At that time, A1 pulled down a thatched shed in front of hishouse and took a bamboo stick M.O.1 , while A2 took kattamani stick and A3 and A4 also took bamboo sticks, and they attacked the deceased.In that course,P.W.1 interfered, and she was also attacked.P.W.1 took her father to AnnaiHospital, Thevur, through a bullock cart brought by P.W.3, Duraisamy, andthere, he was declared dead by the doctor.Then she went to P.W.2 the VillageAdministrative Officer, at about 3.30 p.m. The Village AdministrativeOfficer, who enquired P.W.1, did not write any statement, but prepared areport, which is marked as Ex.P1, and she was sent to Keevalur Police Stationalong with his menial with Ex.P1 report.The menial accompanied by P.W.1 went to Keevalur Police Station where P.W.7, Head Constable was available.Onreceipt of Ex.P1 receipt, he registered a case in Crime No.182/96 undersections 302 and 324 IPC.The printed First Information Report Ex.P6, wasdespatched to the Court.(b) Mr.Subbiah the Inspector of Police, took up investigation in thecase, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and prepared a rough sketch.It is reported that the appellants are on bail.The learnedSessions Judge shall take steps to commit the accused/A1 to prison to undergothe remaining period of sentence.The bail bonds executed by A-2 to A-4,shall stand cancelled.The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam2. --do-- through the Principal Sessions Judge,Nagapattinam.The District Collector, Nagapattinam.The DGP, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Chennai.6.The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.[The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM,J] Aggrieved over the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court,Nagapattinam, made in SC.No.40/98 wherein the appellants stood charged, triedand found guilty for an offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC andsentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and the first appellant/A1 alone stoodfound guilty for an offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment, the appellants have brought forth this appeal.The imprisonment for life and the rigorous imprisonment for six months imposedon the accused No.1 is ordered to be run concurrently.Due to his demise, P.W.13 the Inspector ofPolice, took up further investigation and went to the scene of occurrenceagain, and it was found correct.He examined the Inquest Report, Ex.P10prepared by the said Mr.Subbiah again.A requisition was sent to theGovernment Hospital along with dead body of the deceased Ramalingam forconduct of autopsy.(c) P.W.9 the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Thiruvarur, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead bodyand found the following injuries:-"(1)Contusion over most of the upper part of scalp with fluctuations present.(2)Multiple small abrasions with contusion over right side neck.(3)Multiple small abrasion with contusion over middle of the right side back."The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P8 and has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage prior to 24 hoursdue to injuries sustained.(d) P.W.1 who was found with injuries, was sent to the hospital.Shewas given treatment by P.W.8 the Doctor, and the wound certificate is markedas Ex.During investigation, the accused were arrested, and they were alsosent for judicial custody.All the material objects were despatched to theCourt with a requisition to send them for chemical analysis.Accordingly,they were subjected to chemical analysis.On completion of investigation, thefinal report was filed by the Investigation Officer.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary chargeswere framed against the appellants/ accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 10 exhibits and 6 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P. C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which theyflatly denied as false.On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined and nodocument was marked on their side.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, and onscrutiny of the materials available on record, the trial Court found theaccused guilty as per the charge and awarded punishment as referred to above,which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia wouldmake the following submissions:(ii).So far P.W.1 was concerned, she was not a witness at the timeof inquest, and thus, her evidence cannot be given any credence.A perusal ofEx.P1 would clearly reveal that it did not contain necessary particulars tocall it as a complaint.Even after Ex.P1 report was placed in the hands ofthe police, no report of P.W.1 was obtained, and thus, a case came to beregistered on the strength of the report of the Village Administrative OfficerEx.P1, which is so bald in nature.(iii).According to the prosecution, the weapons of crime viz.,bamboo sticks were recovered from the place of occurrence.It is pertinent tonote that A1 is alleged to have attacked the deceased with a bamboo stick of7+ of length which is humanly impossible in that one could not attack theother with such a weighty stick.(iv).Though the occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m., thecase came to be registered after a long delay, at about 6.45 p.m. whichremained unexplained, and there is no evidence to indicate that the appellantsshared the common intention.(v).In so far as A1 was concerned, even assuming that the case wasproved by the prosecution, there is ample evidence to indicate that there wasa quarrel between the parties from the morning.Apart from that, Ex.P1 willalso indicate that there was a quarrel preceding the occurrence, and under thecircumstances, the act of A1, even assuming to be proved, would not attractthe penal provisions of section 302 IPC, and hence, all these things have gotto be considered by this Court.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.9.In the instant case, there has been a quarrel between A1 and thedeceased from morning in respect of cultivation of six silk cotton trees, andthat has culminated in the occurrence.There is no controversy that thefather of P.W.1, by name Ramalingam, was taken to the hospital from the sceneof occurrence and was declared dead.Following the inquest by theInvestigating Officer, the postmortem was also conducted by Dr.Sridharan, whowas examined as P.W.9, and the post mortem certificate was also marked asEx.P8, where from it would be quite evident that the deceased Ramalingam diedout of shock and haemorrhage.Apart from that, it is pertinent to point outthat the appellants either before the court below at the time of trial orbefore this Court, questioned the fact that Ramalingam died out of homicidalviolence.Thus, it could be safely concluded that Ramalingam died out ofhomicidal violence.10.In the instant case, P.W.1 was also injured at the time ofoccurrence.She was also treated by Dr.Vijayanthi, and the wound certificatewas also marked, wherein it is stated that she also sustained injuries at thetime of the occurrence.No circumstance or reason is brought to the notice ofthe Court why her evidence has got to be disbelieved.Itis true that she is the daughter of the deceased.Apart from that, herevidence remained uncorroborated.But a careful scrutiny of her evidencewould clearly reveal that it is trustworthy and has got to be accepted.Thus,the Court without any difficulty can accept her evidence to the extent that itwas A1 who attacked the deceased Ramalingam with bamboo stick on his head and caused the fatal injury.11.In so far as the second contention that Ex.P1 was only a report,given by Village Administrative Officer and it does not speak about thenarration of the incident, and no statement of P.W.1 was obtained by thepolice before the registration of the case, the court has to necessarilyreject the said contention since it does not stand in the way of scrutiny oflaw.It is true that P.W.1 went to P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer,and reported the incident.P.W.2 had categorically stated that he did notrecord her statement, but only wrote her report which is marked as Ex.From the evidence of the HeadConstable, who registered the case, it could be seen that he did not get theindependent report from P.W.1 before registering the case.Thus it would bequite clear that an independent report was neither obtained by the VillageAdministrative Officer, P.W.2, or by the Head Constable, who registered thecase.But, her statement was recorded by the police officer under section 161Cr.P.C. A perusal of Ex.P1 report would clearly indicate that on thestatement made by P.W.1, P.W.2 has given the said report.Accordingly, it became the basis for registration of the case againstthe appellants.Thus, that contention has got to be rejected.But, there is suffice evidenceto hold that it was the act of A1 attacking the deceased with bamboo stickagain and caused the fatal injury, resulting in death also.There arematerials to indicate that it was the result of a quarrel between the parties.Even in Ex.P1 report by the Village Administrative Officer which came intoexistence at the instance of P.W.1, it is stated that there was a quarrelbetween the two families, as a result of which, Ramalingam was killed.At the same time, A1 committed the act with knowledge thatit would likely to cause death.Under such circumstances, the court is of theview that the offence committed by the first appellant, would fall within theprovisions of Sec.304 (Part II) IPC, and accordingly, awarding punishment offive years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.14.So far as the appellants 2 to 4 are concerned, as the chargelevelled against them is not proved, they are not found guilty.Hence, theappellants 2 to 4 are acquitted of the charge.The charge levelled againstthe first appellant is modified from one under Sec.302 read with 34 I.P.C. toone under section 304 (Part II) IPC as stated above and he is directed toundergo five years rigorous imprisonment.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 1, 2016 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case no.40 of 2012 dated 27.02.2012 under Sections 498(A)/306/511 of the Indian Penal Code adding Sections 302/304B of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of : Chaina Khatun....petitioner....for the petitioner.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)

['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

And In the matter of: - Sonali Sinha & Anr.....petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,) The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".2.This Petition has been filed by A2 and A3 who have been convicted under Sections 120 (b), 302 read with Section 109 and Section 201 read with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.71 of 2019 on 01.02.2020 to suspend the sentence imposed against them and to release the Petitioners on bail.M.Prabhavathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.M.P.No.1919 of 2020 that the third petitioner have conspired together with the other accused and murdered the victim.The conviction against the second petitioner is only based on the circumstantial evidence as there could not be any eye witness or direct evidence and therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the third accused based on the Extra Judicial confession of A1 recorded by the Village Administrative Officer.Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for suspending the sentence and grant of bail.7.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.Even according to the prosecution, the second Petitioner did not participate either in the murder or in the disposal of the body of the deceased and he was not present in the scene of occurrence.Only based on the Extra Judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, the trial Court has convicted the second petitioner.9.In the opinion of this Court, the Extra Judicial confession is a weak piece 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.M.P.No.1919 of 2020 of evidence and therefore, arguable points are involved in this appeal.Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri against the second petitioner alone is suspended on the following conditions:(i) The accused is directed to execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.(ii) The accused must also appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai on the first Monday of every month until further orders.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

The postal authorities were directed to forbear from giving effect to the order of suspension dated the 5th of September 1950 or keeping the petitioner under suspension by virtue of that order.It is unnecessary for me to consider the other facts which had taken place in respect of the criminal action against the petitioners.There will be no order as to costs.

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

November C.R.M. 11187 of 2017 17, 2017 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on November 9, 2017 in connection with Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case No. 241 of 2017 dated October 27, 2017 under Sections 341/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act;And In the matter of : Mofisul Islam @ Ajab Islam ...petitioner.(Rupees five thousand) only with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on further condition that he shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Mohammad Bazar Police Station except for meeting the investigating officer as and when necessary until further orders and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the investigating agency and the court below.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.dns ( Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. ) ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )

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