Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

actprompt

like 0

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated sh 10.02.2017 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon, District- Seoni in Sessions Trial No.11/2017 whereby, the e ad charges under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 and 506-B of the IPC were framed against the four accused persons namely Naresh Kumar, Atul Jain, Avdesh and Paras.Pr a Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charges did hy bear the names of the accused; therefore, a direction be made to the ad trial Court to rectify the error and mention the name of the accused in the charge framed against that particular accused.He further prays for M disposal of this criminal revision with liberty to raise all the grounds of taken by the petitioners, herein before the trial Court at appropriate stage.rt Consequently, the trial Court is directed to rectify the error and ou mention the names of each of the accused in the charge framed against C him.The petitioners shall be free to raise all the grounds taken by the h ig petitioners, herein before the trial Court at appropriate stage.H This criminal revision is accordingly disposed of.Date: 2018.04.11 21:59:09

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

The applicants have challenged the first information report 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 ::: Cri.Appln.5179.13.odtbearing Crime No. 57/2013 registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The applicant No. 1 is Talathi and Applicant No. 2 is Circle Inspector.The respondent No. 3 - complainant, Gangaram filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umari under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present applicants and other accused persons for the offences as referred above.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::Complainant respondent No. 3 alleged that the land Gat No. 284 admeasuring 55 R was purchased in his wife's name i.e. accused No. 2 and the accused No. 1 - Balaji purchased the same from his wife.It is further alleged that the complainant had purchased this land after selling his ancestral land.His wife - accused No. 2, without his consent, sold the same in favour of the accused No. 1 under the sale deed dated 12.12.2012 admeasuring 55 R. It is further alleged that the present applicants being Talathi and Circle Inspector assisted the other accused person in taking mutation entry in favour of the accused No. 1 - Balaji.Accused Nos. 3 and 4 namely Sambhaji Bhutale and Datta Jadhav are the witnesses on the registered sale deed.The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umari, directed the concerned police to investigate into the matter, upon which the offence came to be registered as referred above.We have heard the arguments of Mr. Shinde learned counsel for the applicants, Mrs. V. S. Chaudhary, learned APP for Respondent - State 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 ::: Cri.Appln.5179.13.odtand Mr. Sonkawade for the Respondent No. 3 and also perused the copies of the document placed on record, particularly the copy of the sale deed dated 25.02.1997 from which it appears that the accused No. 2 - Saraswati i.e. wife of the complainant, purchased the land from Gat No.284 under registered sale deed.Further on perusal of the sale deed dated 12.12.2012, it appears that the accused No. 2 sold 55 R land in favour of the accused No. 1 Balaji under registered sale deed.Accordingly, the mutation entry No. 935 is taken and certified by the present applicants.So from the record apparently, it is seen that the accused No. 2 is the absolute owner of the said land and from the recital of the sale deed dated 12.12.2012, it appears that she executed the sale deed in favour of the accused No. 1 and another accused Sambhaji and Datta were the witnesses on the sale deed.After the sale deed the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 follow the provision of Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and after following due process of law the mutation entry was certified in favour of the accused No.1 Balaji.Furthermore, the applicants are the public servants and prior permission is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not obtained.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::The act of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 appears in their official capacity.Therefore, even considering these allegations in the complaint/FIR, it appears that there are 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 ::: Cri.Appln.5179.13.odtno allegations / ground to constitute the offence alleged against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::In view of the above, it appears that the first information report lodged against the applicants is without any basis.Hence the following order :O R D E Ra) The application is allowed ;c) The fees of the learned counsel appointed for the respondent No. 3 is quantified as Rs.3000/- to be paid through High Court, Legal Services Authority;d) Rule is made absolute in those terms;e) Application is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

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

The appeals are directed against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 08.09.2010 in S.C.No.218 of 2010 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (4th Fast Track Court) Chennai wherein the 1st appellant / A1 was found guilty for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C., and the 2nd appellant / A2 was found guilty for offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo 3 years Simple Imprisonment.The case of the prosecution is that the appellants/accused with an intention to snatch/rob the chain of a woman who was going alone, on 14.05.2009 at 3.00 p.m, had been waiting in Perambur Besat Road, Scout Camp Office and in pursuance of the same, taking advantage that PW1 one Nithyakalyani was walking alone, the first appellant/A1 waylaid and threatened her with a knife and snatched the gold chain, weighing 5 sovereigns and ran away from the scene of occurrence and got on to the bike with which the 2nd appellant/A2 was waiting and both of them escaped from there.After completion of investigation, the respondent had filed a final report before the learned Magistrate for offences under Section 394 read with 397 of I.P.C. On appearance of the appellants/Accused, they were furnished with the copies of the documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge,http://www.judis.nic.inChennai.The Principal Sessions Judge after taking the case on file made over the 3 case to the trial Judge.On appearance of the accused, the Trial Judge framed charges against the first accused/A1 for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. and against the second accused/A2 for the offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 of I.P.C.. When the appellants / Accused were questioned, they denied the charges and sought to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 2 were marked.No evidence was let in on the side of the defence.After completion of evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments of the counsel, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted and and sentenced them as stated above.Taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW1, Nithyakalyani/the defacto complainant, she had deposed that she knows the accused and that on 14.05.2009 after attending a funeral while she was coming back home via Carriage Station Beset Road around 3.00 p.m, the first appellant/A1 waylaid, threatened her with a knife and snatched her Gold Chain weighing 5 sovereigns and after he had snatched the chain, she had seen another person waiting with a two wheeler little away from them.She had raised alarm and when the public nearby attempted to apprehend him, he had got on to the pillion of the two wheeler and both of them fled away from the scene of occurrence.She had further deposed that the second person who drove the motor cycle was the person standing second in the Court.Thereafter, she had gone back home and on the next day at 9.00 a.m, she had gone to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondent Police Station and given the complaint.After she had given the complaint against two persons who could be identified and she was asked to come back to the Police Station at 4 p.m. and when she returned to the Police Station, she had seen both the accused in the Police Station and on being enquired she had identified them.The Police have also shown the chain which was snatched and it was shown to her in two pieces and she identified the chain and that the chain was handed over to her at the station and that she had produced the chain in the Court.PW.2 - Babu had deposed that he was working in a shop in Carriage Station Beset Road, Perambur and that P.W1 was known to her and that the accused were also known to him.On 14.05.2009, around 3.00 p.m. the accused had come in a black colour Hero Honda Motor Cycle and that P.W.1 was running behind them shouting 'catch them, catch them' and when he attempted to catch them, he was unable to catch the accused., she had stated that they have snatched her chain.5. P.W.3 Dilip kumar had deposed that on 14.05.2009 around 3.00 p.m, he had gone to the mechanic shop to take his bike which was left for repair and at that time, he had seen the appellants/accused together riding a black colour Hero Honda motorcycle and he had seen one lady running behind the motorcycle shouting that they had snatched her chain and 'catch them, catch them' and when he had attempted to stop the appellants/accused, they had escaped from the scene of occurrence.6. P.W.4 who is stated to have attested the Observation Mahazar did not support the case of the prosecution and he had been treated as hostile.7. P.W.5 had deposed that on 15.05.2009 around 12 p.m, while he was on the way to see his friend, he had seen a group of persons near Venus Bus stop.When he had gone near, he had seen the respondent Police enquiring the first accused/A1 Manohar and the second accused/A2 Rajkumar and they had confessed that they had robed the chain from a lady and while the Police was examining the second accused, he had also stated the same.The first appellant/A1 had confessed to the crime and the Police had recorded the confession statement and that he had attested the same, this signature in the confession were marked as Exs.Thereafter, the respondent had taken him to Kalmandabam, Grace Garden 4th Street and the second appellant/A2 Rajkumar had identified the motorcycle and the motorcycle was recovered under the Recovery Mahazar which was marked as Ex.P4 and that he had signed in the Recovery Mahazar.Thereafter, the first accused/A1 was taken to his house at Vannarapettai from where the respondent Police recovered the gold chain which was in two pieces.Thereafter, the first accused/A1 Manohar handed over a steel knife which was recovered in a Recovery Mahazar.Thereafter, he along with the accused were taken to the Police station and admitted portion of the confession statement of the accused was marked as Exs.He had further deposed that the respondent examined him.8. P.W.6 the Sub-Inspector of Police at K1, Sembiam Police Station, had deposed that on 15.05.2009 while he was in duty, P.W.1 Nithyakalyani appeared before him at 9.00a.m and given a written complaint.Based on which, he had registered the case in crime No.342/2009 for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C and registered the FIR, which was marked as Ex.Thereafter, at 9.50 a.m, he had gone to the scene of occurrence along with PW1 and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses Zahir and Manikandan and the Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.Thereafter, he prepared rough sketch which was marked as Ex.Around 12.00 noon, he had arrested the first appellant/A1 near Venus Bus Stop and when he enquired the first accused/A1, he had given a confession statement in the presence of witnesses Murali and Sathish and he had recorded the confession statement (Ex.P6) and thereafter at 1.00 p.m, the first accused had identified the house of the second appellant/A2 and that he had arrested the accused.When he had enquired second appellant /A2, he had given a confession statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses Murali and Sathish.Based on the confession statement, he had identified the motorcycle used by the appellants/accused and he had recovered the motorcycle under Ex.P4 Mahazar.Then he recovered the articles involved in Exs.P1 and P12 in Form 95 and that on the next day gone to the scene of occurrence and enquired PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW 4 and one Manikandan and they had come along with the appellants/ accused to the Police Station.Subsequently, he had summoned PW 1 and she was asked to identify the goldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 chain and that she had identified the gold chain and the appellants/accused and the motorcycle used by them during the occurrence and thereafter he prepared a Remand Report and produced the appellants/accused before the Court and after completion of investigation and after getting opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, has filed the final report for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. Based on the evidence laid, the trial court has found the accused guilty and convicted them and sentenced as stated above.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused assails the Judgment on the following grounds:There are several contradictions and embellishments in the prosecution case.The appellants and the witnesses are strangers and that nothing had been stated about their identity.The occurrence is stated to have been committed in a locality where there was several persons during noon time.There has been a great delay in the complaint being given to the Police Station and the FIR reaching the Court, more particularly, the printed FIR having reached the Court only after the arrest of the appellants/accused creating a grave doubt in the prosecution case.The manner in which the arrest is stated to be effected greater suspicion and doubt volumes in the prosecution case.The evidence with regard to the arrest of the accused is unbelievable.The identification of the accused for the first time in Court leads to suspicion.It is highly strange that P.W.2 states that he knows the appellants/accused and has not stated anything about them during the course of investigation.The evidence of PW1 with regard to the person who had threatened her is doubtful.Though the witnesses have been stated to be examined on the same day, these statements have reached the Court after several days.The Trial Court did not take into consideration the contradiction evidences of PWs1 and 6 (Investigation Officer) regarding the arrest of the appellants/accused.Further, PW 2 & PW 3 could not have been the witnesses to the occurrence, since their statement with regard to PW2 running a mechanic shed and PW 3 having come to see his two wheeler cannot be believed and as per the observation Mahazar, no such mechanic shed was available and that as per the evidence of PW1, there were other public in the locality and nobody has been examined by the Police.State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, B-4, Baluchetty Chatram Police Station, Kancheepuram District.He would further submit that the reason for the delay in giving the complaint has been explained by PW1 and the reasons for the delay is also reasonable.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the non holding of the identification parade is not a fatal to the prosecution, since the appellants / accused were arrested on the next day and that the PW1 had identified them in the Police Station and had also identified them in the Court.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused would submit that PW1 is not clear as to who is the person who snatched her chain and who is the person who drove the two wheeler and would submit that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants/accused based on the unconvincing evidence.As per the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it was near a mechanic shop and PW2 and PW3 who were in the mechanic shop were stated to have witnessed the occurrence.Strangely, in this case none of the witnesses havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 informed the Police about the occurrence immediately, despite the occurrence happening in a busy locality during day time.The complaint has been preferred to the Police on the next day.While analysing the evidences of PW1, PW2, and PW3, nothing had been stated about the identity or any identification marks regarding the appellants / accused.As per the evidence of PW1, after giving a complaint to the respondent at 9.00 a.m, she had gone back home and that she was asked to come back only at 4.00 p.m and when she had gone there, she had seen both the accused in the Police station and that she had identified them and that the respondent Police had shown her chain and that she identified the chain and the chain was returned to her on the same day.Of course CCTV footage has now become a very important tool for the Police which helps them in a long way in crime detection but this is a facility which is not available in all nook and corner of the State.The Police personnel needs to be educatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in on the availability of a provision under Cr.P.C. For identifying the 12 accused person.By following this procedure, the element of doubt that arises about identity of the accused for the first time in the Court after a very long gap, can also be avoided.”The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV , Chennai.2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.vum Crl.A.Nos.647 and 769 of 2010http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

gm H.C.P.No.1889 of 201526.10.2015Such order is under challenge herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Sl.Name of the Police Station and Crime No.Section of Law1Vridhachalam Police Station, Crime No.613 of 2013147, 148, 294(b), 323, 326 & 307 IPC r/w 109 IPC2Vridhachalam Police Station,Crime No.13 of 2014147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC3Vridhachalam Police Station,Crime No.648 of 2014399 IPCThe ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.453 of 2015 on the file of Vridhachalam Police Station for offences under Sections 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.Finding that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is erroneous, this Court would allow the present petition.The detention order passed by second respondent, detaining the detenu Rajasekar @ Kottan Rajasekar S/o.Pattusamy, aged about 25 years, made in C3/D.O/27/2015 dated 23.06.2015, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.(S.T.,J.) (C.T.S.,J.) 26.10.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesgmTo1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Cuddalore.S.TAMILVANAN,J.AND C.T.SELVAM, J.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

According to the petitioner, the petitioners are innocents.Further he submitted that the after obtaining permission from the electoral officer the petitioners and others were went to election campaign and hence, the allegation regarding violating the election code of conduct is false and baseless.On precautionary measures, the respondent police hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 registered this case as against the petitioners.Therefore, they sought for quashing the proceeding.Though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Perused the material documents available on record.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 2191 of 2019 in Crime No. 84 of 2014, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ksahttp://www.judis.nic.in 7The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.The Inspector of Police, Seittur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16696 of 2019 15.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

He has been falsely implicated.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Hariya Kori in Crime No.160/2012, registered by P.S.Rajnagar, District- Chhatarpur under Sections 457, 354, 506 (part-II) and 376 of the IPC.At that time, it came to the notice of the Court that the prosecutrix has stated in her statement that the petitioner had raped her; therefore, it was proposed to move against the petitioner under Section 376 as well.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 62 years old man and he would be put to great harship if after 5 years of facing trial, he is taken into custody again.Learned Panel Lawyer 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 that the petitioner has been facing trial for lesser offence since the year, 2012 he deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Hariya Kori is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

A. Nos. 311/2011 & 309/2011The appellants Parmanand and Mithilesh are the parents-in-law of Bobby (the deceased).A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 1 of 192. Facts of the case leading to the filing of charge sheet under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellants and two others namely Kamlesh (husband of the deceased) and Santosh (Kamleshs brother) can be extracted from the opening para of the judgment:-"On 28.03.08 at about 11:50 pm, DD No.47 was registered at PP Vijay Vihar, PS Rohini.As per such DD, one lady had set herself on fire.Such information was received from Police Control Room and SI Mahabir Singh and Ct.Rajesh were rushed to the spot.They both reached the spot i.e. House NO.J-42, Vijay Vihar.HC Ravidutt and Ct.Satpal were already present there.They found smell of kerosene, some burnt clothes, one empty bottle, few match-sticks and water on the floor of room where the occurrence had taken place and learnt that PCR Van had already removed the victim to BSA Hospital.Executive Magistrate Sh.Sukhbir Singh was telephonically intimated and HC Ravidutt and Ct.Satpal were left at the spot for preservation of the spot and SI Mahabir Singh and Ct.Rajesh reached at BSA Hospital.Name of injured was found to be Bobby (wife of accused Kamlesh).As per MLC, victim had told the doctor that kerosene oil was poured on her by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and then she was put on fire and her husband was not present at home during the incident.Bobby was declared fit for statement.Executive Magistrate reached the hospital and dying declaration of Bobby was recorded in which she claimed that she was married two years back and her parents-in-law wanted her husband Kamlesh to marry someone else.She claimed that at about 5 pm that evening, her husband left the house and before such departure, her husband and her parents-in-law had quarreled with her.She then stated that between 11:15 pm and 11:30 pm, she was in her room and was about to go to sleep, when her parents-in-law entered her room and her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and her father-in- law set her ablaze with a match-stick.She also stated that she shouted for help and some neighbours collected and tried to douse the fire by pouring water on her and police Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 2 of 19 reached there and took her to the hospital.She, however, succumbed to her injuries.He deposed that on 16.03.2008 (the date has been wrongly given by this witness) at about 11:45 p.m. he was on his way back to his house after selling vegetables.When he reached near the street he saw a crowd.On inquiry he was informed by public persons that Bobby (daughter of Sadanand) was burnt by her in-laws and was removed to the hospital.He gave this information to Sadanand.PW-6 Sadanand, apart from deposing about the demands of dowry and the harassment meted out to Bobby by her husband and the appellants stated that on 28.03.2008 at 12/12:30 a.m. in the night while he was on his way back to his house from weekly bazaar, he met Raja Ram (PW-4).Raja Ram informed him that his daughter had been set ablaze.He (PW-6) immediately left his rickshaw at his house and went to the matrimonial home of Bobby.He found a crowd around the house.On inquiry he was informed that his daughter had already been removed to the hospital by a PCR van.He went to PP Vijay Vihar and was informed that his daughter had been taken to Baba Saheb Ambedkar (BSA) hospital.His daughter told him that " Ye Sab Milkar Mujhe Jala Diyan Hai".The deceased was shifted to Safdarjung hospital where she succumbed to her burn injuries on the next morning.He proved statement Ex.PW-9 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bobby on 30.03.2001 and proved his report Ex.PW-9/A. On external examination he found superficial to deep burns all over the body except lower abdomen and external genital area.9. PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi, Chief Medical Officer, BSA hospital is the doctor who initially attended to the deceased on 29.03.2008 at 12:15 a.m. He testified that the patient had disclosed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had poured kerosene oil on her and then put her on fire with a match-stick.She also informed the doctor that her husband was not present at home at the time of the incident.PW-10 testified that on examination, the patient (deceased) was found to be conscious, oriented and crying.Her blood pressure could not be recorded due to burns present all over the body.Her pulse was found not palpable.Smell of kerosene oil was present on the body.He gave the percentage of burns to be about 95 per cent.He proved the MLC Ex.PW-10/A.He gave the details of the treatment given to the deceased.He gave the area of burns to be about 90 per cent.Pulse of the patient was found by him to be feeble.He deposed about the Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 4 of 19 various injections i.e TT, IM Stat, Tramadol, I.V. etc. administered to the deceased.He deposed that the patient was cleaned and dressed with an ointment, silver sulpha diazin.The patient was then referred to Safdarjung hospital for further management.He proved his endorsement at point Y to Y on MLC marked as Ex.PW-10/A.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 4 of 19PW-15 Dr. Jatinder was working as Junior Resident in Safdarjung hospital.He treated the patient when she was admitted in Safdarjung hospital.Raj Mohan Trivedi.He then deposed about recording of the statement of Sadanand after the death of Bobby and after registration of this case.PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh deposed that on 28.03.2008 on receipt of DD No.47, (Ex.PW-14/A) he reached the spot i.e. J-42 Vijay Vihar, Phase-I along with constable Rajesh.Head constable Ravidutt and constable Satpal were already present there.He was informed that the injured had already been removed to BSA hospital.He testified that there was a smell of kerosene coming from the room of the deceased on the ground floor, burnt match sticks, match box and some burnt pieces of cloth were also lying in the room.Some water was found on the floor.He deputed HC Ravidutt and Ct.Satpal to remain present at the spot.He informed the Executive Magistrate Mr.Sukhbir Singh (PW-16) about it and requested him to reach the hospital.He also reached BSA hospital and collected the MLC of Bobby.PW-16 also reached the hospital who consulted the doctor about the fitness of the injured to make a statement.The statement Crl.He got the spot inspected by the crime team; photographs Ex. PW2/1 to 6 were taken.He prepared the site plan Ex.PW-23/C, seized various articles from the spot and sealed them with a seal of MS.When cross examined, he deposed that he wanted to see the opinion of the surgeon before the patient could be referred to Safdarjung hospital.To the same effect is the testimony of PW-11 Dr. Nitin Lashkary.He deposed that initially the patient was examined by Dr.Raj Mohan Trivedi (PW-10).The pulse of the deceased, by the time he examined her and made a note on the MLC, had become feeble from not palpable.Thus it is clear that the patient was examined and managed by a team of doctors and not examined by any particular doctor.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 10 of 19Of course PW-4 gave information to PW-6 about the deceased sustaining burn injuries and her removal to the hospital.Therefore, after leaving his rickshaw at his house PW-6 proceeded to PP Vijay Vihar through the place of incident.He came to know only at the police post that Bobby was removed to BSA hospital by the PCR van.Thus even if PW-6 had hurried and made his best efforts it would have been difficult for him to have reached BSA hospital before 1:30 a.m.It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-23 SI Mahabir has stated in his cross-examination that he reached the hospital at about 12:30 a.m. and collected the MLC within ten minutes which was retained by him.The MLC contains signatures of PW-6 regarding the receipt of articles (Jewellery) by Sadanand which shows that Sadanand was present in the hospital by 12:40 a.m.This contention raised on behalf of the appellants is misconceived.As per the endorsement made at the top of the MLC Ex.G.P. MITTAL, J.They impugn the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 1 of 19 Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.In default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each.Case was registered u/s 498A/302/120B IPC."A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 2 of 19A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 3 of 19On reaching the hospital he met the SDM.The SDM informed him that he had already recorded her (the deceased) statement and that he could meet her.PW-6/A made by him to the SDM.He deposed that the deceased was declared dead at about 7.45 a.m. He proved the death report as Ex.PW-15/B.PW-16 Mr.Sukhbir Singh Executive Magistrate of the area deposed that on receipt of the message regarding the admission of a lady with burn injuries in BSA hospital, he reached there.He obtained the fitness certificate from Dr.Raj Mohan Trivedi and recorded statement Ex.PW16/A of the deceased.He obtained endorsement on Ex.PW-10/B of Dr.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 5 of 19 recorded by the Executive Magistrate was marked to him (PW-23) for further inquiry by the SHO.He made an endorsement on Ex.PW-23/A on the basis of which the present case was registered.He deposed that on receipt of the information of death of Bobby in the morning of 29.03.2008, vide DD No. 13, further investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Raj Singh.Inspector Raj Singh PW-22, second IO of the case corroborated the testimony of PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh.He deposed about the arrest of the appellants and recorded statement of Parmanand, Raj Kumar and other family members.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 5 of 19On close of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence which has appeared against them.The appellants were completely silent as to where they were at the time of the incident.Admittedly immediately after the incident they did not accompany the deceased to BSA hospital.The appellants took up the plea that the deceased was under depression as she was not able to conceive any child and, therefore, committed suicide.They denied that there was any demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased.They denied that they set Bobby on fire.They took up the plea that the dying declaration is false.She (Bobby) never made any dying declaration to Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi.They, however, showed their ignorance if the statement (dying declaration Ex.PW-16/A) was recorded by PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sh.Sukhbir Singh (PW-16).They showed their willingness to produce defence evidence but did not produce any.Along with appellants, Kamlesh (deceased`s husband) and Santosh (Kamleshs brother) were also challaned by the police.Santosh was, Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 6 of 19 however, discharged by order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the learned ASJ.Accused Kamlesh was acquitted by the impugned judgment on the ground that the deceased was completely silent about the allegation of harassment or cruelty for not meeting dowry demands.The learned ASJ held that had there been any such demand or harassment, the deceased would have spoken about the same.Thus the evidence of Sadanand PW-6 (father of the deceased) with regard to harassment and demand of dowry without corroboration from the dying declaration or any other evidence was disbelieved.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 6 of 19The dying declaration recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A by PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi and Ex.PW-16/A by PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sukhbir Singh were held to be consistent, voluntarily, true and reliable by the learned ASJ.Thus relying upon the same the learned ASJ convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.We have heard Mr.Shailesh Kumar learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jaideep Malik learned APP for the State and have perused the record.He recorded the history of the patient (the deceased) as under:"Allegedly father-in-law and mother-in-law of Bobby poured kerosene oil on her and then put her on fire with Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 9 of 19Learned counsel for the appellants criticized the testimony of PW-10 on the ground that as per the MLC, the deceaseds BP was not recordable and her pulse was not palpable and thus it could not be said that the patient was fit to make the statement.He deposed that treatment of Bobby was given by a team of doctors consisting of two JRs and one SR Surgeon present in the Casualty.He added that the pulse and blood pressure were checked by him (PW-10) as well as by JRs.PW-10 stated that he was a coordinator in the emergency.He stated that when the patient was brought, she was examined by him and simultaneously the surgeon had also come and examined the patient.It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-6 Sadanand (father of the deceased) got the information about the incident from PW- 4 Raja Ram.PW-10/A by PW-10, Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi small articles of jewellery were removed by PW-10 from the body of Bobby and handed over to the IO.These articles were not handed over by PW-10 to PW-6 Sadanand.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 11 of 19The alleged history of Bobby, the fitness certificate and removal of jewellery articles are all in the hand writing of PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi.Of course a suggestion was put to PW-10, PW-11, PW-9 and PW-16 that if the pulse is not palpable the patient cannot make any statement.This suggestion was refuted by each of the doctors.The certificate of fitness has been given by PW-10 Dr Raj Mohan Trivedi initially on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A and then on the statement Ex.PW-16/A at point Ex.PW-10/B.Though the pulse was initially recorded as not palpable but later it had improved to be feeble as per endorsement Y to Y on Ex.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 12 of 19Thus the dying declaration recorded Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 13 of 19 by PW-10 shows that the deceased had informed PW-10 that she was set ablaze by her father-in-law and mother-in-law after pouring kerosene oil on her.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 13 of 19As stated above, the condition of the patient improved a little after she was administered certain injections etc. as senior resident recorded that the patient was oriented/obeying to verbal commands and the pulse was feeble.PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sukhbir Singh reached hospital at 1:00 a.m. on 29.03.2008 and recorded the statement Ex.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 14 of 19 injuries.We have gone through the MLC Ex.PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi stated in his examination-in-chief that he had declared the patient fit for statement by his endorsement (Ex.PW10/B).On the statement Ex.PW-16/A Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination regarding the condition of the patient.PW-10 denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest because at the time of her admission in BSA hospital her pulse was not palpable.PW-10 stated that if it was so, the deceased would have died in BSA hospital itself.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 14 of 19On the statement Ex.16/A , PW-10 made an endorsement that "patient was conscious and oriented all the time during the time above statement was taken".PW-16/A was recorded.PW-16/A of the deceased but the statement just runs into a half hand written page and is a brief statement.In State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay (supra) apart from the third dying declaration running into two typed pages, there were also variations in the three dying declarations and the third one giving minute details appeared to be manipulated.Here the two dying declarations are consistent.The first one made to Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi is just a two line statement whereas the second statement made to the Executive Magistrate runs into hand written page.Both are consistent and the second one corroborates the first statement.again said, he was a government official)."A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 16 of 19It has come in the evidence of PW-16 that the statement was recorded by a police officer on his dictation.PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh stated that he recorded the statement Ex.Thus PW- 10 was right when he stated that it was recorded by a person who was in police uniform.Of course a suggestion was given to PW-16 as also to PW-23 that the endorsement at point B of Ex.PW16/A was obtained from the Executive Magistrate later on but we are not inclined to believe the same.By endorsement at point B the statement was marked to SHO who immediately marked it to PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh for necessary action.The FIR was recorded on that very night at 2.00 a.m. It is not believable that without obtaining the endorsement of the Executive Magistrate PW- 23 SI Mahabir Singh would make a mention thereof in the rukka for recording the FIR.Otherwise also we do not find any reason to disbelieve the document Ex.PW-16/A was recorded by Executive Magistrate after obtaining the fitness certificate from PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi who was present throughout the recording of the statement of the deceased.Thus the statement Ex.PW-16/A is not only consistent and corroborative to the first statement given to the doctor at the time of admission and recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A but it meets all the tests of it being properly recorded after the Magistrate was satisfied that the patient was fit to make the statement.The statement is not very long but it contains all the details as to how the appellants had poured kerosene oil on her and appellant Parmanand had lit the match stick and set her on fire.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 17 of 19It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased had suffered 95 per cent burns still the thumb impression obtained on the statement Ex.PW-16/A shows the ridges on the right thumb impression.Sukhbir Singh (PW-16).In our view the two dying declarations are true and voluntary.The first dying declaration was very spontaneous and was made to the doctor immediately at the time of admission by the deceased herself.The deceased could not even know the purpose of the doctor recording the history and, therefore, there was nothing which could have impelled the deceased to make a false statement.As stated earlier the first statement is corroborated by the Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 18 of 19 second statement Ex.PW-16/A recorded by the Executive Magistrate.Under these circumstances we see no reason to reject the dying declaration recorded by PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi, on MLC marked as PW-10/A and second dying declaration Ex.PW-16/A recorded by PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sh.Sukhbir Singh.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 18 of 19The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants relying on the two dying declarations.

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

a)P.W.1 is the husband of P.W.2. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 isalso the resident of Kombadi village.The appellant/accused and the otheraccused, in whose respect the case was split up, by name Chinnasamy, wereinvolved in prohibition cases registered by the Maniyachi Police station.Two months prior to the occurrence, theaccused/appellant has stolen Rs.300/- from the shop of one Srinivasan and a casewas registered by the respondent police station.From that time onwards, theaccused/appellant was absconding.Donations were collected for the festivaloccasion in the temple at Kombadi village by the other accused Chinnasamy, whowas the Nattamai in the village.In the meeting convened, accounts were demandedby P.W.1 and others.The said Chinnasamy refused to hand over the accounts.The next day, on 21.11.1992 atabout 8.30 a.m., P.W.1 was reaping grass in the nearby field.When P.Ws.2 and 3and others were inside the house, the deceased Suseela was playing in front ofthe house.At about 9.00 a.m., P.Ws.2 and 3 and others heard the distressing cryof the child.They came outside and witnessed the accused taking the child onhis shoulder along with aruval in his hand and was running.Further, they raisedalarm.At that time P.W.1, who was in the field, also turned and saw the accusedwith the child.When all of them were chasing the accused, the accused cut thechild indiscriminately with the aruval and caused the death of the child.Theaccused, leaving the dead body, fled away from the place of occurrence.d)P.W.1 went to the respondent police station at about 12.30 p.m., whereP.W.7 was the Sub Inspector of Police, to whom P.W.1 gave Ex.P.5, the F.I.R. was despatched to the court.Onreceipt of the copy of the F.I.R., the Inspector of Police one Manoharan, whowas attached to the respondent police station, took up the investigation.Duringinvestigation, he died and hence, P.W.11, Manoharakumar, the Inspector ofPolice, after perusing the case records, gave evidence on behalf of him also.e)The said Investigator took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot,made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.7, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars andprepared Ex.P.14, the inquest report.He recovered material objects from theplace of occurrence, namely M.O.6, bloodstained earth and M.O.7, sample earth.The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Ottapidaram for the purposeof post-mortem along with the requisition.f)P.W.5, the Doctor attached to Ottapidaram Government hospital, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasnarrated the injuries found on the dead body and has also opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuriessustained on her.g)Pending Investigation, the accused was arrested on 12.12.1992 at about7.30 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses.At that time, he gave confessionalstatement, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer.The admissible partof the same was marked as Ex.Following the same, the accused producedM.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar in the presence ofthe witnesses.The accused was sent for judicial remand.The dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.5,the Doctor.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This criminal appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Fast Track CourtNo.1, Tuticorin made in S.C.No.282 of 2005, whereby the accused/appellant stoodcharged under Section 302 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charge andawarded with life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default toundergo one year R.I.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could bestated thus:P.1, the report, onthe strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.409 of 1992under Section 302 IPC.All the material objectsrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased andM.O.1, aruval recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by theForensic Science Department.P.19, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.20,the Serologist's report were received.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.i)The case was split up in respect of one Chinnasamy, against whom thecase was registered under Section 302 r/w S.109 IPC.The case was committed tothe court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order tosubstantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 20exhibits and 7 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trialcourt, after considering the submissions made and perusing the materialsavailable, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyondreasonable doubt and found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishment,which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.3.The learned counsel for the appellant, in his sincere attempt inassailing the judgment of the court below, made the following submissions:a)The prosecution has failed to explain an inordinate delay in registeringthe case and also sending the F.I.R. to the nearby Magistrate Court.Theoccurrence has taken place at 9.30 a.m., but the information was given to thepolice only at 12.30 hours and thus, there was an inordinate delay of threehours.Though the case was registered at 12.30 hours, the F.I.R. has reachedthe court at 6.15 p.m. and thus, there was a delay of nearly 6 hours.This wasalso not explained.b)Further, no specific motive is made against the appellant/accused.All the motives wereavailable only against Chinnasamy, against whom the case was registered underSection 302 r/w S.109 IPC, but he was acquitted of the charges, disbelieving theevidence of the very same eyewitnesses.Hence, the lower court should have takenthe same yardstick in respect of the appellant also and should have acquittedthe appellant.But, it has failed to do so.c)The learned counsel would further add that though the prosecution wouldclaim that the weapon was recovered on the confession made by the accused, itwas sent for chemical analysis after a period of 2 years.The ChemicalExaminer's report would reveal that no human blood was detected.Under thesecircumstances, it would be quite clear that the prosecution has not proved thecase beyond reasonable doubt.d)There was a meeting convened, demanding the accounts in respect of thedonations made for the temple festival and there was a refusal by Chinnasamy.But, nowhere in the complaint, it was found.Further, two cases in Crime Nos.408 and 410 of 1992 were registeredagainst the appellant, but these are all nothing, but foisted against theappellant in order to implicate him in the offence.Hence, P.W.1 has givenexaggerated version.So far as the scene of occurrence was concerned, theprosecution has come forward to state that the child was playing in front of thehouse of P.W.1 and the accused took the child from that place and the occurrencehas taken place away from that place.But, when the Investigating Officerprepared the sketch, he has not mentioned the place where-from the child wastaken.Had the child not been taken from the place where it was playing, asalleged by the prosecution, P.Ws.2 and 3 could not have seen the occurrence atall.Hence, their evidence should have been rejected by the trial court.He has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage dueto the injuries sustained.The fact that the child died out of homicidalviolence was never questioned by the appellant at any stage of proceedings.Hence, without any impediment, it could be recorded so.6.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theaccused/appellant that it was he, who attached the child and caused her deathinstantaneously, the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, the parents of the child and P.W.3, the brother of P.W.2. P.W.3 has turnedhostile.But, the prosecution had to its advantage the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it would be quite clear that in the past,number of cases were registered by Maniyachi Police Station against theappellant and one Chinnasamy also, since they were indulging in illicit arrackactivities.Itis also quite clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the said Chinnasamyand the appellant were close relatives to each other.Further, the accused wasabsconding for a period of two months pursuant to the theft case registeredagainst him.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, on the date of occurrence, when P.W.2was inside the house, she heard the distressing cry of the child and she cameoutside and found the accused, taking the child in his shoulder with aruval inhis hand and the accused was running.When P.W.2 shouted along with the otherwitness P.W.3, P.W.1 heard the same.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they werechasing the accused, but they could not reach him.Further, they witnessed theaccused cutting the child indiscriminately with aruval and causing her deathinstantaneously.Despite cross-examination in full, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, who are the eyewitnesses, remained unshaken.Now, the contentions put forthby the learned counsel for the appellant have got to be considered.Much commentwas made on the delay caused in registering the case and also despatching theF.I.R. to the court.The place of occurrence is situated 9 Kms.away from therespondent police station.The occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m. Thecase was registered by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police at 12.30 hours.Takinginto consideration the nature of the act committed by the accused and also thefact that the police station is situated 9 Kms.away from the place ofoccurrence, the delay of three hours, in the opinion of the court, is naturaland not deliberate.Further, after registration of the case, it has reached thecourt at 6.15 p.m. Thus, there was a delay of 5 to 6 hours in sending the F.I.R.to the court.away from the police station.Even assumingthat there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court, the court is of theconsidered opinion that no prejudice could have been caused to the accused,since there was no further embellishment or improvement in the case, in view ofthe facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above.8.In the instant case, the other contention put forth by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the appellant had no motive at all has got to berejected.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant was indulging in illicitarrack activities along with Nattamai Chinnasamy and number of cases have beenregistered by Maniyachi Police Station against the appellant accused.Apart fromthat, when the evidence of P.W.1 was scrutinized, the facts that there wasdemand of accounts by P.W.1 and others and there was denial of renderingaccounts by the said Chinnasamy were spoken by P.W.1 during trial.9.The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused isthat in the instant case, there was delay in placing the material objects forchemical analysis and further, the Serologist's report did not contain humanblood.It is pertinent to point out that though there was delay noticed inplacing the weapon before the Forensic Department and also the report wasreceived that there was no human blood noticed, the court is of the consideredopinion that when direct evidence is available pointing to the act of theaccused, the court cannot reject the prosecution case, though the scientificevidence did not support the prosecution case.Further, Crime Nos.408 and 410 of1992 were registered by the respondent police station against the appellantherein.The contention that in order to show that the appellant was available on21.11.1992, these cases have been registered, cannot be accepted for the simplereason that in a given case where there is direct evidence available, there isno need for the police to register foisted cases.Further, so far as CrimeNo.408 of 1992 was concerned, the specific contention of the prosecution wasthat after the registration of the theft case, the accused was absconding andthereafter, he appeared a day prior to the date of occurrence.10.In the instant case, both the witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, saw thebarbarous act of the accused/appellant, in which he has attacked the child withthe deadly weapon like aruval and caused her death instantaneously.The act ofthe accused in taking the 4 years old child and killing the same has got to bedealt with sternly.The lower court was perfectly correct in finding theaccused/appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonmentalong with fine and default sentence.Hence, the judgment of the lower courtdoes not require any interference either factually or legally.The criminalappeal must fail.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.1.Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Maniyachi Police station, Tuticorin District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

None for the respondent no.2/ complainant.Case diary perused.As per the prosecution case, the applicant has abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.He further submits that although the prosecutrix is a minor aged about 16 years of age, she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant came to her house at about 11:30 P.M. and took her forcefully however, she has not made any allegation against the applicant regarding commission of rape in the said statement.In these circumstances at the most offence under Section 363 and 366 of I.P.C. will be made out against the applicant.The applicant is not having any criminal record.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Hence, learned counsel for the applicant pray for grant of bail to the applicant.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge amit Amit Kumar 2020.09.02 10:32:47 +05'30'

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

Heard SriPankaj Bharti, counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Faisal, counsel for theinformant and learned A.G.A for the State.It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that during the supply of sugarcane in sugarcane mill some dispute took place between the applicant and theinformant and FIR was lodged against the applicant and two other named accused persons, namely, Naresh Pal and Arvind Pal and certain otherunknown persons.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT Naik, J.This revisional application No. 1393 of 1958 has a chequered career.It arises in the following circumstances:The case for the prosecution was that the police officer explained the contents of the order and obtained the left hand thumb impression of the accused and the copy of the order was given to the accused.Thereafter on August 24, 1958, at about 8-30 p.m. Police Constable No. 6511/D arrested the accused at Ibrahim Rahimtulla Road on suspicion.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.He admitted that the order of externment was served on him properly.He, however, denied that he had entered within the limits of the prohibited area.According to him, he was arrested at Mumbra Railway Station and was brought by train.This was the only contention that was raised before the learned Presidency Magistrate.The offence committed in 1949 for which he was convicted would not in itself be a sufficient ground on which the Deputy Commissioner would form his belief.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

(Delivered on 18th day of May, 2018) Per J.P. Gupta, J :Criminal appeal no. 1174/2000, 1342/2000 and 2218/2000 have been filed against the judgment dated 20.4.2000 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No.44/97 whereby appellants Suresh and Bindawasi (criminal appeal no. 1174/2000) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-I and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1000/- each; in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months and RI for 6 months, respectively and appellant / accused Ramadhar (criminal appeal no.1342/2000) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and criminal appeal no. 2218/2000 has been filed on behalf of the State against the acquittal of the respondents / accused relating to the appeal of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 294, 341, 323, 506 Part-2 of the IPC and prayed for convicting and sentencing the accused / respondents of the appeal including accused Bhuvneshwar Prasad, Ramesh Prasad, Bhimsen, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan Patel for the charges for which they were prosecuted.Criminal appeal no.2397/2007 has been filed by appellant Dinesh Prasad Patel against the judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in separately S. T. No.44/97 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 1 year.In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that deceased Koushal Prasad Dubey and eye witnesses of the incident are close 3 relatives.There was a dispute between the appellants / accused persons and the complainant party with regard to the land which was earlier belonging to one Ramsakhi.On 5.7.1996 at about 7 am Rambahore (PW-1) along with his cousin Koushal Prasad Dubey (deceased) and Ansuiya Prasad, and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and labourer Kalari Kol (PW-6) went to the disputed land situated at village Dihiya, Police station Baikunthpur for cultivating the field whereupon firstly appellants Suresh and Bindawasi came with lathi and assaulted Koushal Prasad, due to which, he fell down.Thereafter, appellant Dinesh came with farsa and assaulted Koushal Prasad and caused injury on his head.When Koushal Prasad made hue and cry, Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Rambahore (PW-1) rushed towards him to rescue him and following them, accused Bhimsen, Ramesh Patel and Bhuvneshwar also came with lathi and assaulted them and during incident, other co-accused Ramadhar, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan also reached on the spot and assaulted them and wife of Koushal Prasad namely Vidyawati also reached on the spot, she was also assaulted and caused injury.Rambahore lodged FIR of the incident at Police Station Baikuntpur, District Rewa where crime no. 87/96 was registered for the offence under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and injured Rambahore Sharma (PW-1), Ansuiya (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) were medically examined and condition of Koushal Prasad was serious.He was unconscious.During the investigation it was also found that accused Ramesh and Lalmani were also involved in the incident.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC; Sirmour who on its turn committed the case to the court of Sessions.On transfer, the case was tried by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa where the appellants / accused were charged for 4 the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 302/149, 323, 323/149 (in four counts) and 294 and 506-B of the IPC.In the case appellant / accused Dinesh was absconded and learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.4.2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants Suresh, Bindawasi and Ramadhar as mentioned earlier and acquitted other co-accused Ramesh Prasad, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan Patel of all the charges and Bhuvneshwar and Bhimsen were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to six months RI and acquitted of the other charge.Both the accused have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence.Later on, absconded appellant Dinesh Prasad was arrested and tried and vide judgment dated 31.10.2007 he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier.The defence of the appellant / accused Ramadhar is that on the date of incident he was not present on the spot and other accused persons also took defence about their innocence and further claimed that they assaulted the deceased and the witnesses in exercise of right to defence of the property.Hence, they have not committed any offence.On behalf of appellants Dinesh, Suresh and Bindawasi, finding of the learned trial court have been challenged on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as the statements of so called eye witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions and also against the medical evidence and the circumstances, in which, the incident took place also indicate that the appellants / accused persons assaulted in order to secure their possession over the land in exercise of their right to private defence but the learned trial Court has completely ignored this aspect.The appellants / accused cannot be convicted for commission of offence of culpable homicide as the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants had any intention or knowledge to cause death of Koushal 5 Prasad and hardly they can be convicted under Section 325 of IPC.It is further submitted that the appeal filed on behalf of the State against the judgment of acquittal is without any merits.Learned trial court has very seriously and deeply appreciated the evidence coming to the conclusion of the acquittal of the acquitted accused persons namely Bhuvneshwar, Ramesh, Bhimsen, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan and there is no ground to convict them for the offence for which they have been acquitted.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants / accused be dismissed and the appeal filed by State be allowed as the trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the appellants / accused from the charges for which they were tried and all the acquitted accused persons be convicted and sentenced for the offence for which they were charged.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that in the incident Koushal Prasad died on account of the injuries and Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Vidyawati (PW-5) also sustained injuries.In this regard, Dr. B. K. Garg (PW-7) has stated that on 5.7.1996 he being an Assistant Surgeon in Civil Dispensary, Baikuntpur examined the aforesaid persons and found following injuries on their person :-Lacerated wound scalp 1"x1/2"x1/4" right side.2. Lacerated wound scalp "x1/4"x1/4" left side.3. Contusion on left shoulder 1x1/2"Simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.Duration was within 6 hours.Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2)Abrasion right fore arm labally middle 1/3 part 1/2"x1/4"Simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.Duration was within 6 hours.Ganga Prasad (PW-3)1. Contusion on right deltoid 1/2"x1/4"Simple injury caused by hard and blunt objection.Duration was within 6 hours.Vidyawati (PW-5)1. Contusion on right hand post 2"x1"Simple injury caused by hard and blunt objection.Duration was within 6 hours.Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-11) has stated that on 11.7.1996 at Medical College, Jabalpur he examined dead body of Koushal Prasad near about 12 O'clock and found following injuries :-Partially healed stitched wound present over scalp on middle part of left parietal region placed anti-posteriorly " label to sagital interior.Scalp is contused on right frontal parietal occipital region and temporal region on both side.Stitched wound is 3x1/2" long.There is depressed fracture of right parietal bone leading to fracture and fragmentation of right partial bone in to 5 pieces.From this fracture the fracture line extending on both sides on lower 7 surface and leading to middle cranial fossa on both sides.Large extra-dural haematoma present on both parieto- occipital and left temporal region.Brain is contused over right parietal lobe upper part and it is located in upper part 1"x1/2"x1/2".Liquefaction of brain started in this area.Fracture of left radius bone of fore arm in lower one third muscularly ward.Partially healed stitched wound in upper part of left leg over standing of tibia, vertical size 1 " long.Period of death was within twenty four hours.Cause of death is cronio cerebral injuries.All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and could be produced by hard and blunt object and was sufficient to cause death.The wife of the deceased, Vidyawati (PW-5) and Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) have stated that on account of the injuries sustained in the incident took place on 5.7.1996 on their field Koushal Prasad died.Now the question is that whether all the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly with common object to cause death of the deceased and in furtherance of their common object, all or some members of the assembly caused death of the deceased and also caused injuries to Rambahore (PW-1) Ansuiya (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Vidyawati (PW-5).Having considered minutely the statements of Ramkishore (PW-4) and Kalari Kol (PW-6) it is found that they are not trustworthy witnesses.Learned trial court has also discarded their statements because Kalari Kol (PW-6) has stated that all the accused persons came together and started beating to Koushal Prasad.Same statement has been given by Ramkishore (PW-4) which is contrary to the prosecution story and Kalari Kol (PW-6) has also stated that he was suffering from blindness and he was not able to identify anybody.Similarly, Ramkishore (PW-4) is not natural witness and on the spot his presence is doubtful.He resides 3 kms.away from the place of incident.He has stated that with a view to getting shaved he was standing in front of the barber shop near the spot but this fact is missing in his police statement Ex.Thus, their testimonies are not creditable.Similarly statement Ex.D/3 Dying declaration of Koushal Prasad is also not trustworthy.But, Dr. B. K. Garg (PW-7) denied the fact that the same was recorded before his presence and on the statement, a note about fitness of Koushal Prasad was made under the pressure of Investigating officer.Therefore, the trial court has discarded this statement and this considered view of the trial court does not require any interference.So far as the statement of other eye witnesses are concerned, they have never stated that all the accused persons came together on the spot and started beating deceased Koushal.Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW3) have categorically stated that while the deceased was going for taking seed, accused Bindawasi, Suresh Patel armed with lathi and Dinesh armed with farsa restrained Koushal and started abusing him and accused Bindawasi assaulted Koushal with lathi on his head then accused Suresh assaulted Koushal with lathi then accused Dinesh 9 assaulted Koushal with farsa on his head and thereafter other accused persons Bhuvneshwar Prasad, Ramesh Prasad and Bhimsen came and when Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) tried to save the deceased, accused Dinesh assaulted Rambahore (PW-1) on his head and accused Bhimsen assaulted with lathi on his head and meanwhile accused Ramadhar, Ramkhelawan and Lalmani also came and started abusing them.Vidyawati wife of the deceased also came over there and lay on Koushal Prasad to save him then accused Bindawasi also beaten her with lathi.On making hue and cry, people gathered there and accused person fled away.Thereafter, Rambahore (PW-1), Koushal Prasdad, Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) went to the Police station where Rambahore (PW-1) lodged report Ex.P/1 and Koushal Prasad was sent to Rewa District Hospital, where he died.Vidyawati (PW-5) however has stated that all the accused persons assaulted his husband but it is clear that she reached on the spot later- on and after reaching her on the spot, nobody assaulted her husband.However, she was assaulted by accused Bindawasi, FIR Ex.P/1 has been lodged by Rambahore (PW-1) which also reflects that except accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh, other accused persons reached on the spot after falling down Koushal Prasad on account of the injuries caused by Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh.This fact categorically establishes that accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh at the time of assaulting the deceased were not member of unlawful assembly with other accused persons and they did not act in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly.In the circumstances it is clear that accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh are responsible for causing death of the deceased they came there and assaulted simultaneously and caused injuries to the deceased which led to his death.As per opinion of the medical expert Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-11), cause of death was head injury of the deceased which was sufficient to cause his death.However, he has not stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death 10 in ordinary course of nature and the death had taken place after 5 to 6 days of the incident.He has also stated that the injury was caused by hard and blunt object.Hence, medical evidence and ocular evidence is contradictory to each other.In such circumstances, the prosecution version cannot be accepted to be correct beyond reasonable doubt.But the aforesaid opinion has no significance as Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-11) has examined dead body after 5-6 days of the incident during which injuries were stitched and were not in the condition to easily find out whether the injuries were caused by blunt object or sharp object.Hence, it cannot be said that there are material contradictions between the medical evidence and ocular evidence.The testimony of the eye witnesses with regard to causing injuries to Koushal Prasad by accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh is trustworthy and beyond reasonable doubt it establishes that they were author of the death of Koushal Prasad.Now, the question arises whether appellants Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh have committed murder of the deceased or culpable homicide.From the record it appears that the deceased and the accused persons are residents of the same village and close relative and there was a land dispute between them and the alleged incident took place when deceased Koushal Prasad and his companion tried to cultivate Raur field and the appellants assaulted the deceased and only one injury was fatal.There is no specific opinion of the medical expert that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and no instant death had taken place.The deceased survived 5 to 6 days after the incident.Hence, it cannot be said with all certainty that 11 accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh assaulted the deceased with a view to commit his murder.However, with all certainty it can be said that they all acted knowingly that by their act death may be caused and the head injury led to death caused by Dinesh; and accused Suresh and Bindawasi had common intention with him as they all came together with weapons and also assaulted him.Hence, all the aforesaid three accused persons may be held guilty for committing culpable homicide of deceased Koushal Prasad sharing common intention of them.The defence taken by the accused persons about exercising right of private defence of their property does not appear to be plausible as there is no evidence that the appellants were in exclusive possession of the land on which the incident was taken place.Hence, his testimony is meaningless with regard to possession over the disputed land.Therefore, the defence is not found to be proved and the learned trial Court has rightly ignored it.As discussed earlier, so far as other accused persons Ramesh and Lalmani are concerned, they reached on the spot after falling of deceased Koushal Prasad on account of sustaining head injury, therefore, they cannot be held guilty for forming unlawful assembly having common object for causing death of Koushal Prasad.Apart from it, the evidence about accused Ramesh and Lalmani with regard to taking part in the incident even later part is also not trustworthy.Their name has not been mentioned in the FIR Ex.Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their participation in the incident.So far as other accused persons Ramadhar, Bhimsen, Bhuvneshwar and Ramkhelawan are concerned, they reached on the spot separately without having common object or common intention, therefore, they can be held guilty 12 for their own individual act.Learned trial court has given benefit of doubt to accused Ramkhelawan as none of the witnesses have specifically mentioned that he caused injury to any member of the complainant party.We also do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the aforesaid finding.On careful reading of testimony of Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Vidyawati (PW-5) it is established that accused Dinesh also caused simply injury with farsa on the head of Rambahore (PW-1) and co-accused Bhimsen and Bhuvneshwar also caused simple injury with lathi to Rambahore (PW-1) and Ramadhar caused simple injury with lathi to Ansuiya (PW-2) and accused Suresh and Bindawasi also willfully caused injury with lathi to Vidyawati (PW-5).In view of the aforesaid discussions, appellants Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh are held guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC for committing culpable homicide of Koushal Prasad and appellants Suresh and Bindawasi are also held guilty for commission of offence under Section 323 of the IPC.They were armed with lathi and have not caused fatal injury.Hence, appellants Suresh and Bindawasi are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in 14 jail as mentioned earlier with the fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further 6 months RI.Appellants Suresh and Bindawasi are on bail.Their bail bonds stand discharged.So far as other accused Persons Bhimsen and Bhuvneshwar are concerned, they have been found guilty for causing willfully simple injury to Rambahore (PW-1) and learned trial court has convicted them under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months but they have not filed any appeal and they have already undergone the aforesaid sentence during trial.Therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this regard.So far as accused Ramadhar is concerned, he is convicted under Section 323 of the IPC for causing simple injury to Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) with lathi.With the aforesaid, the appeals filed by the accused persons are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the trial court and the jail authorities concerned for information and necessary action.2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf0 19e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, PAROUHA cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2018.05.21 11:32:24 +05'30'

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

(a) A1 is the wife of the deceased Shankar.When it came to the knowledge of the deceased., he not only warned her but also began to quarrel and beat her.Hence, A1 and A2 desired to finish him off.On the date of occurrence i.e., on 15.4.2003 at 11.30 hours when both A1 and the deceased were in the house, they were quarrelling.On seeing the deceased beating A1, A2 beat the deceased on different parts of the body.A1 took her husband inside the house and A2 left the place.After sometime, when A2 came there, A1 informed him that she has caused the death of her husband by strangulation.Immediately, A1 and A2 took the body of the deceased and buried the same nearby the lake bund.(b) On 18.11.2004, when P.W.1-Ward Councillor was in his office, A2 appeared before him and gave a confessional statement.It was also recorded by P.W.1 and P.W.1 took A2 to the Police Station and produced him before P.W.7, Inspector of Police of the concerned circle.P9 was despatched to Court.Following the confessional statement made by A2, A1 was arrested.(c) P.W.7, Investigating Officer took up investigation.A1 took the Police Officer and the witnesses to the place of burial and the dead body was exhumed in the presence of Tahsildar, P.W.5 and other witnesses.The investigating officer made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P5 in the presence of witnesses and drew a rough sketch Ex.The dead body was subjected to post mortem.Thereafter, A1 and A2 were sent for judicial remand.P.W.2 registered a case in Crime No.315 of 2004 under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and the express F.I.R.-Ex.(d) P.W.4 doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has given the post mortem certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of ligature strangulation.On completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.(e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and relied on 13 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution and they denied them as false.D.W.1 Durga was examined on the side of the defence.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found A1 guilty under section 302 r/w 34 and 201 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment and 7 years rigorous imprisonment respectively along with fine and default sentences and found A2 guilty under section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine and default sentence.Hence, these appeals at the instance of the appellants.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned senior counsel made the following submissions.Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.The occurrence has taken place on 15.11.2004, at that time, A2 was not present.(c) The case of the prosecution is that three days after the occurrence i.e., on 18.11.2004, A2 suddenly appeared before P.W.1-ward councillor.It is not the case of the prosecution that A2 already knew the councillor.Apart from that, a perusal of the confession statement would clearly indicate that it was only an exculpatory.Even A2 did not have any direct knowledge of the alleged incident i.e., the cause of death of the deceased Shankar.(d) Further, in the instant case, even according to the prosecution, A2 appeared before the councillor-P.W.1 during night hours on 18.11.2004 but the witnesses clearly reveal that the police came to the spot during noon hours and A1 and A2 informed the cause of death of A1's husband to the Police.Thus, the Police knew about the incident even much earlier.The story that A2 went to P.W.1's office and gave extra judicial confession and the same was recorded and a case came to be registered only thereafter, were all concocted for the case of the prosecution.Learned counsel would submit that the extra-judicial confession made by an accused pointing to the other accused, cannot be a substantive piece of evidence; that the Court in order to find out whether it lends assurance, should also look into whether other pieces of evidence are available.In the instant case, there is no supportive evidence available.In so far as A1 is concerned, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A2 could not be acted to sustain conviction.Hence, A1 has got to be acquitted.(f) Added further learned counsel, as far as A2 is concerned, the trial Court found him guilty under section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and awarded punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment.This part of the judgment cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the confession statement was alleged to have been made before P.W.1 by A2 during night hours on 18.11.2004, that too, to a stranger.Under such circumstances, A2 is also entitled for acquittal.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.It is not in controversy that the dead body of one Shankar was exhumed and examined in the presence of P.W.5-Tahsildar and other witnesses and following the inquest made, the dead body was subjected to postmortem.P.W.4 doctor who conducted post mortem has given his opinion through post mortem certificate Ex.P3 that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of ligature strangulation.This was never disputed by the appellant either before this Court or before the trial Court.Hence, it could be safely recorded that the deceased Shankar died out of homicidal violence.The charges levelled against these appellants before the Trial Court was that A1 caused the death of her husband and A1 and A2 joined together and buried the dead body and that they have not only committed the crime of murder but also screened the offence.It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3, A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2 and when it came to the knowledge of her husband/deceased Shankar, he scolded her and beat her.On the date of occurrence i.e., on 15.11.2004, A2 beat the husband of A1 for torturing his wife and A1 caused the death of her husband.In order to prove the factual position, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer but only the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A2 to P.W.1-Ward councillor.Even as per the prosecution case, A2 had no role to play in the alleged offence and it was only A1 who informed him that she caused the death of her husband.A2 has given extra judicial confession, few days after the date of occurrence, to P.W.1-Ward councillor who was a stranger.A perusal of the extra judicial confession would clearly indicate that he has not given any inculpatory statement regarding participation in the murder.The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A2 to P.W.1, a stranger will not in any way bind A2 and this is the only piece of evidence available before the trial Court.Barred this evidence, the prosecution has no evidence at all.Under such circumstances, at no stretch of imagination, conviction could be sustained on the said piece of evidence which has no evidentiary value at all.At this juncture, learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court that from the evidence available, it could be seen that police went to place of occurrence during noon hours on 18.11.2004, earlier before the confession statement given by A2 to P.W.1 but the police have not registered a case at that time.Hence, the extra judicial confession and the alleged arrest are all cooked up story.Under such circumstances, such evidence in the opinion of the Court cannot form basis to sustain the conviction as against A2 and it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction as against A2 on such evidence.The lower court has lost sight of the factual and legal position and has taken an erroneous view and passed the judgement of conviction and sentence which has got to undone only by setting aside the same.Accordingly, these criminal appeals are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the court below.The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bonds if any executed by the appellants shall stand terminated and the fine amounts if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), ChenglepetInspector of Police, Peerkan Karanai Police Station, Chenglepet District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

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

The sole respondent is admittedly the owner of a Kannada Daily Newspaper by name “Jaya Kirana” published from Mangalore, Karnataka.Chelameswar, J.1. Leave granted.On 16.12.2013, the said newspaper carried a news item containing certain allegations against theSignature Not Verified appellant herein.According to the appellant, the allegations areDigitally signed byDEEPAK MANSUKHANIDate: 2017.12.0415:58:33 ISTReason:Aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2014, the respondentcarried the matter in Revision Petition No.219 of 2014 before theSessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.By the orderdated 06.11.2015, the respondent’s revision was dismissed.By an order dated23.11.2016, the said petition was allowed and the proceedings inCC No.1252 of 2014, insofar as they pertained to the respondent,were quashed.Both in his revision as well as the petition under Section482 Cr.P.C., the respondent urged various grounds whichaccording to him render the order dated 15.04.2014 illegal.The first threeparagraphs of the judgment under appeal (running into a shortone and a half page) purport to take note of only one submissionof the respondent.The petitioner admittedly was the owner.The petitioner admittedly was the owner.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

Learned APP waives servicefor the respondent State in all these petitions whereas advocate Mr.N.B. Narwade waives service for the respondent complainant.On therequest of both the sides, the matters are heard finally at the stage ofadmission and are being disposed of by this common judgment.26.wp.1582.16.odtrespondent complainant went missing in the evening of 30.06.2001.He went to the Police Station concerned and attempted to lodged amissing report but he was kept waiting.His complaint was destroyed.On their own the police machinery registered a missing complaint onnext day.All the while he was suspecting about his son having beenmurdered.Heard the learned advocates of all the four petitioners.The petitioners are the accused nos. 10, 7, 4 and 9 from thecomplaint bearing Criminal Case No.572/2008 filed by the respondentcomplainant in the Court of Magistrate at Ahmednagar.In sum andsubstance the allegations are to the effect that the son of the 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::The dead body was found near a railway track in the nextmorning.In spite of existence of number of circumstances pointing tothe fact that it was a murder the police machinery had acted hand ingloves with the main culprits and at every moment made attempt toscreen the offenders and mala fide did not discharge their duties eitheras was expected of them or in utter disregard to the directions of thesuperior.Giving details he filed the complaint for various offencesagainst the petitioners and the other police officers, covered byChapter IX of the Indian Penal Code like 166, 167, 201, 218, 211 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 145 of theMumbai Police Act.The learned Magistrate directed an inquiry under Section202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After receipt of a positivereport, by the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 the learnedMagistrate directed the process to be issued against the petitioners andfew other accused but refused to issue process against some of theaccused.The petitioners preferred separate revisions challenging the 4/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtorder of issuance of process before the Sessions Court.By theimpugned separate orders, the learned Additional Sessions Judgedismissed the revisions.Hence these petitions.The learned advocates submitted that accepting theallegations in the complaint at their face value, all the necessaryingredients for constituting the offence cannot be made out.The learned advocates also submitted that the alleged actswhich according to the respondent complainant constitutes theoffences for which the process has been issued have been done by the 5/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly erred inrefusing to consider it at the stage of inception.The learned APP and the learned advocate for therespondent complainant support both the orders.They submit that at 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtvery limited in ascertaining as to if there was sufficient material beforethe Magistrate, to form an opinion for proceeding.9/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::As far as accused no. 4 is concerned the report reads thathe had accompanied the co-accused who was an Assistant SubInspector who was asked to conduct inquiry in respect of theAccidental Death Case No.41/2001 and had accompanied him to thespot where the dead body was found.He specifically mentioned thatthe dead body was handed over to him for being taken to the CivilHospital.After postmortem examination he had handed over the deadbody and the articles found on it to the relatives of the deceased.Theclothes on the person of the deceased were kept by the sweeper outside the mortuary and since the relatives of the deceased had notdemanded the clothes he did not bring the clothes to the police station.One cannot comprehend as to why the clothes of the deceased werenot seized and also as to how merely because the relatives did notdemand clothes back, the clothes were allowed to go vanish.As far as accused no.7 is concerned during the inquiry hestated about being in charge of Kotwali Police Station as a SubInspector at the relevant time.He submitted that the report in respectof AD Case No.41/2001 submitted under Section 174 by the co-accused was received by him.In spite of having repeatedly called therespondent complainant and his relatives they did not turn up to himand that he had never threatened him.He further stated about havingcollected report from the Medical Officer who opined that the deceased 10/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odthad died due to dash given by train.It is thus apparent that accused no.4 has not seized theclothes and the articles found on the person of the deceased andallowed such things to go vanish.Accused no.7 to whom the reportwas submitted also ignored this vital aspect.Though the dead bodywas found by the side of the railway track, no inquiry was made withany railway staff particularly the Gangman and the Train Drivers.Besides though according to petitioner accused no. 7 the respondentcomplainant and his relatives had not turned up for the inquiry, still hesubmitted a report about the deceased having committed suicidewithout their being any cogent material.So far as accused no.9 is concerned it was found in thereport under Section 202 that at the material time he was in charge asPolice Inspector of Kotwali Police Station within the limit of which theincident had occurred.On a grievance being made by the respondentcomplainant with the Superintendent of Police the latter had sent aletter dated 19.07.2001 to the petitioner-accused no.9 specificallydirecting him to inquire into and investigate on specific points detailedtherein (Ex. R-1).In spite of such specific and precise directions tocarry out the investigation objectively, this petitioner-accused no.9 hasnot carried out the investigation as was expected.He was specifically 11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtasked to carry out the investigation and if necessary to examine thewitnesses still he never obeyed these directions and no attempt wasmade to recover the bicycle, chapals and clothes of the deceased.As far as the petitioner-accused no.10 is concerned it wasfound that at the material time he was Deputy Superintendent ofPolice and was expected to have supervision over the work ofPetitioner-accused no.9 who was expected to submit the report as perthe directions of the Superintendent of Police.By no stretch of imagination the order can be said to be perverse,arbitrary or capricious without which the learned Additional SessionsJudge could not have intervened under the powers of revision underSection 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.12/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::Thelearned Additional Sessions Judge was conscious enough to specificallyobserve that the issue needs to be kept open for a final decision at theend of the trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has notstraight away endorsed the conclusion of the learned Magistrate in theimpugned order that the offence was not committed in discharge of theofficial duty and sanction was not necessary.The observation and theconclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned 13/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtjudgment keeping this issue open is quite reasonable and expects theMagistrate to adopt correct course of action.Nagawwa (supra) so that the order of issuance of process can beset aside and the complaint can be dismissed.There is no substance inany of the Writ Petitions.The Writ Petitions are dismissed.(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)habeeb 14/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

S. V. Gupte, D. P. Singh, R. K. Jain and V. J. Francis,for the appellants.Debabrata Mukherjee and R. N, Sachthey, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRay, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the orderand judgment dated 9 September, 1968 of the High CourtRajasthan.The question for consideration is whether the AdditionalSpecial Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur could proceed with thetrial of Criminal Case No. 2/68/Spl.as directed by theorder of the High Court., That case was initiated under asanction accorded' by the Central Government under section197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 6 (1) (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellants alongwith four civilians were charged, with offences punishableunder sections 120-B, 161, 165A. 4,20, 409 and 467-A of theIndian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act read with sections 5 (1 ) (a) and 5 (1 ) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch on 27January, 1966 put up before the Special Judge, Jaipur acharge-sheet against the four appellants and four civilians.One of the civilians turned approver.The four appellantsthereafter made an application on 13 September, 1966 beforethe Special Judge that they were Commissioned Officers ofthe Indian Army and without complying with the provisions ofsection 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rulesthereunder called the "Criminal Courts and Court Martial(Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules," the Special Judge couldnot proceed against the appellants in the criminal courtwhich under the Army Act is described as a civil court asopposed to court-martial under the Army Acts.A revision application wasthereafter moved in the Rajasthan High Court.The HighCourt of Rajasthan by order and judgment dated 20 December,1966 said that the Special Judge would proceed in accordancewith the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules framedunder section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In compliance with the aforesaid order of the High Court,the Special Judge on 12 January, 1967 gave notice to theCommanding Officer, 123 Infantry Battalion (T.A.), Jaipurnotifying under Rule 4 of the Criminal Courts and CourtMartial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 that theappellants along with three civilians were charged with theoffences as indicated above and charges would be "framedagainst the accused after the expiry of a period of sevendays from the date of the service of the notice".The Special Judge requested the Com-manding Officer to make a reference to the CentralGovernment within seven days failing which the Special Judgewould make a reference to the Central Government.TheSpecial Judge did not deliver the four appellants to theCommanding Officer.On 28 January, 1967 the Officer Commanding, 123 InfantryBattalion (T.A.), Jaipur wrote to the Special Judge that thenotice under Rule 5 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial(Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 served by theOfficer on the Special Judge by letter dated 16 January,1967 might be treated ,as cancelled.On 21 March, 1968 the appellants made an application beforethe Additional Special Judge, Jaipur that the CommandingOfficer acted illegally and without jurisdiction incancelling the earlier notice dated 16 January, 1967 and theCommanding Officer should have made a reference to the Chiefof the Army Staff.The appellants prayed that they might behanded over to the Commanding Officer in terms of the letterdated 17 January, 1967 issued by the Commanding Officerasking the Special Judge to deliver the appellants, to theArmy authorities.On 5 April, 1968 the Additional885Special Judge held that the Officer Commanding revised hisdiscretion and intimated by letter dated 28 January, 1967that the earlier notice dated 16 January, 1967 issued underRule 5 requiring delivery of the appellants to the Armyauthorities for trial by Court Martial was cancelled andtherefore the Special Judge would try the case and notdeliver the appellants to the army authorities.The appellants thereafter made an application to the HighCourt of Rajasthan under section 435 read with section 561-Aof ,the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing theproceedings before the Additional Special Judge and fordirecting the Special Judge to hand over the appellants tobe tried by Court Martial.The High Court by order dated 9September, 1968 dismissed the revision application anddirected the Special Judge, Rajasthan to conduct the trialexpeditiously, because sufficient time had elapsed since thesubmission of The charge-sheet by the Special PoliceEstablishment Branch, Jaipur.Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the orderof the High Court was wrong for 3 reasons : First, that theSpecial Judge having issued a notice on 12 January, 1967under Rule 4 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial(Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 19,52 to the OfficerCommanding and having received a reply dated 16 January,1967 from the Officer, the Special Judge had nojurisdiction to deal with an application of the State madeon 17 January, 1967 and pass an order on 17 January, 1967 onthe stay application that the Commanding Officer should makea reference to the Central Government.The appeal therefore fails and dismissed.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

The Appellant was tried in S.C. No. 125 of 1988 on the file of the 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, under three heads of charges.The first charge was for an offence under Section 452, I.P.C., on the allegation that on 25-4-1986 between 9 and 10 A.M., when P.W. 1 Frederick Kanakaraj, the District Munsif, Ponneri, was travelling in an electric train from Madras Central to reach his work spot, on the way at Ennore Railway Station, the appellant due to prior enmity trespassed into the first class compartment, where P.W. 1, was seated, after having made preparation to attack him.The second charge was framed for an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. alleging that during the course of the same transaction, the appellant attacked P.W. 1, with a koduval knife by chasing the victim, who got down from the first class compartment No. 12252 and got into a second class compartment, to escape from the wrath of the appellant.The third charge was framed for an offence under Section 333, I.P.C. alleging that during the course of the same transaction, due to prior enmity, in that, P.W. 1, had decided against him in a case, caused grievous hurt to P.W. 1, a public servant and prevented him from discharging his duties as such public servant.The trial Judge found the appellant guilty of all the charges and sentenced him as hereunder : In respect of the first charge, the appellant was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.Under charge No. 3, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The facts which led to this prosecution need narration.Federick Kanakaraj, at the relevant time, when this incident had occurred, was working as District Munsif at Ponneri.On every working day he used to leave his residence at Kilpauk, Madras, on his motor cycle and reach the Central Railway Station.After parking his motor cycle at the Central Railway Station stand for motor cycles, he used to take an electric train to reach Ponneri.He had obtained permission from this Court, to stay at Madras and go for his work at Ponneri, daily.Every day he used to board the electric train leaving Madras Central Railway Station at 8.25 a.m. On the fateful day i.e., on 25-4-1986, after parking his motor cycle, he was unable to board the electric train which left Madras at 8.25 a.m., and therefore, had to necessarily take the next train, which left at 9.05 a.m. P.W. 1, boarded the first class compartment in which he was authorised to travel by virtue of the Season Ticket Ex.P. 2 obtained from the Railways.P. 4 is the token-cum-pass issued at the Central Railway Cycle Stand, for the parking of the Motor Cycle of P.W. 1, daily.Along with P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Ravichandran, an Engineer working in the Public Works Department at Gummudipundi and two policemen of whom one has been examined as P.W. 17, travelled in the same compartment.The appellant was known to P.W. 1, earlier.The appellant was known to P.W. 1, since he had deposed before him in the aforementioned proceeding.Nearly 2 1/2 months thereafter, when P.W. 1 was travelling on 25-4-1986 in the electric train, he was as usual perusing the morning newspaper, inside the compartment.He was seated adjacent to the window.P.W. 2 was seated opposite to him.The train had reached the Ennore Railway Station at or about 9.35 a.m. At that time the appellant got into the first class compartment, where P.W. 1, was seated, with a small brief case and stood near the entrance to the compartment.The appellant wished P.W. 1 which was reciprocated by the latter.Subsequently the appellant nearer the place where P.W. 1 was seated and suddenly, unexpected by P.W. 1, opened the brief case, removed a koduval and stating "you have written a judgment against me.Even then, the appellant chased and the next cut aimed by the appellant fell on the right hand of P.W. 1, between the thumb and the index finger.P.W. 1, further ran and got into a second class compartment.The appellant, who followed P.W. 1, also got into the second class compartment and again attacked P.W. 1 with the Koduval.P.W. 1, attempted to ward of the cuts and in the process sustained injuries in the left and right hands.The right ring finger and half of the little finger were precariously hanging due to the cut injuries inflicted by the appellant.The public who were aghast and who had crumbled away, re-gathered and one of them threw a water drum at the appellant and another beat him with an iron rod.Due to the beating with the iron rod, the koduval held by the appellant fell down.Later several members of the public beat the appellant.Soon thereafter P.W. 3, Jayapalan, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, P.W. 4, Rasish, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, P.W. 5 Munirathinam, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ponneri and P.W. 6, Susairaj, an Advocate normally practising at Ponneri and Susheela, not examined, an Examiner in the Court of P.W. 1, helped P.W. 1, to alight from the second class compartment.They boarded him in a tricycle, to take him to the Ennore Police Station.On the way, P.W. 21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ennore, came in a Mini Bus.He stopped the bus and put P.W. 1 in the Mini Bus, along with P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 to be taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras, for treatment.P.W. 17, Rathinaswamy, a constable attached to the Railway Protection Force, Madras Central Railway Station, who was travelling along with another Railway Reserve-Constable 209 in the Compartment in which P.W. 1, was travelling, had witnessed the attack on P.W. 1 by the appellant, after the latter had uttered the challenging words incorporated earlier in this judgment.He has also spoken about the threat administered by the appellant, when he and others attempted to restrain him.P.W. 17 noticed P.W. 1, running towards the room of the station-master and the appellant chasing him.Regarding this incident, P.W. 17 informed the Inspector of Police, Central Railway Station, over the telephone.Meanwhile, the public had apprehended the appellant and had kept him in the platform, opposite to the waiting room.He had also noticed P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 taking P.W. 1 out of the Railway Station.sound over the dorsal and outer border.Left index ulnar aspect 2" mid finger over tip.1" left forearm on dorsum 1".He also opined, that the head injuries noticed by him, would have endangered the life of the person, if immediate and proper treatment had not been given.He had also advised X-ray being taken.Though the patient was conscious, alert and answered to questions, his condition was serious.Soon after blood groupong was done, blood transfusion was commenced.He was listed as a dangerously ill patient and was referred to various specialists, for further management.P.W. 22, Chinnaswamy, who was the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway Station, received the message, of this occurrence, from P.W. 17 at or about 10 a.m. P.W. 2 informed P.W. 17 to guard the place till he reached the scene.A little later P.W. 17 informed over the telephone, that the injured District Munsif, Ponneri, had been sent in a police van by P.W. 21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ennore, for treatment to the hospital, at Madras, P.W. 22 directed P.W. 17 and Constable 209, to keep the apprehended appellant, in proper custody.The second telephonic message was also entered by P.W. 22 in the General Diary.Soon thereafter P.W. 22 proceeded to the Government Stanley Hospital, excepting the victim to be brought over to the said hospital.Since P.W. 1 had not reached the Government Stanley Hospital till 11.45 a.m., over the phone, he contacted the Central Railway Police Station and learnt that P.W. 1, had been taken for treatment to the Government General Hospital, Madras.P. 29 is the printed form of the F.I.R. P.W. 22 seized M.Os.3 to 5 the bloodstained pant, banian and shirt of P.W. 1 under a mahazar Ex.P. 28 at or about 12.25 p.m. Thereafter P.W. 22 proceeded to Ennore Railway Station.P.W. 21 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, received a message over the telephone, at or about 10 a.m. on 25-4-1986 from the Superintendent, Ennore Railway Station that a person, had cut the Ponneri District Magistrate, leading to chase and confusion and wanted him to go over to the Railway Station immediately.When the phone call was received by P.W. 21, Sundaramurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Arambakkam (Not examined) was with him.P.W. 21 took Sundaramurthy along with him in the Police mini bus TTH 2513 driven by Manoharan, not examined, and went towards Ennore Railway Station.As he was leaving for Ennore Railway Station, the same information regarding the incident, was conveyed to him by police constable, who had arrived there then.When the van had travelled about 100 metres, he noticed a tricycle coming in the opposite direction, in which P.W. 1, was being taken by P.Ws. 3 to 5 towards the Ennore Police Station.He found P.W. 1 with several cut injuries.P.W. 21 directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sundaramurthy, to accompany the injured, along with P.Ws. 3 to 5 in the mini bus, to the Government General Hospital.P.W. 4 told P.W. 21, that the assailant of P.W. 1, had been kept at the Ennore Railway Station.After the bus left, P.W. 21 went to the Ennore Railway Station.He found the appellant kept detained opposite to the first class waiting room.He found simple injuries on the appellant.At the main entrance to the station, he found a green drum.A little distance away he noticed an ash colour brief case.As little further away an aruval was found with bloodstains.P.W. 21 noticed bloodstains, near the board "First Class Ladies", on the Platform.Soon thereafter from the Ennore Railway Station, he telephoned to the Inspector of Police, Madras Central Railway Station.The latter directed him to keep guard and promised to go over there.At or about 2.15 p.m. P.W. 22 arrived at the Ennore Railway Station.P.W. 22, who had arrived, at the Ennore Railway Station, found the appellant in the custody of P.W. 21, P.W. 17 and another constable.P.W. 22 prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P. 7 in the presence of P.W. 11 and another.The scene sketch Ex.P. 30 was also prepared.He seized the bloodstained kuduval, the ash colour suit case containing a cooling glass and a hacksaw blade.He seized two issues of Murasoli dated 18-4-1986 and 24-4-1986, one issue of Dinamani dated 25-4-1986, four bits of bandages, certain notices, an identity card issued in favour of Balaraman, a dividend cheque for Rs. 90/- in favour of the appellant issued by Ashok Leyland, a comb, a prince blade and two more blades, white pant, a multi-coloured half-arm shirt, a kerchief and a ball-point pen.These articles were seized under the mahazar Ex.P. 8, attested by P.W. 11 and another.At 2.50 p.m. P.W. 10 seized the green colour drum M.O. 6 under the mahazar Ex.P. 11, attested by P.W. 13 and another.Under the mahazar Ex.Outside the Ennore Railway Station, he found a Rajdoot Motor Cycle M.O. 19 bearing registration No. T.M.Z. 615, which he seized under the mahazar Ex.P. 10, attested by P.W. 12 and another.On being questioned by P.W. 22, the accused gave a statement, which was recorded by P.W. 22, which was subsequently registered as Crime No. 130 of 1986 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 336, I.P.C. at 4 p.m. Ex.P. 31 is the printed First Information Report.The accused in the said crime, are stated to be the public.She has opined, that the injuries found on the appellant, could have been sustained, in the manner and time alleged.She had not expressed any opinion in respect of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, and had stated that she would be in a position to offer any opinion only after seeing the case sheet and the subsequent treatment given to the injured at the Hospital.P.W. 22 went to the electric train yard along with the official Photographer, P.W. 16 at 5.30 p.m. on the same day.P.W. 22 also prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P. 32 attested by Narsimhan and sridar, not examined.P.W. 22 noticed bloodstains in both the compartments.He scrapped the bloodstains and seized them under the mahazar Ex.He also prepared the sketches of the railway compartments, Exs.M.O. 21 series are the photographs of the compartments.At or about 6 p.m. P.W. 22 went to the Government General Hospital over again.Due to the injuries sustained by him, even after treatment, P.W. 1, used to experience blackout in his eye-sight, sweating and incessant giddiness, resulting in his inability to perform his duties, as efficiently as done earlier.Apart from P.W. 17, P.Ws. 2 to 6 have also been examined as eye-witnesses.He had seen P.W. 1 running towards the station-master's room from near the first class compartment.He had also noticed a person chasing him and cutting him with a koduval.When P.W. 10 went to the room of the stationmaster to telephone about the stoppage of the train he found P.W. 1 with bleeding injuries on the neck and hands.P.W. 1 was seen by him being taken out of the railway station by a few persons.Before sealing he noticed a suit case inside the compartment which he handed over to a boy nearby with a direction to entrust it to the appellant.The occurrence was in broad day light, witnessed by several ocular witnesses.The assailant was caught, even while he was attacking the victim and kept under guard to be handed over to the investigating agency.The seizure, of the weapon of offence and certain other articles belonging to the appellant, was made at the scene soon thereafter.P.W. 17 had deposed that he got into the train along with another police constable 209 at Korukkupet, in the first class compartment where P.W. 1 was seated.P.W. 17 has fixed the presence of P.W. 2 in the said compartment.As soon as the train started at Ennore Railway Station, a person wearing a cement colour pant and shirt with an identical coloured suit case, got into the compartment and stood at the entrance.After the train, started moving, the person, who got into the train, offered his respects to P.W. 1, who reciprocated.P.W. 2 also joined P.W. 17 to restrain the appellant; but the appellant waving his koduval attempted to cut them.Meanwhile P.W. 1 go out of the compartment and went towards the station-master's room, shouting "he is cutting".After witnessing this part of the occurrence, P.W. 17, informed over the telephone from the office of the A.S.I. to P.W. 22, the Inspector of Police, Central Railway Station.P.W. 10 proceeded to the office of the Assistant Station Master to inform his higher authorities about the stoppage of the train at Ennore Railway Station.Under charge No. 2, he was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appellant had filed a redelivery petition in E.A. No. 384 of 1984 in R.C.O.P. No. 34 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Ponneri.The appellant got in down from the compartment, chased P.W. 1, and attempted to cut with the koduval, on the back of his head.P.Ws. 3 and 5 had P.W. 1 admitted at the General Hospital, Madras, for treatment.P.W. 19 Dr. Rathinaswamy was working as a Casuality Medical Officer, on 25-4-1986, at the Government General Hospital.He examined at 10.30 a.m. the injured P.W. 1, who was alleged to have been attacked by a known person, with knife at Ennore Railway Station at or about 9.35 a.m. on the same day.The injuries noticed by him on P.W. 1, have been noted in Ex.P. 26, the accident Register, which is typed hereunder :-1) Incised wound over the left elbow on the outer aspect exposing the bone 12 c.m. x 5 c.m.2) Incised wound in the first web space of right hand up to metacarpus joint 3".Right little and ring fingers severed at distal phalanx level and less of part of bail of the mid finger.3) Incised wound over the left frontal parietal region 6" Bone deep.4) 3 incised wounds over left occipital region crossing each other, like H5" each.5) Two incised wounds over right occipital region extending up to right ear 6" x 3".6) Incised wound over posterior aspect of right arm exposing triceps 3" x 1" near the elbow up to bone.Abrasion over the abdominal wall.7) Left hand incised wound over the hypothenar eminence 2" disttal palmer crease 2" thumb 7 cm.Immediately P.W. 22 proceeded to the Government General Hospital and found the injured P.W. 1, in Ward No. 1, undergoing treatment.P.W. 1, was conscious.Though the actual time of the recording of this statement has not been stated, it is clear that this statement marked as Ex.P. 6 was registered at or about 1 p.m. at Korukkupet Police Station in Crime No. 129 of 1986 for offences under sections 324, 326 and 307, I.P.C. Ex.P.W. 22 arrested the appellant.He reached Korukkupet Police Station at 4 p.m. Since P.W. 22 noticed injuries on the appellant, he forwarded him for medical examination with a memo to the Stanley Medical Hospital, Madras.She noticed certain injuries on the appellant, stated to have been caused due to an assault by 10 unknown persons with iron rods.The injuries noticed on the appellant by P.W. 23 form part of the accident register extract Ex.P. 36, typed down below.Lacerated injury 2" x 1/2" on the left Parietal region.Lacerated wound on the left index finger at M.P. joint level 2" x 1".Contusion right side forehead 2" x 1".Lacerated wound vertex 2" x 1".Bleeding from the nostrils and complains haemolysis.6. Complains pain on the left hand and the lacerated wound on the left parietal.P.W. 23 directed X-ray to be taken of the appellant.He was admitted as an in-patient.Later in the evening he recorded the statement of P.W. 17 and others.On the same night at Ponneri, he examined P.W. 3, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate.P.W. 22 forwarded the bloodstained articles seized during investigation, through the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, for Chemical analysis.Reverting back to some more facts, the prosecution has exhibited the judgment pronounced by P.W. 1 In E.A. No. 384 of 1984 as Ex.P.W. 1 who was admitted in the Hospital on the date of occurrence had to be an in-patient for a period of six months and one week.P.W. 18 the Head Clerk attached to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, speaks about the bloodstained articles M.Os.2 to 5 seized during investigation having been sent for chemical analysis and report, to the laboratory and the receipt of the reports after analysis.Similar the Court forwarded the blood scrapings from the train M.O. 20 and the sample scrapings M.O. 21 from the compartment and bloodstained earth M.O. 17 and sample earth M.O. 18 to the laboratory for analysis and report.P. 24 and P. 25 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist respectively.The blood found on the clothes of the accused, the koduval and the scrapings at the Ennore Railway Station and the train compartment, were found to be of human origin.At the time of discharge, P.W. 14 issued the certificate Ex.The discharge summary regarding the patient has been marked at Ex.The X-rays taken, 40 in number, have been produced as M.O. 20 series.He has deposed as follows :-"On the basis of the injuries sustained by the patient noted in the Accident Register at the time of his admission in the Hospital and also on the basis of the subsequent treatment given to the patient at the hospital I have given my opinion as both injuries of grievous in nature.Almost all the injuries sustained by the patient in that alleged occurrence are grievous in nature.All the grievous injuries sustained by the injured P.W. 1 would possibly having caused by a weapon like M.O. 2 Multiple head injury generally endanger the life of the person who sustained a these injuries, the injuries found on P.W. 1 have created permanent disabilities.Because of these permanent disabilities P.W. 1 is having restricted movements in both of his hands.Because of the head injuries sustained by P.W. 1 out of this alleged occurrence even after treatment he will be having sometimes giddiness, and blackout of eyes."He examined P.W. 1 on 4-5-1986 and he examined over again some of the other witnesses during the course of his investigation.The Appellant, when questioned by the trial Court under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, denied his complicity in the crime.He stated that the prosecution witnesses had uttered falsehood.P.W. 15 had dispossessed him contrary to the order of interim stay obtained by him.The motor cycle and the articles seized by the police along with the brief case belonged to him; but they were taken away from his house.He was beaten under a wrong assumption.He admitted having been sent to Stanley Medical Hospital for treatment and his remand to the Judicial custody thereafter.He has further stated that the police had beaten him and he was innocent.Though initially he represented that he had witnesses to be examined on his side, later he gave up that stand.However, he had marked Exs.The learned trial Judge, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found the appellant guilty of all the three charges and dealt with him as stated earlier.He also contended, that the injuries on the accused had not been explained by the prosecution, which was an additional factor enuring in favour of the appellant.On coming out from the office of the A.S.I., soon after telephoning to.P.W. 22, he found that the appellant had been caught by the Public and kept near the first class waiting room.The appellant had also injuries on him.P.W. 1 who was tottering due to the injuries sustained by him, was being taken out off the railway station by three Magistrates.The train in which P.W. 1 travelled left the station after sometime and before that P.W. 10, the railway guard had sealed the compartment.A little later, P.W. 21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, arrived at the railway station and P.W. 17 along with P.W. 21 awaited the arrival of P.W. 22, the Inspector of Police, Central Railway Police Station.It has been elicited in cross-examination of P.W. 17 that while he gave the message, he did not inform that the victim was a Magistrate and all that he was able to say was that one person had cut another.A contradiction was pointed that the first paragraph of Ex.P. 29 read as though, that P.W. 17 (P.C. 345) had given a message entered in the General Diary stating, that Balaraman (who was the assailant) had cut indiscriminately the Pon neri District Munsif in the compartment and the platform, at Ennore Railway Station, resulting in tension and disturbance and that the accused Balaraman had been beaten and apprehended by the public.When the fact remains that P.W. 17 had given a message to P.W. 22, that the assailant had been caught, while the victim had been sent to the hospital, nothing serious can turn out, on this alleged discrepancy.It was also pointed out that, according to P.W. 17, P.W. 21 had arrived at Ennore Railway Station only after the train had left, but still P.W. 17 would have it that he saw P.W. 2 talking with P.W. 21 at the railway station, which could not be true, for admittedly P.W. 2 had left in the same train, for Gummudi-pundi.It was further pointed out that Ex. D. 2 the remand report showed that the appellant was travelling in the train even from Kathivakkam, a railway station situated before Ennore Railway Station between Madras and Ennore and, therefore, if the appellant had been in the train earlier, he could not have got into the train for the first time at Ennore Railway Station and, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 17 had to be suspected.The admission of P.W. 17, that he could not normally travel in a first class compartment, was also pressed into service to discredit his version.P.W. 22 had prepared the remand report, on the evidence collected till then during investigation.It may be that the appellant travelled from Kathivakkam in another compartment, for in the evidence, it is clear as deposed to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 17 that the appellant had got into the first class compartment only at Ennore Railway Station.There is overwhelming evidence connecting the appellant with the crime inclusive of his having been apprehended soon thereafter and, therefore, these contradictions though do exist, cannot exculpate the appellant from the crime.The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to seriously challenge the ocular version of the other eye-witnesses including the victim.As far as the victim is concerned, he contended, that the presence of P.W. 2 had not been mentioned in the first information report and specifically the words alleged to have been used by the appellant while he had attacked him had not been mentioned in the earliest document.If we take note of the shock and fright that should have been experienced by P.W. 1, who had been mercilessly attacked, resulting in several injuries, the non-mention of these details, cannot be taken to throw a doubt on the substratum of the prosecution case, which is not only natural, but rings true as well.P.W. 17 has corroborated the version of P.W. 1, that the appellant had stated those words, that he would make P.W. 1 not to write such judgments any more, while inflicting the cuts.I am satisfied that P.Ws. 1 and 17 had spoken the truth, not only relating to the words spoken by the appellant during the course of the attack, but also its subsequent facets.Of the other eye-witnesses, P.W. 3 was the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Ponneri, while P.W. 4 was the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri.P.W. 5 was the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, while P.W. 6 was an Advocate practising in the Courts situated at Ponneri.These four witnesses were travelling in a second class compartment from Madras, their destination being Ponneri.P.W. 4 alone had got into the train at Basin Bridge Junction.All these witnesses have uniformly deposed, that at the Ennore Railway Station at or about 9.45 a.m. when the train had halted, they heard a noise, which made them to peep out.They found P.W. 1, who was bleeding in his head, face, and neck, running towards the room of the Station Master shouting "he is cutting".They also found the appellant running behind P.W. 1 with a koduval 1 1/2 in length.They attempted to obstruct the appellant by getting out of the compartment, but they failed in their attempts, since the appellant was brandishing the koduval.They actually saw the appellant cutting P.W. 1 not only in the platform, but also in the second class compartment where P.W. 1 took refuge after he found, that the room of the Station Master had been locked.Except a general suggestion that these witnesses were desirous of helping a Judicial Officer and, therefore, had uttered falsehood, nothing further has been alleged against them.The presence of these witnesses appears to be natural and the further fact of P.Ws. 3 to 5 having taken the injured from Ennore Railway Station to the Government General Hospital, which had been noticed by several of the witnesses, affords additional assurance that they must have seen the incident as spoken to by them.It is rather unfortunate that P.W. 3 had received the first information report from the investigating agency in his Court and had also chosen to reject the petition filed by the appellant for the return of the motor cycle, though he must have been aware that he was an eye-witness to the incident.It appears that P.W. 3 was under the bona fide impression, that in the course of his discharge of duties he had to receive the first information report and pass orders in the return of property petition, though he had taken steps after the filing of the final report, to have the committal proceedings transferred to some other Court.Equally P.W. 4 could have been a little more vigilant in not having accepted the referred charge sheet in the complaint preferred by the appellant in respect of the same incident, since justice must not only be done, but also must appear to have been done.P.Ws. 3 and 4 should have avoided the roles they had played in receiving certain records during investigation.However, I am unable to attribute any sinister motive to these two public servants, who had meticulously deposed about all that they had seen.As far as P.W's 5 and 6 are concerned, one an Assistant Public Prosecutor and the other a member of the Bar, nothing serious had been elicited to discredit their versions.Their versions proclaim them to be witnesses of truth.The names of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 had been stated even in the first information report.As far as P.W. 2 is concerned, who is an Engineer working in the Public Works Department at Gummudipundi, the comment was that he had travelled without a ticket and his name does not find a place in the first information report.It was also commented, that though P.W. 22 claims to have examined him at the General Hospital between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, P.W. 2 would have it, that he was examined by a Police Inspector at his office, on the next day.This contradiction is, of course, there.We cannot overlook that P.W. 2 had admitted that he was available at the Government General Hospital on the evening of the occurrence.Therefore, it is quite possible that P.W. 2 was also examined along with other witnesses at the Government General Hospital, since his statement had also reached the Court along with the statements of the other eye-witnesses, on the same date.The non-mentioning of the name of P.W. 2 in the first information report is not a serious lacuna, since P.W. 1 was in great distress when his complaint was recorded.The reason why P.W. 2 had to travel without a ticket on that particular day had not been elicited.I do not have any doubt, that P.W. 2 as confirmed by P.Ws. 1 and 17, must have travelled in the compartment along with them on the fateful morning.Even if the version of P.W. 2 is erased from consideration, the other evidence on record is clear, consistent and overwhelming, that the omission of the version of P.W. 2, would not in any event, make a difference while deciding the guilt or otherwise of the appellant.P.W. 10 the Guard of the train in which P.W. 1 was travelling on 25-4-1986, has deposed to the limited extent that he saw a Judge going towards the room of the Assistant Station Master and the appellant cutting him.He noticed a police man conversing over the phone with them.He saw P.W. 1 with injuries near his neck and on his hands.He further noticed the bloodstained Judge being taken from the second class compartment, outside the railway station.He has spoken about the sealing of the First Class Compartment before the train left Ennore Railway Station.All that they had said is that they were remand prisoners in the same jail where the appellant had been kept and only after they were freed from jail, they would be able to depose in this prosecution.It looks as though that both the witnesses were afraid that harm would befall them if they chose to depose against the appellant, who was a co-prisoner with them.The medical evidence furnished by P.Ws. 19, 20 and 14 certainly support the oral evidence of the ocular witnesses in confirming the portroyal of the occurrence as putforth by the prosecution.P.W. 19 Dr. Rathinaswamy, had seen the injured initially and he had noticed five incised injuries on the head.Injuries 3, 4 and 5 are these incised injuries, Injury No. 3 itself accounting for three incised injuries on the left occipital region crossing each other 5" each.P.W. 19 had also noticed incised injuries on the left and right hands of the victim, coupled with right little finger and ring finger severed at distal phalanx level and loss of part of nail of the middle finger.Further the medical evidence discloses, that certain permanent disabilities had resulted to P.W. 1, in view of the attack by the appellant.The bloodstains taken from the scene of occurrence and from the compartment further lend assurance to the truth of the prosecution case.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injuries on the accused had not been explained and that would constitute a serious lacuna.I am unable to agree.at him.There cannot be a discordant note, if it were to be stated, that the motivated appellant, had vindictively attacked a public servant, since the latter's judgment delivered in the course of his duty as a public servant, went against him or was not to his liking.The trial Judge had taken note of the contents of a petition filed by the appellant on 20-8-1987 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Trivellore, vowing vengeance against P.W. 15, the police official and others for the injustice rendered to him on 17-4-1984, when P.W. 1's predecessor had decided against him.A perusal of the records does not indicate, that while sentencing the accused, this memo had been put to him to elicit an answer.The appellant has already spent about four years in jail.The appellant has also been acquitted of one count of charge, for an offence under section 452, I.P.C. Taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the view, that the sentence of imprisonment awarded under charge No. 2 for the offence under section 307, I.P.C. could be reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the appellant had not been in a position to pay the varying amounts of fine imposed on him.I do not think, that on facts any sentence of fine, has to be awarded.In that view, the sentences of fine imposed on the appellant under charges 2 and 3 are set aside.The sentence of imprisonment under charge No. 2 for an offence under section 307, I.P.C. is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.In respect of charge No. 1, for the offence under section 452, I.P.C., the appellant is acquitted.In respect of the third charge for the offence under section 333, I.P.C., I confirm the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Judge.The sentences in respect of charges 2 and 3 shall run concurrently.The return of M.O. 19, the Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing registration No. T.M.Z. 615 admittedly belonging to the appellant, has been sought for.M.O. 19 has been confiscated by the trial Court, to the State.I set aside the confiscation of M.O. 19 and direct its return to the appellant.This appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

His earlier applications were dismissed being withdrawn.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 18/12/2014 in connection with Crime No.852/2014 registered at Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 306 of IPC and Sections 16/17 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 18 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There was no relation of the applicant with the deceased so that presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply.The deceased had committed suicide on her own.Thereafter the sister of the deceased has created a story against the applicant that he met with the deceased and tried to outrage her modesty, and therefore she committed suicide.However, if the applicant would have done such an act with the deceased, then she could inform her parents, and she could lodge an FIR against the applicant.The overt-acts of the applicant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 305 or 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 18.12.2014 and relatives of the deceased are not appearing before the Court to give their evidence.It would be apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.Under such changed circumstances, he prays for bail.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

as (Allowed).C.R.M. 1978 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.01.2019 in connection with Sankrail P. S. Case No.929 of 2018 dated 23.12.2018 under Sections 448/325/354B/379/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesIn the matter of : Biswajit Adak....for the Petitioner......for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 18.6.2014 relating to Crime No.337/14 registered at Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 453, 506 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, remaining offences are bailable.It is not alleged against the applicant that he had any firearm with him and therefore, no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the applicant.The offence under Section 452 of the IPC is not so grave so that the applicant may not be granted bail.The co-accused Sajid Khan was granted bail vide order dated 26.6.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8032/2014 and case of the applicant is similar to him.Under these circumstances, the applicant also prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Khalid Anjum be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.10684/2014 22.07.2014 Shri V.C. Rai, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.109/12 registered at Police Station Gudh, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.After arrest of the applicant, 2-3 similar cases were registered against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.Similarly, no test identification parade has been arranged against him.Only a cash of Rs.1500/- is recovered from the applicant, which is of his own.Under such circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence to implicate the applicant.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.He submits that the applicant could be arrested with the difficulty after two years of crime and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail then, he may escape.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted with some tough conditions.It is directed that the applicant namely Pradeep Patel be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.10654/2014 22.07.2014 Shri V.C. Rai, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.108/12 registered at Police Station Gudh, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.After arrest of the applicant, 2-3 similar cases were registered against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.Similarly, no test identification parade has been arranged against him.Only a cash of Rs.900/- is recovered from the applicant, which is of his own.Under such circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence to implicate the applicant.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.He submits that the applicant could be arrested with the difficulty after two years of crime and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail then, he may escape.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted with some tough conditions.It is directed that the applicant namely Pradeep Patel be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6496/2014 22.07.2014 Shri L.N. Sakle, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has copy of charge sheet and therefore, matter may be considered with the help of such papers.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 8.1.2014 relating to Crime No.109/13 registered at Police Station Gadhi Malahara, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 23 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.On evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the applicant, he was arrested.According to the allegations, it is alleged against the co-accused Sartaj that he fired from the gun upon the victim.The applicant was not present at the spot and no test identification parade has been arranged against him.However, the applicant was not aware that the co-accused Sartaj would fire in such a manner.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of the IPC.No prohibited arm is recovered from the applicant and therefore, no offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act is made out against him.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Nandu @ Nandkishore be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6554/2014 22.07.2014 Shri B.K. Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the 5th bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant, whereas his previous two applications were dismissed on merits.The applicant is in custody since 13.3.2009 relating to Crime No.87/08 registered at Police Station Pathrouta, District Hoshangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364, 307, 302, 201, 120- B, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted with some tough conditions.It is directed that the applicant namely Santosh Singh Rajwanshi (Kuchbandiya) be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6873/2014 22.07.2014 Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is a repeat bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant, whereas his previous application was dismissed being withdrawn with the liberty that it may be filed again, if any compromise takes place between the parties.The applicant is in custody since 14.3.2014 relating to Crime No.158/14 registered at Police Station City Gorakhpur, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 768 and 471 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Though, no crime has been committed by the applicant but it is a case of civil nature.The case appears to be a complex one and sufficient time will be required for the disposal of the case.To show his bonafide intention, the applicant is ready to deposit a sum of `2,10,000/-, which is subject amount to the litigation before the trial Court with the pretext that it may be given to the complainant.The applicant assures that he will co-operate in the investigation and he will be regular in attending the Court.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted subject to deposit a sum of `2,10,000/- as proposed by the applicant before the trial Court.It is directed that, if the applicant namely Anil Choukse produces the receipt of depositing the aforesaid amount before the trial Court, then he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.However, it is made clear that the trial Court would be free to provide the deposited sum to the complainant after taking due undertaking, security etc. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6941/2014 22.07.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel with Shri S.K. Dixit, Adv.for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 16.11.2013 relating to Crime No.791/13 registered at Police Station Govindpura, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 27 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There is no ocular evidence against the applicant.It is not alleged against the applicant that he participated in the alleged crime.Only, allegation made against the applicant is that he provided some petrol to the main accused and also dropped him to the spot but he did not know that the main accused would use the petrol in setting the dead body of the deceased on fire.At the most, the offence under Section 201 of the IPC may constitute against the applicant but no offence under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 120-B of the IPC.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Abdul Amir @ Ameen be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1303 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2016, around 09.30 a.m., the petitioners along with other accused blocked the road due to the removal of flex board and microphone set, which was erected without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 143, 341 & 188 IPC in S.T.C.No.1303 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143, 341 & 188 IPC as against the petitioners and others.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners.(i) of Cr.P.C.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.9.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.2.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

This bail application is being decided as per the guidelines dated 19.7.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, through video conferencing.As per the office report dated 13.7.2020, notice issued to opposite party No.2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA through Video Conferencing.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.Order Date :- 23.7.2020 Ruchi Agrahari

['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

All the petitioners, as well as the complainant, are present.The Investigating Officer concerned is also present.This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that FIR No. 107/2013 registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh/Pratap Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, on 24.08.2013 and all proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second respondent, Kanika, who is also the complainant in the aforesaid FIR, enter appearance and accept notice.He also recognises the petitioners, as well as the complainant.It is alleged that the proceedings came to be initiated on the complaint of second respondent, who was married to petitioner No. 1, Ajay Chugh, CRL.M.C. 3616/2014 Page 1 of 6 against all the petitioners.At the same time, a petition had also been moved by the complainant and the first petitioner under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent.The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and that the materials collected in the course of investigation do not implicate them with the alleged assault.Further investigation was directed and statements of the injured persons including victim the lady were recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Such statements have been placed before me.I have perused the statements recorded in the course of investigation as well as the statements of witnesses recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Proceeding shall, however, be continued against the other accused persons in accordance with law.With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. 2 (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

However, all the above sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently.The prosecution case MULTUM IN PARVO is that complainant Shabir informed at Police Station Kymore on dated 31.08.1993 that his 16 years aged daughter is missing since 24.08.1993 when she was sleeping with her mother Anvari Begam and other family members at their village Khalwara Bazar.Shri Pramod Kumar Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent /StateJudgment reserved on: 26.07.2013 Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2013 (J U D G M E N T) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Naresh Kumar has assailed the order of conviction dated 19.01.1998 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Mudwara in Session Case No.380 / 1995 (State of M.P. Through P.S. Kemore, District Jabalpur vs Naresh Kumar).By the judgment under challenge, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Naresh Kumar as follows:-2 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998The information also disclosed that she was sleeping with her mother Anvari Begam and other family members during the night of 24.08.1993 at their residence, but she was not found in the morning, search for her till date without success.After registration of missing person report inquiry started.On recovery after one and half year the prosecutrix agreed to accompany the accused her own.Because, this kidnapping was of minor prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her father Shabir, therefore First Information Report was registered.The prosecutrix refused for medical examination, after recording of statement of prosecutrix as well as her family member's, the accused arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.Since the case was exclusively tribal by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the 3 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998 Court of Sessions Judge, Sagar, from where it was received in the learned trial Court for the trial.3 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of IPC, who pleaded not guilty therefore, he was put to trial.During accused statement recording under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused denied all the evidence put forth before him and claim to be innocent.Defense did not examine any witness.On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the accused for the offence and imposed the sentence as referred to herein above, hence, this appeal.Shri Pramod Kumar Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of 10 years' age prosecutrix clearly goes to show that she had voluntary gone with the appellant and married with her own and as a result of that the couple blazed with the two issues, even then learned trial Court passed impugned judgment, thus the appeal deserves to be allowed.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the appeal vehemently contending that the appellant has rightly been convicted believing the testimony of the prosecutrix.The finding so recorded by the learned trial Court does not warrant any interference, thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.4 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and available entire record.Again, in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix, and to demonstrate that she was below 16 years burden is on prosecution only.Unless the law makes an exceptional, the personal law would not over right the statutory provisions.Muslim is also entitled to the same protection of law as persons belonging to other religions are entitled to.In the case at hand the prosecutrix is Muslim girl.The ossification test is not a secure test, although this is generally accepted as best available test for the determination of the age of human being, but, in present case it is totally lacking.The prosecutrix straight way refused for her person's examination when she was brought to the hospital.Dr. D.C. Singhai (PW/10) stated that that too she left the hospital also.The prosecution produced educational certificate of the prosecutrix.Prior to discuss available evidence for this form it is a matter of common knowledge that the ages given at the time of 5 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998 admission of girls and boys in schools are far from being precise.5 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998Learned trial court based its impugned judgment, ignoring parents and guardians above mentioned natural tendency, on the basis of above evidence alone, without scrutinize other available evidence on this issue on record.The learned trial court not only ignored above mentioned estimation of his own, but also ignored corroborative evidence which was available on record.Right from missing person report (Ex.P-5C), statements of the prosecution witness, the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned 16 years and above not in any case below to 16 years.It is nowhere specifically mentioned in the report (Ex.Anwari Begam (PW/1) and Sabbir (PW/2), parents of the prosecutrix also stated that age of her daughter was 16 years.6 Cr.A. No.494 of 19986 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998In this manner if the age of the prosecutrix be calculated, the age of the prosecutrix would come out 15 years 02 months to 17 years and 6 months on the date 24.08.1993 of her missing.In above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years on the date of the incident.The major prosecutrix admitted that:-" eSa U;k;ky; mifLFr vfHk0 dks tkurh gwWaA yxHkx nks o"kZ igys dh ?kVuk gSA eSa vfHk0 ujs'k ceZu ds lkFk Hkkx xbZ FkhA igys eq>s ujs'k ceZu vej ikVu ys x;kA vej ikVu esa vfHk0 ujs'k us vius cqvk ds yM+dh ds ?kj esa j[kk] ogka ,d fnu j[kkA mlds ckn vfHk0 eq>s 'kgMksy ys x;k vkSj eq>s ogka ,d fnu j[kkA 'kgMksy esa vfHk0 us eq>ls dksVZ eSfjt djk;k FkkA mlds ckn vfHk0 eq>s ukxiqj ysdj x;kA ukxiqj esa vfHk0 us eq>s vius pkpk f'ko izlkn ds ?kj esa dqN fnu j[kkA mlds ckn vfHk us eq>s vyx ls edku esa j[kkA"She further admitted that:-" vfHk0 tc ls eq>s dSeksj ls ikVu ,oa vU; txg ys x;k Fkk ml chp esjs ,oa vfHk0 ds laca/k ifr ifRu ds FksA"Her mother Anwari Begam (PW/1) also admitted during the cross examination:-" esjh yM+dh xksn esa ,d cPpk ysdj Ms<+ lky ckn vkbZA"If the entire factual scenario is tested on the anvil of the evidence of the prosecution and after considering the evidence in a proper perspective manner, it would reveal that no offence is made 7 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998 out against the appellant.Above 18 years aged prosecutrix went with the appellant on her free will with her perspective marriage with the appellant which come true also and the couple blessed with children.7 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998The prosecutrix went with the appellant on her own accord and out of her own free will; therefore, she did not seek any help from the inhabitants where ever she lived with the appellant at Amar Patan, Shadol or Nagpur.During these more then one and half years period she did not complaint to any body or to the police, therefore, irresistible conclusion would be that she left her prenatal roof on her on accord.There is also no proof of criminal intimidation or promise, persuasion, inducement or allurement from the appellant.On the basis of aforesaid premised reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.His conviction is accordingly deserves to be set- aside.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, the conviction of the appellant is hereby set- aside.The appellant Naresh Kumar is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged.Appeal allowed.

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

JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.On 20th July, 1988 at about 5.30 p.m., Kalpana Sumathi, the victim woman was proceeding with a plastic green vessel carrying in her hand to the bore-well pump situated in a school compound in order to fetch water by crossing through the police station.At that time, she had never dreamt that she would be whisked away and forcibly taken inside the police station and gang raped by four police officials one after another.The irony is that victim woman was taken inside the store room of the police station by a woman Sweeper working in the police station.The incident was so horrible that she was beaten by police officials with sticks inflicting injuries all over her body and then she was raped by the police personnel from the rank of Inspector of Police to the rank of Constable one after another.The uniformity in the sad episode is that while they committed gang rape inside the police station, they were in uniform and on duty.Their lustful duty did not end with that.The victim woman who became unconscious was thereafter bodily lifted to a secluded place behind the police station and was thrown off into a ditch of 7 feet depth.Without satisfying that, those police personnel on duty threw big stones on her head to finish her once for all.Thinking that she died, they went back to police station for joining their regular duties."(a) Kalpana Sumathi (P.W.1) is the wife of Venkatesamurthy (P.W.3).They are residents of Thalli village.She is working as a Teacher in a private Nursery School.After their wedlock, a female child was born to them.(b) On 20.7.1988 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.1 Kalpana Sumathi went with a plastic vessel to fetch water from the bore-well pump situated near the Thalli Police Station.At that time, A5 Lakshmi, who was working as the Sweeper in the said police station, put a cloth on her head and after hitting her forcibly abducted and took her inside the police station.There, she was pushed inside the store-room and her head hit the wall.When she tried to go out of the room, A3 Selvaraj, the Writer, A4 Govindasamy, the Constable, A5 Lakshmi closed the door.Thereafter, A1 Balasubramanian, the Inspector of Police, A2 Govindarajan, the Head Constable, A3 Selvaraj, Writer and A4 Govindasamy, Constable committed rape one after another.Then, A2, A3 and A4 again came inside and beat the victim on her head with sticks.The victim receiving bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the body became unconscious.Then, A2 to A5 lifted her body and took to a secluded place through the backyard of the police station and threw the body into a pit of 7 feet depth.Then, they took two big stones and threw them on her head and left the place.(c) In the meantime, P.W.3 Venkatesamurthy, her husband having waited till 7.30 p.m. for the arrival of P.W.1 from bore-well pump, went to the bore-well pump in search of her along with P.W.4 Sekar, P.W.5 Nagaraj and two others.She was not available there.But, P.W.3 found the plastic vessel which was carried by P.W.1 to fetch water lying on the floor near the bore-well pump.Then, P.W.3, his relatives and others arranged a Van and went to various places like Hosur and Elathagiri where their relatives reside, in search of her.Since she was not available there, P.W.3 and others came back to the village.(d) Next day i.e. on 21.7.1988 at about 11.00 a.m. he came to know that the body of the victim was found lying in a canal at the corner of the village and so, he and others went there.To their utter shock, she was found semi-naked with injuries all over the body in a pit.However, she was found alive.P.W.6 Ramakrishnan, another Teacher immediately rushed to the police station and requested A3 Selvaraj, Writer who was available then to come to the scene for recording her statement.A3 did not evince any interest.He simply asked P.W.6 to take the victim to the hospital,if she is alive.(e) Then, P.W.1 was taken in a Tempo and brought to the Hosur Government Hospital at 12.45 p.m. P.W.18 Dr.Padmavathy examined her and found 21 injuries all over the body.Since there was heavy bleeding, P.W.18 advised that the victim to be taken to Saint John Hospital, Bangalore.Accordingly, she was taken and admitted at 5.30 p.m. in the Bangalore Hospital.P.W.16 Dr.Norman attached to Bangalore Hospital examined her and found serious injuries and also fracture in the bone and different parts of the body.Though she was conscious, she was not able to give any details as to how she sustained injuries.Noticing her condition, P.W.17, a Psychiatric Doctor was brought and constant treatment was given to her.(f) Meanwhile, on a complaint received from P.W.3 husband, the case was registered by Sethu Madhavan, Sub Inspector of Police of the Thalli Police Station on 21.7.1988 at about 3.30 p.m. for the offences under Sections 354, 325 and 323 I.P.C. Nonetheless, the police did not take further action in the matter.P.W.7 Subba Rao, an elder of the village on finding that no further action was taken by the police, presented a memorandum to the Collector to take further action on the complaint given by P.W.3 husband.(g) On 28,7,1988, P.W.7 went to Bangalore Hospital and met her.On seeing him, P.W.1 wept, but did not give any details.When she was insisted for the details, she reluctantly told him that Lakshmi, Sweeper(A5) would give all the details.Thereafter, there was a public agitation expressing their protest for the inaction of the police.Then, an enquiry was conducted and the public were invited to give statements.(i) On 1.8.1988, P.W.19 after such inquiry, sent a report to the District Collector.Then, on 3.8.1988, he was directed by the Collector to initiate inquiry under Clause 145 of the Police Standing Orders to find out the involvement of the police officials in the incident.On 4.8.1988, P.W.19 went to the Bangalore hospital and examined P.W.1 and obtained her statement Ex.Though she stated in Ex.P54 that she was forcibly abducted by A5 to the police station, she did not give further details, as she was not able to remember them.So, again on 6.8.1988, he obtained another statement Ex.P56 from the victim in which she gave all the details about the gang rape and beating etc. by the police.Then, he continued the inquiry and finished the same and then sent the report to the Collector.(l) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs."(a) P.W.1 on 20.7.1988 at about 5.30 p.m. went to the bore pump situated in a school compound next to police station carrying a plastic vessel (kudam) to fetch water.P.W.2 Jayammal after taking water came back through police station.She saw P.W.1 coming towards bore pump near the police station.Few minutes later, A5 Lakshmi, a woman Sweeper working in the police station put a cloth on her head and pulled her.P.W.1 felt that somebody beat her on the back of the head.In the process of her being pulled, P.W.1 dropped the kudam at the spot itself.She became semi-conscious.However, she was able to feel that she was taken to police station and pushed into a room.(b) After some minutes, she regained full consciousness and found that she was in a store-room containing old articles.Then, she cried and banged the door which was locked from outside.At that time, A3 Selvaraj, Writer, A4 Govindasamy, Constable and A5 Lakshmi, Sweeper opened the door and came inside.The electric light inside was burning then.They asked her to keep quiet and told her that she would not be allowed to go back to her home.When she cried and tried to escape through the door, the door was closed forcibly by the accused, with the result her right fingers got crushed.Thereafter, she was pushed towards the wall, thereby her head got hit on the wall resulting in the bleeding injuries.Further, they beat her.Unable to bear the same, she again became unconscious.(c) After some time, she gained consciousness and tried to get up from the floor.At that time, A3 Writer and A4 Constable came and asked to call Circle Inspector (A1) and Govindarajan, Head Constable (A2) to the room.Within a few minutes, all the accused (A1 to A4) came inside the room.All the police officers were in uniform.Then, she was made to lie down and A1 pulled the saree up, laid down on her body and raped her.Thereafter, A1 got up and called the other accused and asked them to have sexual intercourse with her and finish her.So saying, he left the place.(e) Then, A3 Writer came and raped her.After he went out, A4 Constable came inside and committed rape.Lastly, A2 Head Constable came and raped her.She could not resist then, since she sustained serious bleeding injuries on the head and hand.Again A2 to A4 came inside and all of them hit on her head.This time, she completely lost her consciousness.She did not know what happened to her subsequently.When P.W.3, the husband of P.W.1 finding that the victim did not turn up home after fetching water, went in search of P.W.1 at 10.30 p.m. to the bore pump.At that point of time, he found that all the doors of the police station were closed and one light was burning inside the police station.He found the plastic green kudam which was carried by P.W.1 while she left home lying near the bore pump.According to P.W.3, on noticing the kudam lying in the ground, he got fainted.It is also not disputed that the pit from where she was rescued was situated at the backyard of the police station just 75 metres away.P.W.18 Doctor in her deposition would state that all the 21 injuries were found smeared with sand.P.W.6, a Teacher working in a Panchayat Union School at Thalli village would state that he went to the police station along with a former M.L.A. and visited the storeroom.He found bloodstained patches in the said room.Both in Exs.P2 and P3, he mentioned about the same.There is no dispute in the fact that the victim was admitted in the Bangalore Hospital on 21.7.1988 and discharged only on 12.10.1988 after nearly 2 1/2 months during which she was in the hospital.Immediately thereafter, he filed the requisition before the Court to make arrangements for conducting identification parade.The perusal of Ex.It is also clear from Ex.P39 F.I.R. and Ex.P41 mahazar for recovery of stones from the scene that the body was lying down in a pit which is just one furlong from the police station.The victim was admitted in the hospital on 21.7.1988 at 12.45 p.m. There was no anxiety shown by the police officials in the Thalli Police Station to register a case, even though a victim girl was found with injuries near the police station.In the meantime, the public gathered in front of the police station and resorted to agitation.It was also informed to the Collector that there would be a Hartal and general strike on 30.7.1988 if no further action is taken.On receipt of the information, P.W.19 R.D.O. went to Thalli village and conducted enquiry.During the course of enquiry also, the agitation by the public continued protesting against inaction of the police.It is noticed that during the course of trial, both P.W.1, the victim and P.W.19, the R.D.O. had been cross-examined at length.All the four police officials and the Sweeper woman, arrayed as A1 to A5, were charged for the offences of gang rape, attempt to commit murder and abetment etc. and tried.Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1, the Inspector of Police has filed a separate appeal in Crl.A.No.765 of 1993 and A2 to A4, the Constables, have filed appeal in Crl.Since the adequate sentence has not been imposed upon the accused who committed gang rape as provided in Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., the victim Kalpana Sumathi has preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.172 of 1994 requesting for enhancement of sentence.Both these appeals and revision are being disposed of through this common judgment.The brief facts of the shameless intrigue as unravelled by the prosecution are as follows:(j) Accepting the report, the Collector then passed an order directing P.W.19 R.D.O. to file a complaint against the police officials concerned.Consequently, the permission was granted to file a complaint to prosecute the officials as well as the Sweeper woman.P1 to P70 were filed and M.Os.1 to 33 were marked on the side of prosecution.The accused while answering the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., simply denied their complicity in the crime.They did not adduce any evidence on their side.(m) On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court found all the accused guilty under Sections 366, 366 read with 109,,342 read with 109, 376, 326, 307, 307 read with 109, 376 read with 109, 201 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The Court sentenced A1 to A4 to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 366 read with 109 I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 342 read with 109 I.P.C.; R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C.; R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C.; sentenced A4 to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.; sentenced A1 to A3 to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 307 read with 109 I.P.C.; sentenced A2 to A4 to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.; and sentenced A5 to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 376 read with 109 I.P.C.R. Shanmugasundaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for A1, the Inspector of Police, the appellant in Crl.A.No.765 of 1993 would submit the following contentions, while challenging the conviction imposed on A1:"(1) P.W.1, the prosecutrix was not doing monetarily well.In order to get a job and to get compensation, she falsely implicated the accused, the police personnel by instigating the people to make a public agitation at the instance of the Communist Party.Even before the recording of the statement from the victim, the Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the police personnel as accused and filed a false complaint in order to satisfy the public.(2) The statements obtained during the enquiry conducted by the R.D.O. from the witnesses and A5 are not admissible in view of Section 4 of the Revenue Enquiry Act.(3) The testimony of P.W.1, the prosecutrix, is full of contradictions and her version is highly improbable, especially when she did not come forward with the said version at the earliest point of time.The scene of occurrence, namely police station is situated in a busy area surrounded with shops, Bank, School, play ground and police residential quarters.Buses will be parked near the road side.In the said situation, it is improbable to contend that she was forcibly abducted and locked in the police station and she cried and banged the door and at that point of time, a gang rape was committed.(4) The material witnesses, viz., father of P.W.1 to whom P.W.1 talked earliest, one Munusamy Achari who had seen that P.W.1 was forcibly dragged away by A5, one Sampathkumar to whom she talked after regained consciousness and D.S.P. and Sub Inspector of Police who had initially investigated the matter, had not been examined.Non-examination of these important witnesses would draw adverse inference against the prosecution.(6) P.W.18 Doctor who examined the victim on 21.7.1988 gave opinion that there is no clinical evidence of rape."The submissions made by Mr. V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel appearing for A2 to A4, the appellants in Crl.A.No.764 of 1993 are these:"(1) Even according to P.W.1, she did not know A1 to A4 previously.The identification parade was conducted only after 1" months after the discharge from the hospital.Even before P.W.9, the Magistrate in whose presence the parade was conducted, the objection was raised by all the accused that the accused persons were shown to P.W.1 even before the parade and their photos were published in the newspaper.Even according to P.W.1 in her statement before P.W.19, the R.D.O. she was pushed into a storeroom, which was dark.When such was the case, she would not have identified the persons who committed rape.(3) Ex.In Ex.Even though A5 deposed in Tamil, the same was written in English.(4) Even though the bloodstained sample taken from the storeroom was found to be tallied with the blood group of the victim, the samples were not taken in accordance with rules, since the bloodstains were not collected with the help of Scientific Expert.P.W.19, the R.D.O. had not followed the correct procedure in filing the complaint, as he did not adopt the required procedure, while recording the statement from the witnesses.Although P.W.19 stated that he perused the General Diary entry in the police station, the same had not been produced before the Court.(5) The evidence of P.W.18, the Doctor is completely contradictory to the prosecution case.(6) The investigation was conducted by P.W.19 R.D.O. in a hasty manner in order to fix the accused hurriedly in order to overcome the public outcry and law and order problems and as such, the same is faulty."A1 gave the signal to others to go out and so, A2, A3 and A4 went out of the room.(d) Then, A1 forcibly grabbed the body of the victim P.W.1 and began to bite her cheek, forehead and breasts.She regained her consciousness only at the Bangalore Hospital."The above details given in the deposition of P.W.1 would show that she was able to remember only this portion of the occurrence.It is the further case of the prosecution that after a gang rape by A1 to A4, A2 to A4 lifted her body and dropped her into a ditch with a considerable depth and threw the stones on her head.Since P.W.1 lost her consciousness, she was not able to say the other details regarding the lifting of her body from police station and throwing into the pit at the place near to the police station i.e. later portion of the occurrence.Let us now scrutinise, whether the evidence with reference to the first portion of the occurrence relating to rape adduced by P.W.1 is reliable and whether there is any corroboration.23. P.W.1 would state that when she was forcibly pulled by A5 in order to take her to police station, she dropped the kudam there itself.He also saw that the green plastic kudam was found near the bore pump.P.W.5 Nagaraj who is the resident of the same village, who accompanied them to bore pump, also saw the plastic kudam near the bore pump and on seeing that P.W.3 fainted.Strangely, when they came to bore pump next day, they found kudam missing.The evidence of P.W.2 would indicate that P.W.1 was crossing the police station while proceeding towards bore pump at 5.30 p.m. with kudam, and the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 would disclose that the said kudam was found lying near the bore pump, when they visited at 10.30 p.m. on the same night.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the initial part of the occurrence, has been corroborated by these witnesses.Regarding the rape committed by A1 to A4 inside the storeroom, we have got the evidence of P.W.1 alone.However, the injuries sustained by her at the hands of the accused were noticed by P.W.3 to P.W.6 when the body of P.W.1 was lifted from the pit.As noted above, after searching for P.W.1 in various places, P.W.3 husband of the victim came back to village.Next day at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.3 was informed that P.W.1's body in a semi-naked position was lying down in a pit situated within 75 metre distance from the police station. P.W.3 immediately rushed to the scene along with P.W.4 Sekar, P.W.5 Nagaraj and P.W.6 Ramakrishnan, local residents of Thalli village.All of them would state that she was found lying down in a pit with injuries on the head, hand, legs and other parts of the body.At that time, she was grumbling.P.W.6 Ramakrishnan went immediately to the police station and gave intimation to A3 Writer, who was available then and requested to come to the spot to record statement from her.But, A3 did not care to come and merely asked him to take her to hospital.Then, all of them took her to the hospital at Hosur.P.W.18 Dr.Though she was conscious and able to speak, she did not give out the details about the manner in which she sustained injuries.She found totally 21 injuries.Out of those injuries, injury Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 are head injuries and injury Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 are the injuries which were found on hand and fingers.She also found fractures in so many parts of the body.Since her condition was so serious as there are bleeding injuries, she was referred to the Bangalore Hospital on the same day.P.W.16 Dr.Norman who admitted in the Bangalore Hospital at 5.30 p.m. on 21.7.1988 examined the victim.According to P.W.16, he found 21 injuries all over the body.He also gave opinion that some of the injuries are compound fractures.He would state that though the patient was conscious, she was unable to narrate the cause of the injuries.According to him, the injuries on both the hands are grievous in nature.Both these Doctors, viz., P.W.16 and P.W.18 would state that these injuries would have been caused due to bite or caused by a forcible jamming of the doors and the beatings by sticks and the fractures can also be caused by dropping the stones.It is relevant to note that the evidence that P.W.1 was found with injuries on her body and was removed from the pit, as spoken to by P.Ws.3 to 6 has not been challenged by the defence.As per Ex.P3, he removed cement slab along with the bloodstains found in the storeroom and Veranda.As per the Serologist's report Ex.P13, the bloodstain was found to be human blood.It is true that the victim P.W.1 would give statement only on 6.8.1988 alleging gang rape against the accused, even though the occurrence had take place on 20.7.1988and as such, there was a delay for about 15 days.As referred to in the decisions of the Supreme Court, mere delay would not be a ground to reject the prosecution case, particularly in rape cases, since Indian women would be reluctant to report the matter to the police as they would invariably fear for the consequences.According to prosecution, there are two reasons for the delay.The first reason is that P.W.1 lost her consciousness fully at the police station itself on receiving head injury and gained consciousness only in Bangalore Hospital.Though P.W.4 and P.W.5 would state that when she was removed from the pit on 21.7.1988, she grumbled as if some donkeys were responsible for the act, the fact that she was not conscious to speak when she was taken to hospital is mentioned in earlier document, namely Ex.P1, the complaint given by P.W.3 husband to Sub Inspector of Police (Sethu Madhavan) of Thalli Police Station on 21.7.1988 at about 3.30 p.m. In the said complaint, it is specifically stated by P.W.3 that he gave the complaint, since his wife was unable to speak.Even though P.W.18 Doctor would state that she was conscious and answering questions, the Doctor categorically stated in the deposition that P.W.1 did not give the details about the cause for the injuries.At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to the evidence of P.W.17 Dr.Prakash Appaiya, the Head of the Psychiatric Department.He was asked to examine P.W.1.on 22.7.1988 and 23.7.1988 to ascertain as to why she could not explain as to how the injuries were caused.According to him, P.W.1 was suffering from Amnesia and she would not be fit for about 10 days to recollect what happened earlier as there was an apparent loss of memory due to hysterical dissociative reaction.Even in the cross-examination, he would state that the Doctors diagnosed that P.W.1 was suffering from Amnesia and there is no conscious suppression.This evidence would make it clear that even assuming that she stated something while she was removed from the pit or when she was examined by P.W.18 Dr. Padmavathi in Hosur Hospital, that statement could not have been made in a conscious state, since she suffered from Amnesia causing apparent loss of memory for about 10 days.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 regarding the alleged statement of victim with reference to the two donkeys or two legged donkeys, would be of no relevance.With regard to the second reason, namely, fear over the likelihood of desertion by her husband, P.W.3 himself would state that on 4.8.1988 at about 11.30 a.m., she gave a statement to R.D.O.P.W.19 merely mentioning about A5 and not in respect of the main occurrence.After R.D.O. and others left, in the evening, P.W.3, the husband of the victim insisted the victim to tell complete details and only then, the real culprits would be brought into book.He also gave assurance to the victim that she should not be afraid for anything as he would not desert her at any cost and he would take care of her for the entire life.Only after this assurance, P.W.1 gave out the complete details and told P.W.3 and her mother.Then next day, i.e. on 5.8.1988, P.W.3 went to R.D.O. P.W.19 and gave a statement which was recorded by him about what she stated to him.Next day, i.e. on 6.8.1988, P.W.19 R.D.O. came to the Bangalore Hospital and recorded the statement Ex.P56 from the victim P.W.1 who gave full details of the gang rape committed by all the accused (A1 to A4).Hence, both these explanations given by P.W.1 for the delay are acceptable in view of the evidence of P.W.17 Doctor and P.W.3, her husband.(8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame.(9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident otherwise the family name and family honour will be brought into controversy.(10) The parents of the woman as also the husband and the members of the husband's family would also want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour.P67 would reveal that the Court earlier issued two summons to P.W.1 on 12.9.1988 and 10,10,1988 asking her to appear on 14.10.1988 to participate in the parade.The identification parade was originally fixed at Salem.As per the Doctor's advice, she should not move to other places and she should take rest at home for a period of two weeks from the date of discharge.On that basis, P.W.19 filed an application Ex.The Judicial Magistrate, Hosur, in turn, requested permission through Ex.P8 requisition dated 7.11.1988 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Krishnagiri for conducting parade at Hosur.Accordingly, such a permission was granted.Then, J.S.C.M., Palacode (P.W.9) sent a letter Ex.P9 to Superintendent of Jail, Hosur to make necessary arrangements to conduct identification parade on 22.11.1988 within the prison compound.After such arrangements were made, the parade was conducted in the presence of P.W.9, the Judicial Magistrate, Palacode and in the said parade, P.W.1 identified the accused (A1 to A4) correctly on three times.After the parade was over, the accused were questioned by the Judicial Magistrate in regard to the objection, if any.They said that P.W.1 knew them earlier as they were working in the police station; she would have seen their photographs published in the newspaper and that she also saw them when they came and appeared before the Court for the case.They further stated that P.W.1 dressed as a Gosha Muslim girl and came to the Court and saw the accused even before the parade was conducted.All these objections were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.Ultimately, P.W.9 Magistrate prepared a report Ex.P10 stating that A1 to A4 were correctly identified by P.W.1 on three times in the parade and the accused did not raise any objection with reference to the formalities observed in conducting the parade.While P.W.1 was cross-examined on this aspect, a suggestion was put to her that she came and saw them in the court in the Gosha dress and saw their photos in the newspaper.On going through the report Ex.P10, it is noticed that all the accused would state that P.W.1 knew them earlier as they were working in the local police station of the village.P.W.1 would specifically state that except A5, she did not know the other accused.If really P.W.1 knew them, she could have very well mentioned the same in her statement given to the R.D.O. P.W.19 at the earliest point of time and in that event, there is no necessity for conducting identification parade.But, the consistent stand taken by P.W.1 is that she did not know them.On the other hand, she was able to see one identifiable feature about A1 that he was wearing a square ring with stones.She would also state that she came to know the names of the other accused as the first accused, the Inspector of Police after committing rape, called them by name to come inside and thereafter, all the three persons came one after another and raped her.These materials would show that the procedure for conducting identification parade was correctly followed without any undue delay and P.W.1 was able to establish her version regarding the identity of the persons who committed gang rape on her, by identifying them correctly in the parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate.The involvement of the police officials in the gang rape has also been established by two other factors.Firstly, there was an initial reluctance in registering the case with reference to the crime even though the victim was found with injuries all over the body in a pit situated at the backyard of the police station.Secondly, despite registration of the case after a considerable delay, no further action was taken by the police to find out the real culprits, which resulted in the public agitation.The body was found lying in a ditch at about 11.00 a.m. next day.P.W.3, the husband, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, other villagers went to the spot and noticed the victim lying in the pit with a semi nude condition with injuries all over the body.P.W.6 Ramakrishnan, a Teacher working in the Panchayat Union School at Thalli rushed to the police station along with another and complained the matter to the Writer of the police station who was available then.P.W.6 requested him to come to the spot and record the statement of victim, as she is alive and conscious.A3 on hearing this news, exclaimed by asking "Is she alive?" He further stated, "If she is alive, you try to save her by taking to hospital".However, he did not come to the spot.In the statement Ex.P59, P.W.6 would state that one Police Constable Kaveri was sent.But, he simply came to the spot and shouted at the people who gathered there in a vulgar language and did not take any action.This aspect of the evidence adduced by P.W.6 has not been challenged.As a matter of fact, A3 in his statement to the question No.78 admitted that P.W.6 came and informed him about the victim lying in a pit and he asked him to save her life.After enquiry, P.W.19 sent an enquiry report on 1.8.1988 suspecting the involvement of the police officials of Thalli Police Station in the incident and thereafter, on 3.5.1988 under Ex.P53, the Collector directed P.W.19 to initiate enquiry under Clause 145 of the Police Standing Orders.Accordingly, further enquiry was conducted by the R.D.O. and ultimately, after examination of the witnesses including the victim, he sent a report on 6.8.1988 to the Collector fixing the responsibility against four police officials i.e. A1 to A4 through Ex.In the said report, he specifically stated that in spite of the request of the public, the police officers did not care to register a case even though the victim was found with injuries near the police station and the complaint was registered belatedly by the Sub Inspector of Police and even then there was no further action on that for the main reason that police officials themselves are involved.This circumstance also would add strength to the evidence of P.W.1 victim relating to the incident of gang rape in the police station at the relevant time.We will now come to the second portion of the occurrence.According to the prosecution, after the gang rape, she was beaten again and made completely unconscious.Thereafter, she was bodily lifted from the storeroom and taken through the school veranda and dropped her body into the ditch which was at the backyard of school near the police station.Thereafter, the accused Constables threw two stones on her head and left the place.For this part of the incident, there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution.However, it is noticed that P.W.1 in Ex.P56, which was recorded on 6.8.1988 by P.W.19 R.D.O., she stated that the Circle Inspector (A1) after committing rape, asked other three police personnel accused to have intercourse with her and thereafter to finish her.Though she could tell in the statement that she remembered that some mud was thrown on her, she did not give the details as to how and by whom she was taken and thrown into a ditch.But, the consistent stand taken by P.W.1 both in her statement made to R.D.O. and in her deposition before the Court that after all the persons committed rape on her, she was beaten by A2 to A4 with heavy object and subsequently, she lost her consciousness and she regained consciousness only in the Bangalore Hospital.Therefore, she would not be able to say regarding the fact that she was thrown into a pit and stones were thrown on her head to kill her.However, the statement Ex.P62 given by A5, the woman Sweeper to P.W.19 R.D.O., while the enquiry was conducted, would give clear picture as to what happened subsequent to the gang rape.This statement was recorded on 20.7.1988 at 5.45 p.m. even before obtaining the statement Ex.According to the statement Ex.P62, after A1, the Inspector of Police left the station, A2 to A4 went inside the storeroom one after another and came back.When A5 asked A3 as to why there was some sound inside the storeroom, A3 told her that the woman had fainted.Thereafter, the accused Constables lifted her and carried her through the school veranda and pushed into a ditch and thereafter, they threw two granite stones on the girl's head.Then, they left the place.After coming back to police station, the mat on which the girl was raped also was torn by A3, the Writer.This statement is an additional corroboration to the statement (Ex.P56) of P.W.1 in which P.W.1 stated that the Inspector of Police asked other Police Constables to have sexual intercourse and then to finish her.This statement cannot be rejected merely because A5 has retracted the same during the course of trial.A5 never stated that she was compelled to give such a statement.She did not dispute her thumb impression in the said statement.As a matter of fact, P.W.19 who speaks about the statement Ex.P62 made before him by A5 had not been cross-examined by A5 at all, though the other witnesses were cross-examined by her counsel.In the said fact situation, there is no difficulty in holding that the statement Ex.Furthermore, the contents of the said extra-judicial confession is in a way corroborated by the evidence of the witnesses P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 who stated that the body was found lying in the pit and from there, the victim was taken to hospital.In addition to this, P.W.18, the Doctor attached to Hosur Hospital and P.W.16, the Doctor attached to Bangalore Hospital would mention in their certificates Exs.P.50 and 51 respectively that there are several injuries on frontal, parietal and temporal region of the head.They also would state that these injuries on the head would have been caused by throwing the stones on the head.Thus, it is clear from the extra-judicial confession and other materials referred to above that after finishing rape, there was an attempt to commit murder on her.Both the Doctors would state that there was loss of large quantity of blood and if timely treatment had not been given, she would have died.These things would make it clear that there are enough materials to show that the accused Police Constables (A2 to A4) had caused grievous injuries and made attempt to commit murder, thereby to cause disappearance of the evidence.The main thrust of the attack by the senior counsel appearing for the first accused, the Inspector of Police is that the family of P.W.1 was so poor and in her family, P.W.1 alone was doing a temporary job as a Teacher and in order to get permanent job and to get compensation, she falsely implicated A1 and other accused with the help of the Communist Party who were agitating over the lack of interest over the investigation by the police and in order to satisfy the public outcry, the R.D.O. hurriedly fixed the responsibility on the accused police officials.This defence, in my view, is not only artificial but also obnoxious.Though the occurrence had taken place on 20.7.1988, P.W.1 who is the unfortunate victim never said anything initially either with reference to the commission of offences or with regard to the identity of the culprits.Even on 4.8.1988 when she gave first statement to R.D.O., she did not want to tell anything as she was afraid of the consequences, but she merely said that A5 knew everything.P63 and sent it to the Collector, who in turn passed an order directing prosecution.After the launching of the complaint, the articles recovered from the spot were sent for chemical analysis through the Court and identification parade was conducted in pursuance of the order of the Court.Only after collecting all the materials, the matter was committed to Sessions.In the said statement, she did not give the details, since at that time, she was afraid that if details were given, her whole life would be spoiled.However, in the said statement, she mentioned that A5 knew about the occurrence.When P.W.3, the husband found that she was reluctant to tell the truth, she was asked to give entire truth, since he would take care of her and protect her throughout her life.Only on the basis of the words of encouragement by P.W.3, P.W.1 gave out full details in Ex.As noted above, even prior to the recording of this statement, A5 gave the statement Ex.P62 to R.D.O.(P.W.19) which would corroborate the version of P.W.1 that she was locked in a storeroom and in the said room, she was gang raped and the comparison of Ex.This submission also would not impress this Court for the reason that when she was locked in the room, it was only 5.30 p.m. According to the prosecution, the gang rape was committed by one after another between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. P.W.8 mahazar witness would state that in the storeroom, there was a light available.P.W.19 also would state that there were electrical lights available in every room of the police station.P.W.1 has categorically stated in her deposition that there was an electric light burning while the rape was committed.P56, she said that she regained her senses and she felt as if she was in a dark room.She further stated that all the persons one after another came and raped her and she could identify them if she sees them again.They come from an Orthodox family.During the cross-examination, nothing was elicited from them that they were speaking falsehood or they were having any grudge against the police officials.P63 sent by P.W.19 R.D.O. and his deposition made before the Court would clearly indicate that P.W.19 Mr.C. Chandra Mouli, the R.D.O. is a honest and impartial officer who took pains in conducting the enquiry and collecting the statements of the public, even though he was a victim in the attack during the public agitation.His efforts during the course of investigation and in giving full details during the course of deposition would deserve all appreciation from this Court.But for the timely intervention through the Collector's order or through the effective enquiry by P.W.19, a case of gang rape by the police officials at the police station would have been buried.Similarly, the agitation by the public of Thalli village against the police atrocities was also a timely one.Only due to this, P.W.7 Mr.Subba Rao, an elder of the village took up the cause and presented a memorandum to the Collector to take immediate action.Since the sentence imposed upon the appellants (A1 to A4) has been enhanced to life imprisonment, the appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court or the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellants/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.With these observations, the appeals as well as the revision are disposed of.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on I.A.No.12476/2017 an application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant.This is first application under section 389 of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant, who has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under sections 354 and 354-A of IPC to undergo R.I., for 1 year, 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- & Rs.200/- respectively and under section 7/8 of POCSO Act to undergo R.I., for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.Considering the fact that during trial the appellant remained on bail, there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted earlier and this appeal is likely to take considerable time for hearing, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find this a fit case to grant bail and to suspend the sentence of appellant.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the substantial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and appellant Mohit Mirdha shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3.1.2018 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.I.A.No.12476/2017 stands allowed and disposed of.C.C., as per rules.(Anurag Shrivastava) Judge M.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

Ct.28 RP 176 CRM 11845 of 2017 In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24th November, 2017 in connection with Sankarail P.S. Case No.1028/16 dated 13.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/149 /353/283/427/436/307/295A/296/506/332/333/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act.And In the matter of : Ainul Laskar @ Aynul Laskar .... Petitioner Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury ..... For the Petitioner Mr. Prodipto Ganguly ..... For the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that he is in custody for 11 months.It is further submitted that no overt act was attributed by the petitioners in the instant case and co-accused persons similarly circumstanced have been enlarged on bail.Therefore he may be enlarged on bail.Learned lawyer for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on condition that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sankrail Police Station without express permission of the Court and he shall provide the particulars of his place of residence to the investigating officer as well as the trial Court.He shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit similar offences in future and he shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

He alleged that he had supplied Agrochemicals to the said Company from 1999-2000 to 2002 when the outstanding was Rs.6, 65,952/-.Such complainant alleged that during 31.12.2002 to 25.8.2004, the management/directors of the said Company did not make any payment.In the end of 2004 the complainant could collect some payments and the outstanding amount as on that date was Rs.3, 65,000/-.In the said written complaint, it was claimed that despite being repeatedly approached, the directors of the Company refused and neglected to make any payment whatsoever.Such continuous uninterrupted torture by not responding to the request for repayment of the money resulted in psychosomatic disorder.The complainant thus became sick.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar C.R.R. No. 3039 of 2007 Kingshuk Neogi Vs.The State of West Bengal & Anr.S.P. Talukdar, J.: Petitioner, Kingshuk Neogi, by filing the instant application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Kotwali Police Case No.207/2007 dated 6.7.2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1053 of 2007 pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, under Section420/120B of the Indian Code.He has been claiming that certain sum of money is due and payable from the said company.Such O.P. No.2 by letter dated 15.4.2004 addressed to the M/S. Debijhora Tea Company Ltd., demanded an amount of Rs.7, 15,500/- along with interest @ 24% per annum.The said O.P. No.2 thereafter as complainant filed a written complaint on 6th of July, 2007 before the Office-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station at Jalpaiguri.It was then claimed that he had been denied payment of an amount of Rs.3, 65,000/-.On the basis of the said written complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of the Kotwali, Police Station, district Jalpaiguri started Kotwali Police Case No.207 of 2007 dated 6th of July, 2007 under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The present petitioner being so implicated in the said case was arrested and was put under detention by the police authority.He was initially pressurized for payment of an amount of Rs.3,65,000/. In view of non-response to such undue request, he was formally arrested.On 10th July, 2007, the petitioner's Association namely Indian Tea Planters' Association submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri against such arrest of the petitioner on allegations of non-payment of some outstanding dues for supplying chemicals to the Tea Garden.The transaction between the parties being purely commercial in nature and since admittedly payment had been made from time to time, there could be no reason for the police authority to be so active as to arrest the present petitioner.

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

DATE : 9th JUNE, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. ) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.This is an application by applicants who are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 5/2017 registered at Hatta Police Station, District Hingoli on 10.01.2017 for commission of offence punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code seeking quashment of proceedings.Respondent no. 3 - informant has caused appearance before us through advocate Mr. Katkar and has presented affidavit.The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.Informant is also personally present before the Court and admits the contents of the affidavit marked 'X'.It is recorded in the affidavit that after lodging First Information Report on 10.01.2017, on the next day, she went to her husband alongwith child and is cohabiting with her husband.It is further stated that the First Information Report was lodged because of mis-understanding between husband and wife and at the instance of members of her ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 ::: {3} criappln1371.17.odt family.Respondent no. 3 - informant further states that she is happily continuing her marital life with her husband and she has no objection if the complaint lodged by her registered at Hatta Police Station vide Crime No. 5/2017 is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 :::Considering the stand taken by the informant and contents of affidavit Exh. X, the criminal application deserves to be allowed.Criminal proceeding initiated against applicants being Crime No 5/2017 registered at Hatta Police Station on 10.01.2017 for offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code stands quashed.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 :::

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

Referring to the said allegations terming them as false and concocted, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the court of Crl.M.C. No.1326/2016 Page 1 of 10 Metropolitan Magistrate alleging offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.It may be mentioned here that the other persons who were impleaded as respondents in the petition under DV Act also filed similar complaints, all the said complaints having been inquired into under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the Metropolitan Magistrate.In each criminal complaint, including the one preferred by the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 500 IPC, the respective complainant appeared as the solitary witness (CW-1).The second respondent was married to Sidharth Kasana, son of the petitioner, on 15.02.2010, but the marriage ran into rough weather and she statedly left the matrimonial home.Eventually, she filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) on 26.06.2014, attributing certain acts of commission, inter alia to the petitioner (father-in-law), others impleaded in the said proceedings being inclusive of the husband, the mother-in-law, sisters-in-law etc. In the said petition under DV Act, she levelled certain allegations against the petitioner as well.M.C. No.1326/2016 Page 1 of 10The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed all the abovesaid complaints, by order dated 20.08.2015, inter alia, observing that the same were premature, the falsity or otherwise of the allegations of domestic violence attributed by the second respondent in the proceedings under DV Act being a matter yet to be adjudicated upon.The petitioner and other similarly placed complainants assailed the aforesaid order dated 20.08.2015 in the court of Sessions, the challenge by the petitioner being through Crl.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J.This is an appeal, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order, as contained in the operative part of a common judgment dated 30-4-2001 passed by III ASJ, Chhatarpur in S.T. Nos. 86/97, 213/96 and 140/90, directing retention of a 12 bore gun, ten cartridges and a wrist watch, allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant in custody of Court till conclusion of the trial of the absconding accused persons.The appellant is amongst the persons, who were prosecuted and tried on the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Sections 397 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code.Although, for want of incriminating evidence, learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the offences yet, he proceeded to direct retention of gun on the ground that some of the accused were still absconding.

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

As per prosecution story, the incident took place on 04.07.2018 when the brother of applicant namely; Sachin along with his accomplice fired on his father from a fire arm owing to some property dispute.The applicant was hand in glove with his brother and was involved in conspiracy and had committed offence under Section 307 read with Section 120-B of IPC against his own father.Accordingly, case has been registered against them.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the scene of crime, rather he was at some other town as a tourist along with his wife.It 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.47726 OF 2018 (Santosh vs State of Madhya Pradesh) has also been pointed out that there was some property dispute of applicant with his father.On 30.05.2018, the applicant had filed a report against his father and his uncle Mukesh and on that fateful day, the applicant was physically abused by his father on account of property dispute.He also submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.There is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime.The conclusion of trial will take a long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the objector has filed a document which is a whatsapp message between the mother of applicant and his uncle which focusses on resolving the dispute between the warring parties.Hence, the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.He also lodged report against Omprakash on 30.05.2018 and also the fact that the applicant was not present on the date of incident where the incident took place, it would be proper to enlarge 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.47726 OF 2018 (Santosh vs State of Madhya Pradesh) the applicant on bail, but without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant- Santosh is allowed.Certified copy, as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2018.12.01 17:06:51 +05'30'

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

The facts leading up to the filing of the present petition are encapsulated as under:-(a) That the petitioner was a holder of an Arms Licence bearing No.(b) The petitioner was invited to a social function organized in the neighbourhood and during the said event a gunshot was fired wherein the nephew of the petitioner's neighbour got injured.(c) The petitioner was arrested and a case FIR bearing No.121/2013, under section 307 IPC read with section 27/54/59 of Arms Act, was registered on 13.03.2013 at Police Station-Bindapur, Delhi and his revolver as well as his arms licence were seized from his house by the local police.W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 2 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 9 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 9 of 10Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Criminal) with SI Mukesh Kumar, PS- Badarpur CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.12391/2015 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 assailing the order dated W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 1 of 10 12.03.2014 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi in Case No.270/2013 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Licensing Unit, Delhi Police cancelling the petitioner's arms licence bearing No.W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 1 of 10(d) A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner from the office of Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing Delhi for cancellation of the arms licence and the petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice.(f) The petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 05.11.2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case FIR No.121/2013, under sections 307/ IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station- Bindapur, Delhi.(g) The petitioner appealed against the said order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Delhi before the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi.The appeal was dismissed by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, by way of the order impugned herein.3. Notice.W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 3 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 3 of 10Mr. Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) accepts notice.With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order.Mr. Hari Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order dated 12.03.2014 to urge that it is a non-speaking order and no reasons for accepting the contentions made on behalf of the police and rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are recorded in the impugned order.A perusal of the order impugned herein reveals that after hearing the parties and perusing the documents on record, without assigning any reasons whatsoever for arriving at the decision impugned herein, the Lieutenant Governor rejected the petitioner's appeal.The operative part of the impugned order dated 12.03.2014 reads as follows:-"After hearing both the parties and careful perusal of documents on record, I am of the opinion that the Licensing Authority, after considering all aspects of the matter, has passed a fair order and I find no reason to interfere with it.The appeal, therefore, rejected."The impugned order dated 21.11.2014, extracted hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the concerned Magistrate has acted in a casual, cavalier and routine manner.The said order only refers to the grant of permission to investigate into the matter mechanically without assigning any reasons and cannot be countenanced by this Court.The same deserves to be set aside."While dealing with the aforesaid issue, this Court also relied upon the Apex Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs Shukla and Brothers, wherein it was held as under:The order dated 12.03.2014 is set aside.The matter is remitted back to the Court of the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi to decide the petitioner's appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 de novo after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.The petition is disposed of accordingly.The parties or their counsel shall appear before the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi at the first instance on 16.09.2015 at 4.00 p.m. for further proceedings in accordance with law.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 dn W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 10 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 10 of 10

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 5 of 13 fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 5 of 13Jitender Saini reveals that he had deposed that on 14th November, 2005 he had received a call and the callers were Vijay, Ashok Kumar and Raju.Regarding the first call he did not specify that this was the call only from Vijay, or from Ashok Kumar, or Raju, or all the three spoke to him and demanded ransom for kidnapping the child.From his testimony, it is not clear whether all the three accused talked to him simultaneously, or one of them demanded ransom on the phone and he heard other two Ashok Kumar and Raju in the background.Vijay only.Though he stated that second call on the same date i.e. 14th November, 2005 was received after one hour from Raju threatening him that if Rs.5/-lakhs were not paid, his kidnapped son will be killed, however, this deposition is contrary to his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C where he had stated that the call was made by Ashok.In the cross-examination, the complainant PW-2 rather stated that he received information that accused Vijay had kidnapped his child on 14th November, 2005 in the evening from Sh.Sanjay and he told about this to the police.He categorically stated that before getting information from Sanjay he had not received any information of any Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 6 of 13 kind about kidnapping of his son.* Crl.M.A No.14604/2010 This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures.Allowed subject to just exception.M.A No.14603/2010 This is an application by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 1 of 13 petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 30th March, 2010 and 31st March, 2010 convicting and sentencing respondent No.1 under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 4, all the respondents under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 1 of 13The applicant has contended that copies of the orders were received on 5th April, 2010 and thereafter the report was prepared and was sent to different officers to consider the case and to decide to file petition for leave to appeal leading to 51 days delay.The applicant has contended that considering the averments made in the application, there is sufficient grounds for condoning the delay.For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 51 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.The petitioner/state has sought leave to appeal against the orders of conviction and sentence dated 30th March, 2010 and 31st March, 2010 whereby respondent No.1 has been convicted under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code, however absolving him of the charge under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code and also absolving respondent Nos.2 to 4, namely Raju, Ashok Kumar and Pappu of the charges under Sections 364A and Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 2 of 13 120B of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.56/1/08, titled as State v. Raju & Others arising from F.I.R.No.750/2005, under Sections 364A & 120B of Indian Penal Code, PS Najafgarh.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 2 of 13The learned counsel for the petitioner/State has been heard in detail and the record of the trial court which had been requisitioned has also been perused and the evidence led before the trial court has been considered to determine the pleas and contentions of the learned counsel to decide whether the petition for leave to appeal should be granted or not.The learned counsel for the petitioner/State has very emphatically contended that there is sufficient evidence to establish that a ransom call was received by the complainant, Sh.Jitender Saini who was examined as PW-2 as he has deposed orally about it.According to him, even though the prosecution failed to carry out the voice test identification and also failed to get the call record of STD Booth and produced the same and even did not seize the cell phone of the complainant, the oral evidence of PW-2 regarding having received a Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 3 of 13 ransom call from Vijay an ex-employee demanding Rs.5/-lakhs is sufficient to establish that the demand for ransom was received and he should have been convicted under section 364 A of IPC also.Even if on, fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and perusal of the material on record, the High Court is of the opinion that another view is possible or which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted and the view taken by the trial Court which had an advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court is not to be substituted by another view which may be reasonably possible in the opinion of the High Court.For this reliance can be placed on 2009(1) JCC 482=AIR 2009 SC 1242, Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan; 2008 (3) JCC 1806, Syed Peda Aowlia v. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad; Bhagwan Singh and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 (2) Supreme 567; AIR 1973 SC 2622 Shivaji Sababrao Babade & Anr v. State of Maharashtra; Ramesh Babu Lal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, Crl.The Courts have held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 4 of 13His relevant cross-examination on 25th January, 2007 is as under:-M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 6 of 13".................For the first time I received information that accused Vijay has kidnapped my child on 14th November, 2005 in the evening.I received this information from Sh.Sanjay on 14th November, 2005 in the evening.I told this information to the police in the evening of 14th November, 2005 itself.I did not receive any information of any kind before or on 14th November, 2005 except the information received through Sh.It is correct that I received a telephonic call from the police station Bakewar, Itawaha (UP) on 16th November, 2005."The PW-2 had not deposed that he had received any call from Sh.According to him, the ransom call was made by Vijay on 14th November, 2005 along with Ashok Kumar and Raju and after one hour, he had received another call from Raju.Had he received the phone calls for ransom on 14th November, 2005 would he not know that his child had been kidnapped for ransom? In that case, the said witness who is the complainant and father of the kidnapped child would not have deposed that the information that Vijay has kidnapped his child on 14th November, 2005 was from Sh.Sanjay only.In view of the specific statement of PW-2, it was imperative for the prosecution to have seized the cell phone of the complainant and to ascertain its IME number.This was neither deposed by the said witness, nor established by the prosecution whether the alleged ransom call was received on the mobile phone of the complainant or at his STD Booth.The call record of the STD Booth has not been produced.In the circumstances, there is no Crl.On the basis of the oral statement of the complainant also it cannot be inferred that he had received ransom calls from the accused and to that extent his statement cannot be relied on.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 7 of 13The complainant, Sh.Jitender Saini in his statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code stated that he had received phone call from Ashok Kumar on 14.11.2005 and not Raju and he could identify the voices of Vijay and Ashok Kumar as Ashok Kumar used to come to Vijay at his shop.In the circumstances, the trial Judge has noticed the improvement made by the said witness who had stated in his statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code that Ashok Kumar had demanded the amount and had made second ransom call and it was not disclosed in the statement under section 161 of Cr. P.C that Raju had made the second ransom call.In the cross- examination, the said witness had also admitted that he could not identify accused Raju and Sonu by names.If complainant could not identify Raju and Sonu even by name, then how could he identify their voices? The complainant had not heard them earlier as Vijay was not in the habit of making friends and voice test identification was not done during the investigation.In the circumstances, the inferences drawn by the trial court that the complainant could not have identified their voices cannot be held to be unsustainable or perverse so as to entail Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 8 of 13 interferences by this Court, or to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner as no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court has been pointed out.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 8 of 13The trial court has also noticed and observed that prosecution has not produced any call record, though the complainant had deposed that he had received a ransom call from Vijay on his STD Booth, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to have collected the call record to find out the truth in the statement of the complainant as to whether he had received any ransom call.The failure of the prosecution to establish that any ransom call was made has also been inferred on the basis of the testimony of PW-14, ASI Ishwar Dutt who did not make any attempt to verify whether the complainant PW-2 had received any ransom call as in his deposition he could not disclose the telephone number and mobile number on which the ransom call was received at the house of the complainant.He had admitted that he had not even informed about the time or collected any detail of the STD line phone on which alleged ransom calls were allegedly made by the respondents/accused.Another factor which weighed with the trial court was that the demand for ransom has not been established by the testimony of PW-3 who has alleged that he had heard the accused planning to kidnap the child of the complainant on 8th November, 2005, however, he did not inform about this fact either to the police or to other co-villagers and he Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 9 of 13 informed the complainant Sh.Jitender Saini only on 14th November, 2005 which is also admitted by Sh.Jitender Saini complainant in his cross-examination deposing that he only came to know about the kidnapping of his child from Sh.Sanjay PW-3 also did not depose that kidnapping was done or was planned for any demand or for any ransom.PW-3 was not declared hostile and in the circumstances, the trial court did not give much credence to his testimony for inferring that there was a demand for ransom made from the complainant.Rather the trial court has held that PW-3 appears to be a witness introduced in the case with a purpose to give the colours of kidnapping for ransom to the case.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 9 of 13The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to show any other fact established on record which has not been taken into consideration by the trial court which will make inferences of the trial court perverse or unsustainable.The plea that two ransom calls were received by the complainant was not propounded in the statement initially recorded under section 161 of the Cr. P.C but was disclosed by the complainant, father of the kidnapped child in his supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code where he had deposed that he had received two ransom calls.In the statement under Section 161 of Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 10 of 13 Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant stated that ransom calls were received from Vijay and Ashok Kumar whereas in his statement before the Court, it was alleged that first ransom call was received from Vijay, Ashok Kumar and Raju, and second ransom call was received from Raju.In the circumstances, the inferences of the trial Court that there is no cogent evidence with regard to any planning or criminal conspiracy to kidnap the child cannot be termed to be unsustainable or perverse or not based on the evidence on record.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 10 of 13The prosecution has also failed to produce reliable evidence that complainant had accompanied police from Delhi to bus stand Itawaha on 15th November, 2005 as the prosecution case is that on 14th November, 2005, ASI Ishwar Dutt along with PW-2 Sh.Jitender Saini,PW-4, one Sh.Sarjeet Saini, a relative of PW-2 and constable Sh.However, PW-2 Sh.Jitender Saini, the complainant did not testify at all that Sh.Sarjeet Saini, his relative had accompanied him to bus stand pursuant to the ransom call allegedly received from the accused.The statement of PW4, Sh.Sarjeet, brother- in-law of the complainant has contradictions inasmuch as he stated that the complainant was given a bag with a direction to go to bus stand and no one came to collect the money, however, no clarification was sought about the date of the visit and in these circumstances, the probable inference is that they had not gone to Itawaha on 14th Crl.Even if it is feasible to draw another inferences by this Court that evidence reflect that these two persons had gone on 14.11.2005 and had reached Etawah on 15.11.2005, it will not be appropriate to substitute the findings of the Trial Court with this inference.These persons with policemen had not visited Etawah is further augmented by the fact that no DD entry has been proved that police officials with the complainant and his relative had left for Itawaha on 14th November, 2005, nor any entry at the police station Itawaha to prove their presence in the said District has been produced and proved.In the circumstances, neither prosecution had established that there was a ransom call made on 14th November, 2005, and nor that two police officers along with the complainant and his brother-in-law had gone to Itawaha.In the circumstances, the findings of the trial court, in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity, nor any such facts or pleas have been raised or shown by the learned counsel which will reflect any unsustainability in the findings of the trial court.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 11 of 13The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

Shri M.K. Soni, learned counsel for the objector.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.180/2019 registered at Police Station Gopalganj, Distt.Sagar for the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC.The allegation against the applicant, in short, is that the prosecutrix aged about 25 years is a married woman having one daughter, but she is living separately from her husband Ranjeet Tiwari.She has alleged that on the pretext of marriage the applicant made physical relations with her from 10/2/2017 upto 20/5/2019 and they have also resided in rented rooms at different places.On the basis of concocted story to implicate the applicant, the case has been registered against the applicant.The applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 2/7/2019 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application.Looking to the documents filed by the objector, it appears that the prosecutrix and her husband have filed a divorce application before the Family Court, but till date no order of dissolution of marriage has been passed in that application.C.C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE rv Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 24/07/2019 15:17:45

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard finally.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the application.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ/-

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Shri Y.M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant.This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 306 & 34 of I.P.C in connection with Crime No.46/2016 registered at Police Station Umariya Distt.The applicant No.1 Ramnath is brother-in-law (Devar), applicant No.2 Pan Bai is mother-in-law and applicant No.3 Munna Raidas is father-in-law of deceased.The prosecution has alleged that Panbai and Munna were in occupation to harass the deceased for demand of dowry.The marriage was solemonized more than 7 years back from the date of incident, however the presumption of section 113-A would not attract.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE

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

Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.This is first bail application filed by the applicant Lekhram Luniya under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.T h e applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.78/2019, registered at P.S. Majhauli, District Jabalpur under Sections 354, 354-D, 506, 376 of IPC.A s per the prosecution case, on 18.02.2019 prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station Majhauli, District Jabalpur averring that when she was returning from police station to her house after lodging report of the applicant, on the way, at Indrana Chowk, applicant meet her and caught hold of her hand with bad intention and molested her.On that police registered Crime No.78/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 of IPC.For the first time on 27.02.2019 prosecutrix disclosed the fact that on 14.02.2019 applicant also committed rape with the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix was major.Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that prosecutrix was major, in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix on 18.02.2019, it is not Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 15/04/2019 11:15:48 2 MCRC-12165-2019 mentioned that applicant also committed rape with her.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 15/04/2019 11:15:48

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

The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 28.11.2010, at about 7 a.m. in the morning, the complainant Nathu (P.W.1) went to village Bakaswaha for shopping and therefore, he went to meet his daughter, the deceased prosecutrix.When he reached the house of his daughter, he found that Roop Singh (P.W.3) and Jai Singh, children of the deceased were crying and they informed that the accused Ramji and Ganesh came in the previous evening and stayed in their house for the entire night.In the night, Ramji held-:- 3 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 the hands of the deceased and Ganesh assaulted her by an axe on her neck and therefore, she had died.When Nathu went inside the house, he saw the dead body of his daughter and thereafter, he came out and he found that neighbours Dhaniram (P.W.2) and Kayyum (P.W.4) and Jinnu Jain (P.W.5) were present.A merg intimation, Ex.P/1 was also recorded.The police went to the spot and Panchayatnama lash, Ex.P/4 was prepared and dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.L.L.Ahirwar (P.W.8) did the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and gave his report, Ex.He found 4 incised wounds on the neck of the deceased.Out of them, 2 wounds were fatal in nature and due to those injuries, the deceased had expired.He found that left jaw of the deceased was also broken.Vaginal swab of the deceased was taken on the slide and handed over to the concerned constable, after its sealing.Shri R.P.Verma (P.W.12) SHO, Police Station Bakaswaha had investigated the matter.He observed the formalities of the investigation of the spot.The appellants were arrested and clothings of the accused Ramji were seized and sealed.In report, Ex.P/27, given by the FSL expert, it was-:- 4 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 found that sperm and semen particles were found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and on her underwear but, such spots were not found sufficient for serum test.Similarly, on the article 'K', the axe is alleged to be seized from the appellant Ganesh, blood was found on it but, it was not proved that there was any human blood on that axe, whereas blood group of the deceased was 'AB'.He did not turn hostile for seizure etc. However, for few points he was declared hostile.Under such circumstances, the evidence given by Dhaniram (P.W.2) appears to be important.Dhaniram has stated that at about 6 a.m. in the morning, Roop Singh came out of the house and told that someone killed his mother.When he came out of the house he did not tell to Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain that the appellants killed his mother.He says only a single blow was given by the appellant Ganesh, whereas Dr.Ahirwar found 4 incised wounds on the left neck of the deceased.If the story told by the witness is accepted as it is then, it would be apparent from the evidence given by other witnesses that the deceased was a widow, who was not given any share in the family property by her father-in-law.The accused Ganesh, real brother-in- law of the deceased was initially residing in the same locality but, thereafter, he went to stay with his father.If he had(15.7.2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: N.K.Gupta, J. A criminal reference No.7/2013 has been referred by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur against the same judgment dated 23.8.2013 in S.T.No.71/2011 against which the-:- 2 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 appellants/accused Ganesh and Ramji have preferred the criminal appeal No.2311/2013, therefore, both the matters are being decided by this common judgment.Since death sentence was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore, the death reference is referred to this Court.On intimation given by Ganesh, one axe was also seized.Seized property was sent for forensic science analysis.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter.However, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.Death sentence was recorded against the appellants for offence under Section 302 of IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.First of all it is to be considered as to whether death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.-:- 5 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 respect, evidence of Dr.L.L.Ahirwar (P.W.8) who proved the post-mortem report, Ex.P/22, in which he found that 4 incised wounds were caused on the neck of the deceased prosecutrix.Out of them, first two were fatal in nature.Description of the wounds is as under:-(1)Incised wound 10 X 4 X 3 cms on left side of neck.(2)Incised wound 6 X 2 X 1 cms on left side of neck.(3)Incised wound 2 X 1 X 1 cms on left side of neck.(4)Incised wound 2 X 1 X 1 cms on left side of neck.Entire left jaw of the deceased was found fractured and in opinion of Dr.Ahirwar those injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased.Looking to the opinion of Dr.Ahirwar, it was established by the prosecution that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.The prosecution has examined Roop Singh (P.W.3) as an eye witness, who is a child witness, aged 6 years.The deceased was the mother of child Roop Singh.According to Roop Singh, the appellants came in the previous evening of the incident to his house and resided in the night.He got up because he received a push from the left leg of the appellant Ganesh and he found that the appellant Ramji held legs of the deceased and the appellant Ganesh assaulted the deceased by an axe.He has stated that in the morning, his maternal grandfather (P.W.1) came to his house and he told-:- 6 -:-A merg intimation, Ex.P/1 was also recorded at Police Station Bakaswaha.However, some discrepancies arose in the story told by Roop Singh and his maternal grandfather Nathu.Initially Nathu did not state about the rape committed upon the deceased prosecutrix and story told in the FIR, Ex.P/2 and merg intimation, Ex.P/1 was that the appellants killed the deceased.However, Nathu as well as Roop Singh improved the story that Roop Singh saw the appellants committing rape on the prosecutrix.If he would have seen the fact of rape committed by the appellants then, certainly he could say that he saw any of the appellants lying upon the prosecutrix or he found that the clothings of the prosecutrix were removed.Roop Singh could not say anything about that fact.Looking to his statement about the alleged rape, it appears that he was tutored by his maternal grandfather to that fact.Hence, the possibility cannot be ruled out that he was tutored about the entire incident.Roop Singh has stated that in his presence, the appellant Ramji had held the legs of the prosecutrix and the appellant-:- 7 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 Ganesh gave a blow of an axe on the neck of the prosecutrix, whereas Dr.Ahirwar found 4 different injuries on the neck of the prosecutrix and therefore, if Roop Singh was the eye witness, he would have seen 4 assaults caused by the appellant Ganesh.It is a material contradiction between the statement of the eye witness and the medical evidence.Thirdly, it is stated by the witness Roop Singh that the accused Ramji threatened him to either sleep or else, he would also be killed.Witness Roop Singh therefore, went to sleep and he got up only in the morning.Such conduct as depicted by the eye witness Roop Singh appears to be unnatural.If mother of the child was injured by the accused persons then, his natural conduct could be that he would pretended himself to be sleeping but, as and when the accused persons disappeared from the house, he would have tried to make hue and cry or to get some help to his mother if she was alive.It was not possible for a child that after getting a threat, he would go to sleep till the next morning.All such discrepancies indicate that possibility of tutoring of the child witness cannot be ruled out.Nathu and Roop Singh were asked about the death of Veer Singh, husband of the deceased.Both of them accepted that Veer Singh was not given any share from the family property by his father and therefore, he committed-:- 8 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 suicide.Child witness Roop Singh has stated that the appellant Ganesh was his real uncle and the accused Ramji was cousin of the accused Ganesh.In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the evidence of witness Roop Singh is to be examined as to whether he was tutored witness or his testimony can be relied upon.In the present case, Dhaniram (P.W.2) is an important witness.Dhaniram and Nathu have accepted that initially Dhaniram was residing at village Jaitpura and he was considering the deceased as his niece due to relation of the village.The police took him as a witness for the statement of the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and seizure etc. He is the witness of entire investigation.He did not mention the name of anyone.It is apparent from the statement of Roop Singh that after the incident, the main door was closed from outside by latches and on his knocking, some Khatik had opened the door.It was expected from the child to inform about the death of his mother to the person, who opened the door but, the child Roop Singh could not exactly-:- 10 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 say as to who opened the latches.Parsadi Khatik (P.W.13) was examined to establish that he had opened the latches but, he turned hostile and he did not say anything about the incident.According to the witness Nathu, when he reached to the house of the deceased, both the children were weeping and there was nobody except them, whereas Dhaniram (P.W.1) has accepted that after hearing the cries of Roop Singh etc. he, Kayyum (P.W.4) and Jinnu Jain (P.W.5) went to the spot at about 6 a.m. in the morning.Dhaniram has categorically stated that one Ramlal informed the police by phone and when the police came to the spot, the parents of the deceased were called from village Jaitpura.According to the witnesses Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain, they reached at the spot at about 6 a.m. in the morning, whereas, Nathu claims that he reached at the spot at 7 a.m. in the morning.Looking to such discrepancies, where child witness Roop Singh did not inform any of the witnesses namely Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu that the appellants had stayed in his house in the previous night and they killed his mother, his testimony is not trustworthy.Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain have stated that they did not find the appellants in the house of the deceased in the night.They did not hear the voice of appellants or the deceased relating to quarrel.They did not-:- 11 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 hear that TV was on in the late night.In this connection, if the FIR, Ex.-:- 12 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 morning and after getting knowledge of the incident, he rushed to the police station and FIR was lodged at 7.15 a.m. and prima facie, it appears that FIR was lodged promptly but, if version of Dhaniram is considered then, it would be apparent that Nathu came to the spot when he was called by the police.Nathu tried to explain that he came to Bakaswaha for marketing and therefore, he also went to the house of his daughter to meet her.His explanation appears to be unnatural because shops of the market would have opened after 10 a.m. and therefore, it was not necessary for Nathu to leave his village at 6 a.m. in the morning.Secondly, if he came all alone for the purpose of marketing then, there was no possibility of his family members to remain present at the time when the document of Panchayatnama lash, Ex.P/4 (memo relating to description of dead body) was prepared.In that memo, dead body was identified by Ramsakhi, unmarried sister of the deceased and Preetam Singh, brother of the deceased alongwith Nathu, father of the deceased.Presence of Ramsakhi and her brother indicates that statement of Dhaniram is correct.Witness Nathu did not come to the house of his daughter at 7 a.m. on his own and he reached to the spot when he was called by the police.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that Nathu Singh did-:- 13 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 not reach to the spot at 7 a.m. and therefore, he could not lodge the FIR, Ex.P/2 at 7.15 a.m. The FIR registered by the police appears to be ante timed.When FIR itself is under question for being delayed or ante timed then, it is necessary to examine as to whether the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. were complied with or not.In this connection, the witness R.P.Verma (P.W.12) has exhibited the counter of FIR, Ex.P/2-A to show that it was sent to the concerned Magistrate within time.According to the circulars issued by the High Courts, it is necessary for every Magistrate to mention the date and time on each counter of FIR when it was received.-:- 14 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 "Ishwar Singh Vs.If Roop Singh was an eye witness, he would have-:- 15 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 seen all the 4 assaults caused by the appellant Ganesh.The conduct of Nathu appears to be unnatural that he claims to reach the house of the deceased at 7 a.m., whereas looking to his purpose, it was not necessary for him to leave his village at 6 a.m. in the morning in the cold season.It was natural that if latches of the front door were closed from outside then, someone must have opened the latches and the child would have informed that person and neighbours about the incident, whereas Nathu claims that he was the first person who reached to the spot and he found that Roop Singh and his brother were crying, whereas Dhaniram claims that initially he and other neighbours had reached to the spot.One Ramlal informed the police on phone and thereafter, police called the witness Nathu from his village.The witness Roop Singh made an allegation against the appellants that they committed rape upon the prosecutrix and thereafter, killed her.-:- 16 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 strained relations with the deceased then, certainly he would not have been permitted to take dinner in the house of the deceased and to stay in the night.Ganesh had his own house in the same village then, there was no necessity for him to stay in the house of the deceased for the entire night and if the prosecutrix permitted him to stay in the house then, it would be apparent from her conduct that she permitted the appellants to stay in the house for the entire night, so that she could have cohabitation with them otherwise, there was no reason for such stay.If the prosecutrix was ready to have cohabitation with the appellants then, there was no possibility of any resistance from her side and there was no need to the appellants to kill her.Under such circumstances, the allegation as prepared in the FIR, Ex.P/2 and told by the child witness Roop Singh appears to be unnatural and therefore, if he claims to be an eye witness for such an unnatural instance then, his testimony cannot be believed.-:- 17 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain.On the contrary, it appears that it is an ante timed document.Under such circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court, the evidence of witness Roop Singh cannot be accepted eye witness.Upon ocular evidence being discarded then, it becomes the duty of the Court to consider other circumstantial evidence with a view to assess that it is sufficient in the ordinary course to prove the guilt of the accused.In the present case, first circumstance shown by the prosecution is that the appellants came to the house of the deceased in the previous evening and they resided in her house.Dhaniram (P.W.2) has accepted that he saw the appellants in the evening in front of the shop of the prosecutrix but, Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain did not accept that they heard any noise of any quarrel between the appellants and the deceased in the night or they heard the sound of TV viewed by the appellants in the night in the house of the deceased.They had no knowledge as to whether the appellants resided in the house of the deceased on that night.In this context, witness Roop Singh (P.W.3) has stated that the appellants resided in the house of the deceased in the night.However, as discussed above, when-:- 18 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 the appellant Ganesh had his own house in the same village then, there was no need to the appellants to stay in the house of the deceased prosecutrix and there was no need to the deceased to invite them for dinner and therefore, it appears that the child witness Roop Singh is fully tutored and therefore, by considering the entire evidence, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants stayed in the house of the deceased prosecutrix for the entire night.It is proved by Dhaniram that they were seen in front of the shop but, such a fact cannot be considered as a fact of last seen because if they were found in front of the shop in the evening then, at about 11 p.m., the deceased prosecutrix must have closed the doors of her shop and after taking her dinner, she must have slept on her mattress and therefore, by mere presence of the appellants in the evening in front of the shop of the deceased, no circumstantial evidence is created against them relating to the factum of last seen.Second circumstance shown by the prosecution is that the appellant Ganesh admitted his guilt under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and a memo, Ex.P/9 was recorded.Thereafter, one axe was recovered from the appellant Ganesh and a memo, Ex.P/11 was recorded.Similarly, clothings of the appellant Ganesh were seized with a memo, Ex.However, no human blood was found either on the clothings-:- 19 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 or on axe and therefore, seizure of axe as well as clothings is not a material evidence against the appellants.The confession given by the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is to be considered for a limited purpose, relating to a new fact arising during investigation and therefore, a very little portion of that confession is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, whereas remaining portion is inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Under such circumstances, only that portion can be accepted that the appellant Ganesh threw an axe in a gutter.However, according to the FSL report, Ex.P/27, no human blood was found on the clothings of the appellant Ganesh as well as on the axe recovered from him and therefore, confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellant Ganesh has no evidentiary value and it cannot be considered as a circumstance against the appellant.The learned Deputy Advocate General has also submitted that in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and on her underwear, Forensic Science Laboratory found semen particles and sperms on them and it is a circumstance against the appellants.The Forensic Science Laboratory did not mention that the semen and sperm particles found on the underwear and vaginal swab slides of the deceased were of the appellants and therefore, by presence of such semen-:- 20 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 spots and sperms, it cannot be said that those were of the appellants.Forensic Science Laboratory in its report, Ex.P/27 found that the spots found on articles H-1, H-2 and J-1 were not sufficient for serum examination but, it is no where made clear that as to why serum was not prepared from the spots found on Articles - I i.e. slide of vaginal swab of the deceased.Similarly, the serum slides of the appellants 'F' and 'G' were also available with the Forensic Science Laboratory and these 3 articles were sufficient for preparation of serum relating to semen and sperms.It is no where clear as to why the serum of article - 'I' and articles 'F' and 'G' was not prepared and compared.Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, semen or sperms of the appellants were found.Also, if the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded by the appellants is considered as a whole then, it would be apparent that there was an admission that Ramji committed rape with the prosecutrix while she was sleeping and when the appellant Ganesh demanded for cohabitation then, due to her refusal, she was killed and therefore, there was no evidence that the appellant Ganesh did any intercourse with the prosecutrix therefore, atleast the semen sample of the appellant Ramji could be compared from the-:- 21 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 semen obtained from the vaginal swab of the deceased prosecutrix.The learned Deputy Advocate General has tried to submit that strong motive was there against the appellants that they committed rape and killed the deceased.It is established from the evidence of Dhaniram and Roop Singh that Ganesh was real brother-in-law of the deceased who was also ousted by his father and therefore, initially, he was residing in the same locality alongwith his wife, in which the prosecutrix was residing.Thereafter, he shifted his residence to his father's house, situated in the same village in another locality and therefore, the appellants had cordial relations with the deceased prosecutrix.There was no dispute relating to any property between the deceased prosecutrix and the appellants otherwise, they would not have been permitted to reside in the house of the deceased.Again if a motive is gathered from the overt-act of the appellants that when the prosecutrix refused to have relations with the appellant Ganesh, she was killed but, as discussed above, if she was not ready to have cohabitation with the appellants then, there was no reason for her to permit the appellants to stay in the house for the entire night when the appellant Ganesh has his own house in the-:- 22 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 same village.Under such circumstances, no motive has been proved by the prosecution against the appellants to kill the deceased.State (NCT of Delhi) and another" [(2013) 7 SCC 192] may be perused, in which it is laid that while dealing with the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. guilt of accused.Onus lies on prosecution to prove that chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court.In the light of aforesaid judgment, if evidence of the present case is considered then, the prosecution has failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants were the persons, who committed rape upon the deceased prosecutrix and killed her.-:- 23 -:-The reference sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be accepted.The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 376 (2) (g) of IPC cannot be sustained.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.Their conviction as well as sentence for offence punishable under Section 302/34, 376 (2) (g) of IPC are hereby set aside.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

possibility of his absconding.Crime Under Section Police Date of No. Station Arrest 322/2019 307/34 of IPC Bhanpura, 21/03/2020 MandsaurAs declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The petitioner has 6 criminal records, which are as under:-In the backdrop of criminal antecedents, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition 2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.with liberty to file fresh application after framing of charge(s).Prayer is allowed.Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soum Soumya Ranjan Dalai DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, ya postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e Ranjan 84322bb5797cf28ee6 0671538b737cf52962 d84d7b527897e53ac, Dalai cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2020.11.11 18:09:24 +05'30' 3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.MCRC No.4313/2018 Indore: Dated:-06.02.2018 Shri M. Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State.This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2017 passed by JMFC, Sardarpur, in Criminal Case No.234/2010 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the non-petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC.In their statements complainant - Beenabai (PW-1) and her husband Narsingh (PW-2) have deposed before the Court that at the time of incident, the accused/respondent beat her by a stick and doctor also found injuries on the person of the complainant.Considering the statement, medical report and other evidence available on record, I find it a fit case in which leave to appeal can be granted.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and leave is granted.As a consequence of this order, Office is directed to register the appeal as an admitted appeal and proceed further as per rules.On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- against the non-petitioner.He is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court 23.04.2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, MCRC No.4313/2018 is allowed and is 4HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.accordingly, disposed of.(Virender Singh) Judge 5HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.A. No.1226/2018 Indore, Dated: 07/03/2018 Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notices to the respondents, on payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within six weeks.Record of the trial Court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.1637/2018 - an application for stay.Issue notice of this application also.However, subject to depositing the 50% amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two months from today (including costs and interest), the execution of the remaining part of the award shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.Failing in the compliance, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 6HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23828/2017* (State of MP vs. Pappu @ Tejprakash & Ors.) 03/01/2018 Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State.Heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal as well as an application for condonation of delay.This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2017 passed by 3rd A.S.J., Shajapur, in S.T. No.ST/400143/2016 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the non-petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 in alternative 307/34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act.On due consideration, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay of 33 days and it is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.Accordingly, application filed by the petitioner under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.Office is directed to register it as criminal appeal.Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered and proceed as per rules, as admitted.On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to 7HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.issue bailable warrants of Rs.10,000/- against the non-petitioners.They are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 16.04.2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, MCRC No.23828/2017 is allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.8HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.9HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.(Absence format) Indore: Dated:- /Mr. N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Mr. Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.26462/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant Dharmendra.Appellant-Dharmendra is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri N.J. Dave, Advocate.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence.Accordingly, the I.A. No.26462/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.Presence of the Appellant is taken on record.The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 11.07.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.List the matter for final hearing in due course.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 10HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE R.P. No.260/2017 (delay format) Indore, Dated: 09/03/2018 Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on I.A. No.3890/2017, an application for condonation of delay.Review petition is barred by 87 days.On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay.Accordingly, I.A.No.3890/2017 is allowed.Delay in filing this petition is hereby condoned.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable within 6 weeks.Shri HY Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State, therefore, no further notice is required.He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.11HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 12HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCC No.3394/2017 (restore format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Mr. A. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.It is submitted by the learnd counsel for the petitioner that he has filed in total eight appeals and due to inadvertant mistake he could not deposit court fee of Rs.1,40,000/- in the present appeal, therefore, the FA No.282/2017 was dismissed.Now, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will file the deficit court fees within a week.Considering the aforesaid and affidavit of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to restore the case to its original number.Prayer for restoration of FA No.282/2017 is allowed.FA No.282/2017 be restored to its original number.With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of.(Virender Singh) Judge 13HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCRC No.20975/2017 (dismissed for want of prosecution) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Earlier also on 21.11.2017 no one gave appearance on behalf of the petitioner.It appears that the petitioner has lost his interest in prosecuting the present petition.Therefore, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Virender Singh) Judge 14HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCRC No.22743/2017 (Temporary bail format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri A. Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.23928/2017 and application for granting temporary bail.Earlier also temporary bail was granted vide order dated 17.11.2017 due to exams of 5th Samester of Final Exams of B.Com.The petitioner has surrendered today and he is in jail.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exams were being held from 18.11.2017 and the petitioner was granted temporary bail for this reason, but, the exams of 23.11.2017, 27.11.2017 and 30.11.2017, 2017 are postponed due to election of student union and the same are going to be held on 08.12.2017, 12.12.2017 and 15.12.2017, therefore, he prays for further temporary bail.Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner be released on temporary bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on 18.12.2017 and the trial Court shall submit surrender report thereafter before this Court.List after two weeks for arguments on regular bail application.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.C.C. today.(Virender Singh) Judge 15HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.220/2011 (bailable warrant) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri R.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.Let issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant no.1-Jagdish to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 27.01.2018 and notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks alongwith the service report.(Virender Singh) Judge 16HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.226/2012 (perpetual warrant) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.Let perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant to secure his presence and notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks alongwith the service report.(Virender Singh) Judge 17HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.1411/2012 (non-bailable format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.(Virender Singh) Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.____ (____ vs. State of MP) Indore: Dated:- /02/2019:-Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Raghuvir Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.This is an application for suspension of sentence of petitioner Dinesh.The petitioner is convicted under Section 34(1)(A) r/w 34(2) of MP Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.25000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 27/12/2014 passed in Criminal Case No.1365/2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in convicting the petitioner without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.It is further submitted that the hearing of the revision is likely to take long time in its final disposal and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petition is likely to take time for final hearing, the application is allowed.The jail sentence passed against the petitioner shall remain suspended subject to depositing of fine amount, if any and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/01/2020 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this petition.(Virender Singh) Judge Soumya 20HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.210/2018 (Jagdish Sahu vs. State of MP) 17.01.2018 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Arguments heard with the help of case-diary.As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was an employee of the present appellant.The prosecutrix was a widow having two children.It was alleged that the present appellant gave false impression that his wife and children were not living with him and under a false promise of marriage, he continuously exploited her sexually.It was also said that she went pregnant, and thereafter,t he matter was reported.It was also said that the present appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her two minor children.First appeal/application was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court with liberty to repeat the prayer after 21HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.statement of the prosecutrix.Now the appellant has filed statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Court.In his Court statement prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the appellant.She has only deposed on oath before the Court that the appellant was living with her.One day suddenly he left the house without her knowledge and without informing her.As she could not find his whereabouts, therefore, she informed the police about his missing.Nothing has been stated in the report.Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail.I have gone through the record.In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, the appeal is allowed.Impugned order dated 22.12.2017 is hereby set aside.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions that:-(i)The appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial:(ii)The appellant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, thereat or promise to prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the 22HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(iii)The appellant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv)In case, any default in attendance before the Court or involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 23HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1930/2018 (Bail jump format) (Ravji vs. State of MP) Indore: Dated:- 30/01/2018:-Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.There is no evidence against him.He was earlier granted bail and was regularly attending the Court.Later, he went to Gujarat to earn livelihood but could not be returned and leave was not granted by his employer.Due to his absence, the Court issued arrest warrant and the police have taken him in custody on 29.07.2017 and since then he is in jail.Conclude of trial is likely to take time.The petitioner is permanent resident of Sardarpur, District-Dhar.There is no 24HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.He is ready to furnish adequate security.Therefore, he may be granted bail.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.It is directed that the petitioner Ravji S/o Badiya be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Twenty Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, out of which one shall be local surety, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.(v) The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the earlier bail bond furnished by the petitioner.(Virender Singh) Judge 25HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 26HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.R.P. No.278/2018 (correction format) Indore: Dated:- 26.02.2018 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State.Heard on I.A. No.1310/2018 - an application for condonation of delay of 474 days in filing this review petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-State was under a bonafide belief that MCC No.958/2016 has been allowed, therefore, the writ petition No.7053/2015 will be restored.However, the said petition was not restored for a long time due to mistake regarding number of W.P. occurred in the order passed in MCC No.958/2016, therefore, the delay has occurred in filing this review petition.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, the I.A. No.1310/18 is allowed and the delay is condoned.Heard on the question of admission.Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State has submitted that earlier the petitioner-State had preferred a 27HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCC No.958/2016 for restoration of WP No.7053/2015, which was dismissed on 26/09/2016 under peremptory order.It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow the MCC No.958/2016 vide order dated 16/12/2016, however, due to typographical error in the number of writ petition i.e. W.P. No.7053/2015, the said petition could not be restored.On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed.It is directed that now the order dated 16/12/2016 passed in MCC No.958/2016 shall be read as under:-In the second line of paragraph No.3 of order, the name of writ petition shall be read as "W.P. No.7053/2015" in place of "W.P. No.7053/2016".In second line of paragraph No.7 of the said order, the name of writ petition shall be read as "W.P. No.7053/2015" in place of "W.P. No.7503/2015".In the second line of paragraph No.8 of the said order, the name of writ petition shall be read as "W.P. No.7053/2015" in place of "W.P. No.7053/2016".With the aforesaid, the present review petition stands disposed of.A copy of this order be maintained in MCC No.958/2016 for record.(Virender Singh) 28HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.Judge soumya 29HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 (Format-438) Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.As per information given by the accused, no other bail application is either filed or pending or has been decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious of one Sajjan.Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.30HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE soumya HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.ORDER This is an application under section 438 Cr.As per information given by the accused, no other bail application is either filed or pending or has been decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.Learned counsel further submits that under identical circumstances, co-accused Lalsingh has been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in 31HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.21672/2017 on 07/12/2017 and on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is entitled to the same.Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, however, he has fairly admitted that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of co-accused Lalsingh, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court.According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious of one Sajjan.Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances and on the ground of parity, the application is allowed and direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE 32HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 33HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.4326/2017 30/10/2017:-Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri R.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 473/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 4-10-4-10 years RI respectively and fine of Rs.1000/--2000/--1000/--2000/- respectively with default stipulation for identifying Narmada Prasad as Nathuram.Learned counsel for the appellant submit that during the trial appellant was on bail.Final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.The appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.He further submits that complainant Sumer Singh in his statement has stated nothing against the present appellant and learned public prosecutor has declared him hostile and even after cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record against the present appellant and in cross-examination the complainant has clearly denied the involvement of the 34HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.present appellant in the crime.He has stated that he himself brought the appellant for his own identification.Per contra, learned public prosecutor has drew my attention towards para no. 24 of the impugned judgment, in which learned Trial Court has held that the present appellant has identified Narmada Prasad as Nathuram at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the appellant is also involved in the crime and convicted him.I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.Considering the aforesaid, particularly the statement of the complainant Sumer Singh before the learned Trial Court and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5410/2018) for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07.03.2019 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.35HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.List for final hearing in due course.(Virender Singh) Judge 36HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.511/2018* (temporary format) (Ganpatlal Vs.State of MP) Indore, Dated:03/05/2018 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for temporary suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant - Ganpatlal on the ground of death of his father.As per report of S.H.O. Police Station - Y.D. Nagar, District-Mandsaur, dated 02.05.2018, the death of the father of appellant is correct.Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for temporary suspension of jail sentence vide I.A. No.2996/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant/Ganpatlal shall remain suspended for a period of ten days from the date of his release and he be released subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and he shall surrender before the trial Court after completion of the period of ten days.In case of failure to surrender within the stipulated time, the trial Court shall take coercive action against the appellant without reference to this Court.(Virender Singh) Judge 37HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 38HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.W.P NO.2500/2016 14.07.2016:None for the petitioner.Due to call made by the High Court Bar Association, Indore, Advocates are abstaining from Court work.Case is, therefore, adjourned.39HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(Short Sentence) CRA .2017 Shri ---------, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.9536/2016, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.Though the prayer for suspension is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 8357/16 is allowed and it is directed that on execution of personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial sentence imposed against him shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2016 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.CC as per rules.40HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya 41HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1034/2009 (Kailash Vs.State of MP) Indore, Dated:12/10/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for temporary suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant - Ganpatlal on account of death his mother.The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 27/08/2009 passed in ST No.286/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Dewas, whereby the appellants are convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer 1 years additional R.I.It has been stated that certain rituals are going to take place on 15/10/2018 and he was permitted to attend the funeral by the orders of the Collector, therefore, temporary suspension be granted to the appellant.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for grant of suspension.Considering the averments as made in the application and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the period of custody and the period of sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A. No.7368/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the substantive 42HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.jail sentence of the appellant/Kailash shall remain suspended for a period of 7 days and he be released subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The sentence is suspended for a period of one month from today.CC as per rules.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 43HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the fact and submit a report.Later on:from _____.As per report received from ____, the accused has been completed the entire jail sentnece imposed against him, therefore, the appeal has become rendered infructuous.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as rendered infructuous.The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

The genesis of the prosecution case was an FIR lodged on 19-12-1977 at 5-15 p.m. by one Devi Das Arya, a social worker, journalist and the president of local Arya Samaj of Police Station Anwarganj, Kanpur.The vision was a Muslim girl of Mandapali, Madras, named Kamla Bi who became orphan.Her brothers were doing some job at Bombay.She went there, but one Khadir Hasan managed to seduce and bring her to Agra on the pretext of getting her married in some house.However, he sold her to one Fatima for Rs. 2,000/-.Fatima, in her turn, allegedly sold her to the accused appellant at Agra itself.The victim heard the bargain being settled from inside the room in which she was locked.The appellant brought her under Burqa by Taxi to Kanpur and put her in House No. 78/17 Behind Moolganj mosque under strong surveillance of another prostitute Lila and forced her to carry on prostitution attending to a number of customers daily.The money was used to be realised by Lila and appellant Shamshad used to come to collect money from her.She herself resided in another House No. 93/ 143, Anwar Ganj at a little distance.The appellant also practised prostitution.On reluctance or refusal of the victim to attend to the customers, she used to be given good thrashing and threats of cutting her nose and hair.Before coming to Bombay, she had come in contact with one Chhotey Lal.This man got the clue and came to Kanpur and met her.The appellant got him arrested and beaten up by the police.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.She has been convicted under Sections 366, IPC, 368, IPC and 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC.She has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, IPC another four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 368, IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376/114, IPC.All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The facts leading to this appeal are set forth briefly.It was Chhotey Lal, who, being sympathized with the victim, passed on the information to the informant who had strong reputation of rendering services in similar cases.He informed the police 'by means of an FIR and got the victim recovered on 19-12-1977 from House No. 78/ 17 where the appellant was also present.She was found to be aged about 19 years and used to sexual intercourse.The appellant pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined the victim Kamal Bi P.W. 1 and Devi Das Arya.P.W. 2 in support of the case, besides relying on documents.The victim Kamal Bi narrated the prosecution story set forth above and it is not necessary to repeat the same.Devi Das Arya P.W. 2 also narrated his part in getting the victim recovered and also proved the FIR.Later on, he even got the victim married with Chhotey Lal in Arya Samaj Mandir on request of both of them.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of appeal and learned A.G.A. in opposition thereof.It has been urged that she has been convicted on insufficient evidence.It has specifically been urged that there was no evidence to prove the charge under Section 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC.It is significant to point out in this regard that it was admitted to the appellant herself that Lila was her tenant.According to her, she was living in separate house and did not know what Lila and Kamal Bi were doing.But her defence was that she was prosecuted because Chhotey Lal used to visit Karnal Bi and she had objected to it and informed the police, got him arrested and beaten up by the police.The police had also taken Kamal Bi to police station.In the lower Court, she filed a written statement also according to which, she was innocent and resided in House No. 93/143, Anwarganj and not in house No. 78/17 which was occupied by her tenant Lila from whom she used to realize rent every month or every fortnight.Lila had given shelter to Kamal Bi, saying that she belonged to her village.Chhotey Lal used to visit Kamal Bi and get her to practise prostitution on which he reported the matter to the police.Chhotey Lal asserted that he was her husband.People, therefore, got annoyed from her and Chhotey Lal brought in picture Devi Das Arya and got her arrested, though she did not know what profession Lila and Kamal Bi were carrying on and she never realized and money on this Court from them.According to her, Devi Das Arya was a professional witness.P.C. she gave her profession as prostitution.On a careful judicial scrutiny of the evidence on record, particularly that of the victim Kamla Bi P.W. 1, it leaves not the slightest doubt that the appellant had actual domination and control over the victim through Lila.She was virtual prisoner and bounded person completely under the dominion and control of the appellant.The appellant was physically present when the victim was recovered by the Police at the behest of Devi Das Arya P.W. 2, The evidence is clinching that the victim had been abducted to compel her to illicit intercourse.She had come under the control and dominion of the appellant only for this purpose and she had purchased her from Fatima like a cattle.It also admits of no doubt that she was wrongfully keeping her in confinement for the purpose aforesaid.Technically, however, the offence of Section 376, IPC was not proved for want of specific evidence in this behalf.In the result, the appeal would be partly allowed, so far as the conviction part is concerned.Coming to the sentence part, learned counsel for the appellant has invited the Court's attention to the statement of the appellant made under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on 22-10-1981 wherein she gave her age as 55 years.She must now be of about 76 years of age.There is under observation of trial Judge also that she was ailing at that time with some chest trouble.Looking to these facts, no useful purpose would be served by sending the aged lady to jail.The ends of justice would be metby sentencing her to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 366, IPC and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as fine for the offence under Section 368, IPC directing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in default of payment of fine on each count.It is finally ordered as under :--The appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of appellant Shamshad Bai under Section 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC are set aside.However, her conviction under Section 366 and 368, IPC is maintained.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is the case of the plaintiff that the right of such property being enjoyed by the DDA is without authority of law.The Director of DDA informed the plaintiff that the suit land was transferred to the DDA in the year 1982 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India under a package deal in pursuance to the letter dated 4/1978-55-11 on 'as is where is basis'.The plaintiff was not able to state any reason as to why the status of the properties which existed at site was not disclosed in the plaint.He conceded that he had seen the revenue records himself sometimes for the first time in 1990s and that the jauhar was very old.The sale deeds state that the vendor is the owner and 'in possession' of the land in question and the land is being sold for the bona fide needs and requirements of the vendor.The sale deeds also state that the vendor has handed over the physical possession of the land to the vendee in execution of the sale deed and that the vendor is left with no title or interest in the suit property.The land is claimed to be the exclusive property of the vendor and that the principal was alive and had not cancelled or revoked the attorney.He is to be above the greeds of the world.In fact, in his deposition he has stated that his relationship with his family ceases once he becomes a Mahant.JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir, has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and injunction through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar.The attorney is the natural born brother of the Mahant.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No. 629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No. 630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No. 633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur.The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa out of which the share of the plaintiff is stated to be 22 bigha and 15 biswa.The plaintiff claims that after demarcation of the land which resulted in Suit No. 342/1991, the plaintiff approached the Director (Lands) DDA and asked him to restore the land occupied and fenced by the DDA which measured 22 bigha and 15 biswa as the same was never acquired.The plaint sets out the cause of action for filing the suit as having arisen in the first week of January, 1998 when the plaintiff discovered that the DDA was fencing the land and apparently raised boundary walls encompassing the said land and started developing the same into a green area by trespassing in the suit property of the plaintiff.The period of limitation being 12 years, it is claimed that the cause of action had arisen only in the first week of January, 1998 and, thus, the suit was within time.The plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that the plaintiff was a lawful owner of 22 bigha and 15 biswa of land situated in village Bahapur, Delhi; a decree of possession directing the defendants (UOI as defendant No. 1, Land & Building Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as defendant No. 2 and DDA as defendant No. 3) to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove the fencing, boundary walls, if any, as also a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring and changing character of the land and from creating any third party interest in the suit property.The verification date of 25.2.1999 appears to be a typographical error as the date in the month are filled in hand while the year of 1999 is typed out.The plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) seeking interim relief against the DDA from raising any boundary walls around the suit property shown in the site plan in red or from changing the nature and character of the suit as also from alienating and transferring the same to any third party.This fact has been mentioned as also the date of attestation as it could have some bearing on the matter.The DDA, defendant No. 3, filed its written statement contesting the suit.It is the case of the DDA that the suit land came within Site No. 49 in terms of the sketch of the surveyed land in Kalkaji which was handed over to the DDA vide documents dated 28.9.1983 and 29.12.1983 on payment of Rs. 30.00 crores for maintenance, development and disposal of the said land under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The land in question is stated to be green belt maintained by the DDA.The DDA states that on verification from revenue records, some parts of Khasra Nos. 629, 630 and 633 were found to fall in Site No. 49 which were so allotted and transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation.The position about the land acquired and the remaining land has also been explained in the written statement but it is not necessary at this stage to deal with the same in detail.It is stated that as per the Jamabandi of the year 1908-09 of Khasra No. 630 there used to be a pond in the centre of the land and the land was enjoyed by the Pujaris of the Kalkaji Temple and Shamlat thok comprising of Bhramins and the Jogies in equal share.Some encroachments are alleged to have been made which have been removed by the DDA.In sum and substance, the stand of the DDA is that this land, of which the plaintiff is claiming the right, vested with the DDA for managing the same and the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over it.In the suit even issues have not been framed when applications started coming in for impleadment as parties by the applicants who claimed interest in the said land on account of the fact that it was Shamlat Thok of Brahmins and Jogies who had 50% share each in the land.It may be noticed that there is a dispute about the percentage of share of land but that aspect is also not again which has to be gone into in the present suit as a separate suit is stated to be pending in respect of the same.It was deemed expedient in the given facts of the case to issue notice to the Land and Building Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi as the position about the status of the land was not emerging clearly.This was so since it was not apparent as to how the public authority claimed possession of the land and as to whether the land had been so acquired.In pursuance to such notice, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.It was explained that a notification was issued by the Government of India on 26.3.1949 under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 where Khasra No. 638 has been shown as the acquired land and mentioned under Village Bahapur.In respect of Khasra No. 629, 2 bigha and 1 biswa was acquired by notification dated 13.11.1959 but the balance portion in respect of which the plaintiff claims right was stated to be a road since 1908 under the Wilson survey.Khasra No. 630 consisted of 18 bighas and 14 biswa of land out of which 5 bigha had been acquired vide notification dated 13.11.1959 while the balance 18 bigha and 9 biswa was a pond (water body) and was stated to be continuing as such.It is necessary to note what has been stated by the said two persons under oath.The plaintiff claimed that he was the disciple of Mahant Ram Nath Ji from about 1970 and became a Mahant in 1992 on the demise of Mahant Ram Nath Ji.He further stated that he could keep property as a Mahant though he would not inherit any property from his father and the property owned by the Mahant would be managed by the new Mahant.Mahant Prithvi Nath was stated to be the guru of Mahant Ram Nath Ji and Mahant Prithvi Nath Ji had made a Will bequeathing his estate to Mahant Ram Nath Ji.Mahant Ram Nath Ji is stated to have made a Will in favor of the plaintiff though it was conceded that such a Will was not filed in any proceedings so far including in relation to the dispute pending about his Mahantship.The plaintiff Mahant stated that he was a graduate by qualification and that he was aware of the present suit filed.It was further stated that the suit land consisting of 22 bigha and 16 biswa of land had a park of the DDA though it was stated that he had not seen the site as to what else existed on the land in question.He conceded that he stayed in the Kalkaji Mandir.On a query being posed, he conceded that there was a jauhar on the land and there was a road between the jauhar and the mandir.The plaintiff has stated that the plaint was not signed and verified by him but was filed through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar.The same was shown to the plaintiff before it was filed.He further could not state any reason as to why after becoming a Mahant in 1992 it had taken him eight years to file a suit for possession.The only reason given was that he was verifying the records.The plaintiff further conceded that half of the share of the total land lies with the plaintiff while the other half remains with the families of the Brahmins.After recording the statement of the plaintiff, the statement of Mr.Satish Kumar, the attorney of the plaintiff was recorded.The attorney has stated that he was running a business of trading of herbal products and was educated up to inter class.The attorney stated that he was looking after all the land affairs of the plaintiff for which he was paid a remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- per month apart from other expenses.He again reiterated that the plaint was shown to the plaintiff and that what was stated in the plaint was correct.The attorney admitted that he had gone to the site where the land is located and the land was possessed by the DDA and there was a park and a road apart from a jauhar on the road.The demarcation stated to have been carried out in the year 1989 when he was the attorney.Even at that time he was looking after the lands on behalf of the previous Guruji.It was conceded that from 1986 to the year 2000 no steps were taken to seek possession of the land though they kept on approaching the revenue authorities.The attorney has stated that he has no personal right in the land but for the first time disclosed that he had entered into agreements in respect of the suit land with the third parties and even executed sale deeds which had not been filed in Court.He categorically stated that the plaintiff was duly informed of all the transactions and that he did not inform his advocate about the same.The sale was stated to be on 'as is where is' basis and the agreement was at the rate of one lakh per bigha and on the land getting cleared, the plaintiff was to get a minimum of Rs. 500/- and the maximum amount of Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.The sale deed was stated to have been executed as attorney and the money was still lying with the attorney.The name of the purchasers was given as Mr.Mahender Pal, Mr.Akhilesh Singh and Ms.Anita Yogi with all the original documents being in the possession of the attorney.The whole land was stated to have been sold and the sale deeds duly registered.The attorney further stated that he had seen the Khasra Girdwari and Jama Bandi and the land was registered in the name of the Mahant and he obtained the documents from the revenue authorities which were filed with the plaint.In view of the said statement, the plaintiff was examined again and on being asked stated that he did not know that the land had been sold.He, however, stated that the land of the Mahant could be sold in case of necessity or need.The plaintiff claimed that it is only on 3.12.2007 that he had been informed about the sale of the land and no money had been credited to his account.He further stated that he had not specifically asked his attorney to sell the land though the land could have been sold for some charitable purposes or activities connected with the temple but not for profit motive.In view of the contradictions between what was stated by the plaintiff and the attorney, it was observed that the matter required a deeper examination.The plaintiff was stating that he had no knowledge of the sale while his attorney stated that he was fully informed of the same.A direction was issued that all documents be filed in this Court which have since been so filed.20. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff today states that the suit as framed is not maintainable as without seeking partition of the land in which the plaintiff claims 50% share, the possession could not have been asked for.The sum and substance of the opposition is that though the plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the suit, no leave ought to be granted to file any fresh suit in view of the conduct of the plaintiff who has come with unclean hands before the Court and has failed to disclose the material aspects.Interestingly a new counsel, Mr.A further plea of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that the suit, being an abuse of the process of the Court, exemplary costs ought to be imposed on the plaintiff while dismissing the suit.It is further pleaded that the present case is a fit one where proceedings must be initiated against the plaintiff and his attorney under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.).The original sale deeds have been filed on record which number seven.All the sale deeds have been executed on 26.10.1999 for different portions of land.Three sale deeds have been executed in favor of Mr.Mahender Pal, two sale deeds in favor of Smt.Anita Yogi and two sale deeds in favor of Mr.Akhilesh Singh.Mahender Pal is another brother of the plaintiff (and thus also brother of the attorney) while Smt.Anita Yogi is the wife of Mr.Mahender Pal.Akhilesh Singh is the brother of Smt.Anita Yogi.Mahender Pal and Smt.Anita Yogi are residents of Bhairon Mandir, Kalkaji while Mr.Akhilesh Singh is a resident of Rohini.The common thread which runs through all the sale deeds is that they have been executed through Mr.Satish Kumar, the attorney.Satish Kumar has a registered power of attorney so registered on 7.10.1998 and executed by the plaintiff Mahant.The said registered power of attorney is irrevocable and has been made specifically for the purposes of sale of the property in question and for obtaining necessary permissions for the same.Apart from this, authority has also been given for construction on the land obtaining, obtaining water and electricity connection, instituting legal proceedings, collecting compensation or taking allotment of alternative plot.The attorney further authorises appointment of other attornies by the attorney so appointed.An appreciation of the aforesaid facts show that the suit is replete with the concealment of material facts.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

Shahul Hameed, the appellant herein, was a Class IV employee in the Accountant General's Office, Trivandrum Vijayachandran, the deceased, who had studied upto the predegree course, was residing at Pettdh, about 2 or 3 miles away from the city of Trivandrum.Mohanchandran (PW 1), the brother of the deceased, was studying for the B.Sc.degree course, at the relevant time.On March 5, 1970, the appellant who was original accused 1, and one Perumal who was original accused 2, gave a beating to Ramchandran, and Suseelan, friends of the deceased.After that beating, both the assailants were waiting for a bus at the Statue Bus Stop near the University College.The deceased and his brother, PW 1, came to the bus stop, where they learnt from their friends about their beating The deceased then slapped the appellant and a scuffle ensued.The by standers interceded and separated them.The appellant proclaimed that he would see that the deceased did not beat any person any more.Two days thereafter on March 7, 1970 at about 7.00 p m., the appellant and his three 'co-accused were standing at the bus stop called Spencer Junction near south eastern gate of the University College.The deceased and his brother, PW 1, alighted from a bus at the University College Bus Stop and proceeded south along the main road towards the Indian Coffee House, where their friends, one Radhakrishnan, had invited them to tea to celebrate the latter's appointment in the Syndicate Bank When the deceased and his brother came near the Spencer Junction, the appellant shouted that he was waiting for them, adding whether they had become so bold as to come from their house there to the main road to settle matters.On hearing this challenge, PW 1 and she deceased quickened their pace.The appellant and his companions ran after them and gave blows with their hands On receiving the blows, the deceased and his brother ran south pursued by the appellant and his companions.The appellant was carrying the dagger (M C. 1).He reached close on the heels of the deceased and stabbed him in the back.On receiving the blow, the deceased turned round.The appellant then stabbed him again with sufficient force on the left chest below the nipple.The deceased staggered further 7 or 8 paces and fell down.The appellant was about to stab him again, when PW 7, who was nearby, picked up an iron rod from near the Statute and hit the appellant on the head.Thereupon, the appellant and his companions flad from the place toward the north.Apart from PW 1 the occurrence was witnessed by PW 2, whose shop was situated close to the scene of occurrence.Just after the occurrence, the Mayor passed that way.He phoned to the City Control Room from the shop of PW 2 for rendering necessary assistance to the deceased who lay injured on the spot.JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated July 28, J972, of the High Court of Kerala, whereby the appellant's conviction under Section 299(1) (Section 304?), Penal Code was converted into one under Section 302, Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment for life.Within five minutes, the Police van arrived and removed Vijayachandran to the Medical College Hospital; while PW 1 went to the Cantonment Police Station, 300 metres away, and ledged the First Information Report (Ex P-1) at 7.00 p.m The deceased was examined on his arrival in the Hospital at 7.45 p.m. and was declared dead by the doctor.The appellant and accused 2 and 3 were arrested on March 13, 1970, while the 4th accused was arrested later.After his arrest, the appellant is said to have made a statement Ex. P 15(a) regarding the injuries sustained by him.On the basis of that statement, a cross-case under Section 324, 323 read with 34, Penal Code, was registered against PW 1, PW 7 and the deceased.After investigation, the Police referred the cross case; white in the other case, the appellant and his companions were charge sheeted to stand their trial to respect of various offences, including that of she murder of Vijayanchandran.The appellant also filed a private complaint (Ex P.19), wherein he named nine persons, including PWs.1, 6 and 7 and Suseelan as his assailants.The complaint was to the effect, that those accused-persons, including the deceaeed, formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of which on March 7, 1970, they made a conceited assault on the complaintant when he was about to cross the road for going to the India Coffee House.In particular, it was alleged that PW 1 had fisted the complaintant with a folded knife; while PW 7 kicked him in the abdomen falling him to the ground.It was further alleged that when the complainant was lying on the ground, the deceased stabbed him on the head with a weapon which locked like a chopper.Several persons collected there, Then the complainant escaped and ran south to the Cantonment Police Station and gave an information.One motive for the occurence, mentioned in the complaint, was that the accused named by him harboured hostility on account of a previous quarrel that took place on March 5 1970, when PWs 1 and 7 and the deceased had harassed the complainant and exchanged blows.Both the cases were tried separately but concurrently.The complaint made by the appellant against some of the PWs, and deceased ended in acquittal; while in Vijayachandran's murder case, the Session Judge convicted the first accused (appellant) under Section 299 Part II, Penal Code, (evidently a mistake for Section 304, Part II) and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment.He convicted accused 2 to 4 under Section 323, Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to six months' rigorous imprisonment.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellant on the charge of murder, the State preferred an appeal to the High Court, The Division Bench, who heard the appeal, was divided in its opinion According to Narayana Pillai J., the acquittal of the appellant on the capital charge deserved to be reversed and converted into the under Section 302, Penal Code On the point of sentence, he would award death penalty to the appellant, V. Kualid J., in his dissenting judgment held that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and it was not safe to accept the prosecution evidence as wholly true.He left considerable doubt regarding the manner in which the first accused sustained injuries.He would therefore accord the benefit of doubt to the first accused and acquit him of the murder charge.He would acquit accused 2 to 4, also.On account of this difference of opinion, the connected appeals were placed before Issac J. for decision, under Section 429, Criminal Procedure Code.After a careful examination of the entire evidence., Issac J set aside the acquittal of the appellant on the murder charge, and convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Hence this appeal by special leave.Mr Harindra Nath, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly, tried to contend that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses, namely, P.W, 1 PW 2 and PW 7 was not worthy of credence.Secondly, it was argued that the appellant had inflicted the injuries, if at all, on the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence.Support for this contention was sought from the following circumstances:(a) The deceased and his brother PW 1, were residing in Pattah at a distance of about 2 or 3 miles from the place of occurrence.They had no good reason to come to the place of occurrence at that time.The explanation given by them, that they had been invited there by one Radhakrishnan to take tea at the Coffee House, was false because to such person was present any where near the scene for incident.Nor was the said Radhakrishnan examined.(b) The deceased and his companions, including PW 7, must have tome armed to wreak Vengeance upon the appellant on account of the beating by the latter to their friends and the exchange of blows with the appellant on the 5th March 1970 The explanation given by PW 7 that he picked up the iron-rod from a compound near the place of occurrence was false.His evidence with regard the place where he found the rod was contradictory.In his earlier statement, PW 7 stated that he had picked up the lion-rod from the compound of the Accountant-General's Office whereas in his subsequent statement he deposed to have found it lying near the Statue.(c) Medical evidence shows that the appellants had sustained a grevious injury on the head involving fracture of the outer table of the skull.This injury, was attributed by the appellant in the criminal complaint filed by him to PW 7 and the deceased.PW 1 suppressed the injuries caused to the appellant by the deceased and his companions.In the alternative, it is urged that, in any case, Exceptions II and IV to Section 300, Penal Code, would be attracted, and the offence committed by the appellant was one under Section 304, Part II only.In this premise, it is submitted that the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 304, Part II, Penal Code, by the trial court should be restored; and since the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for more than five years, he should not be committed to jail for an enhanced term.P.W. 1 is, no doubt, the brother of the deceased and, as such, could be called an 'interested' withess.But his version was amply corroborated by the other evidence on the record.His evidence was corroborated by the F I R. which was lodged by him with great promptitude at the Cantonment Police Station, 300 metres away, when he had no time to spin out a false story.Further, PW 2 was an independent and natural witness.He had no axe of his own to grind against the appellant The stabbing of the deceased took place at a distance of 30 40- feet only in front of his shop He testified that on hearing the commotion, he came out into the verandah and saw the appellant, dagger in hand, chasing the deceased, and then giving him the first blow on the buck and the next on the chest.He further stated that when the appellant was about to strike the deceased again, a fair-complexioned boy, meaning PW 7 hit the appellant on the head, The evidence of PW 2, hit any way shaken in cross examination.In his examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant states that PW 1 and PW 7, the deceased and some others attacked him : PW 7 hit him with an iron rod on the head, while Vijyachandran struck bins, on the head with a chopper.The appellant then succeeded snatching the chopper from the deceased.The appellant disowned the statement (Ex P:15/A) on the basis of which the Police had registered the cross case.The presence of P.W. 7 at the spot and his participation in the occurrence was thus not denied by the appellant.PW 7, also supported the prosecution story in ail material details, Court below have accepted his evidence and we see no reason to take a different view.Dr. G. Gopinathan (PW 12) who had examined the injuries of the appellant on March 13, 1970, found two injuries on the person of the appellant.One was an infected wound on the left side of the head.The outer table of the skull was found fractured.This defect in the bone was felt at the base of the injury and pus was present in the wound.The second injury found by him was a healed abrasion on the left side of chest.Injury No. 2 was evidently caused with a blunt weapon.With regard to injury No. 1, PW. 12 opined that it could be caused with an iron rod or ever with a sharp weapon.Since the doctor did not note that there was a cut on the outer table of the skull, the greater probability was that this injury had been caused with an iron rod and not with a chopper or other cutting weapon, After the receipt of this stunning injury on the head, the appellant, must have, temporarily at least, lost the capacity to cause any injury to anybody.This means, the appellant received this injury only after he had caused the fatal injury to the deceased.The deceased was unarmed.After being manhandled by the companions of the appellant, the deceased and his brother had turned tail and taken to their heals, Dagger in hard, the appellant chased the fleeing victim, and first stabbed him in the back.He did not stop there and followed up with a stab on the left side of the chest of the deceased, with great force.All these facts unmistakably show that the appellant was the aggressor, and he inflicted these injuries on the deceased maliciously and vindictively, and not in self defence.Exception II to Section 300, Penal Code does not apply, because no right of private defence ever accrued to the appellant.Penal Code, the same also is not attracted.It is impossible to believe that the deceased and his companions came prepared for a fight.The deceased was empty handed.The assertion of the appellant that the deceased came armed with a chopper with which he caused an injury to the deceased, was manifestly false.No such chopper was found or discovered.The version of the appellant, was that he had snatched away that chopper from the deceased and used it against him.This was also patently untrue.The appellant could produce that Chopper before the police.He did nothing of the kind.Moreover, as already observed, the nature of the skull-fracture underneath the injury as noted by the medical witness, shows that the injury on the head of the appellant was not caused with a cutting weapon but with a blunt weapon like an iron-rod.Similarly, the injuries found on the back and chest of the deceased were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus, the deceased being unarmed, did not and could not cause any injury to the appellant.There was no mutual exchange of blows between the appellant and the deceased.The assault on the deceased by the appellant was deliberate and pressed with determination, when the victim was fleeing for his life.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

The application is hereby allowed.The applicant - SANTOSH RAJARAM WAFARE @ BACCHA PATIL in connection with Crime No.I-371 of 2018 registered with Parner Police Station, Parner, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 376 (d), 363, 392, 384, 120(b), 323, 504, 506 (2), 34 of Indian Penal Code be released on bail on furnishing P.B.::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 04:56:22 :::( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 04:56:22 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

These orders were not challenged.In April, 2001 the second respondent filed nomination papersfor four constituencies in respect of the general election to be held tothe Tamil Nadu Assembly.On 24th April, 2001 three nominationpapers were rejected on account of her disqualification under Section8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by reason of herconviction and sentence in the two criminal cases.The fourthnomination paper was rejected for the reason that she had filed hernomination for more than two seats.The correctness of the orders ofrejection was not called in question.On 13th May, 2001 the results of the election to the TamilNadu Assembly were announced and the AIADMK party, which hadprojected the second respondent as its Chief Ministerial nominee, wonby a large majority.On 14th May, 2001, consequent upon the result ofthe election, the AIADMK elected the second respondent as itsleader.On 14th May, 2001 the second respondent was sworn in asChief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.JUDGMENTWithW.P.(C) No. 245 of 2001, W.P.(C) No. 246 of 2001, W.P.(C)No.& C.A. No. 6589 of 2001 @ S.L.P. (C) No.11763 of 2001DELIVERED BY:S.P.BHARUCHA, J., BRIJESH KUMAR, J.G.B.PATTANAIK Bharucha, J.Leave granted.A question of great constitutional importance arises in thesematters, namely, whether a person who has been convicted of acriminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspendedpending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as theChief Minister of a State.In respect of thattenure in office she was (in CC 4 of 1997 and CC 13 of 1997)convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B of the IndianPenal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under Section409 of the Indian Penal Code.She w as sentenced to undergo 3years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in the firstcase and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine ofRs.5000 in the second case.The fine that was imposed in both cases was paid.The second respondent preferred appeals against her convictionbefore the High Court at Madras.The appeals are pending.In S.P. Anand, Indore Vs.H.D. Deve Gowda and Others [1996(6) SCC 734], the first respondent, who was not a member ofParliament, was sworn in as Prime Minister.Reference was made to the earlierjudgments.It was held, on a parity of reasoning if a person who isnot a member of the State Legislature can be appointed a ChiefMinister of a State under Article 164(4) for six months, a person whois not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed PrimeMinister for the same period.At the time of his appointment as a Minister Tej Parkash Singhwas not a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.He was notelected as a member of that Assembly within a period of six monthsand he submitted his resignation.During the same legislative termSardar Harcharan Singh Barar was replaced as Chief Minister by Smt.No order as to costs.Itreads as follows:-The original common-law writ of quowarranto was a civil writ at the suit of the crown,and not a criminal prosecution.It was in the natureof a writ of right by the King against one whousurped or claimed franchises or liabilities, toinquire by what right he claimed them.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

persons and filing a charge-sheet in Crime No.143/2020 registered at Police Station Sirsod District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 34 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR under Sections 341, 307, 34 of IPC but the police has neither arrested the accused nor has concluded the investigation so far.So far as the prayer made by the applicant for issuing a direction to the police to arrest the accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be granted.The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of the same observing that, "it is obligatory on the part of the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-34388-2020 Sanjay Kushwah Vs.State of MP and another respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing of chargesheet.It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this case".The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

As per this report, accused Raju took her to a fair and mid-way through, made her sniff some intoxicant because of which she became unconscious.Next day, when she regained consciousness, Raju left her in the custody of Amer Khan.It is further averred in this report that during the period she was unconscious, she was taken by Raju from Prithvipur to Jhansi.( 08.02.2019) Heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari, District- Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.217/2015; whereby, respondents were acquitted by the Court below of the offences punishable under Section 376, 344, 379 and 506 (part-II) of the IPC.Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State submits that Court below erred in passing the judgment of acquittal; whereas, there was sufficient evidence against the respondents on the strength of which they should have been convicted.Learned Government for the petitioner/State by placing reliance on judgment Lillu @ Rajesh & another Vs.State of Haryana 2013 (3) SCC 643 submits that merely because the prosecutrix had married thrice, her statement cannot be disbelieved.Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State by 2 M.Cr.C. No.50448/2018 taking this Court to the statement of prosecutrix submits that she categorically deposed against the respondents, on the strength of which Court below should have passed the judgment against the respondents.2 M.Cr.No other point is pressed by the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.We have heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State at length and perused the record.The court below has analyzed the statement of prosecutrix in great detail.Her statement was not disbelieved by the court below merely because she was married thrice.The prosecutrix had filed a written report (Ex.P/5), on the basis of which the F.I.R. was recorded.The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under section 164 IPC had stated that Raju took her to Jhansi and left her in the custody of Amer.In the statement recorded in the court, prosecutrix stated that Raju took her to the fair where Amer Khan met her and gave her the intoxitant to sniff because of which she had become unconscious.Amer Khan took her to Jhansi.In view of aforesaid material contradictions in the statement on the aspect as to who took her to Jhansi, the court below disbelieved her statement.We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the court below.The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she telephoned her mother from Niwari station and; in turn, she was taken by her mother from the said station.The court below rightly held that when prosecutrix had a mobile phone during the period she was allegedly in the custody of accused persons, she could easily have contacted her parents or police, if she wanted to.The prosecutrix has not 3 M.Cr.C. No.50448/2018 deposed anything against accused Raju and Dharampal in relation to offence of rape, wrongful detention, threatening or snatching of gold chain etc.3 M.Cr.In this backdrop, the court below examined the evidence whether any case is made out against the accused Amer Khan.As noticed, the prosecutrix had taken a diametrically opposite stand as to who had taken her to Jhansi.The starting point of incident itself is not established.The prosecutrix's statement that she was in the custody of Amer for one and half month and was subjected to rape during this period repeatedly was disbelieved by court on the ground that during this period she never tried to take help of neighbours and public.In medical examination also, nothing was found which can establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecutrix reached police station Prithvipur on 28.07.2015 (Ex.P/7).On 31.07.2015, F.I.R was lodged and her undergarments were seized and slide was prepared.As per prosecutrix's statement, eight days before lodging F.I.R (31.07.2015), she came back to her home.The vaginal slide was prepared after about eight days.Thus considering the life span of sperms, the court below rightly opined that it cannot be safely concluded that said sperms were of Amer Khan.More so, when prosecutrix had categorically deposed that after the incident she had taken bath and changed her cloths.Dr. Richa Jain (P.W.14) in her examination opined that no internal or external injury was found on the body of prosecutrix and no definite opinion regarding rape could be given.After considering the relevant evidence, the court below opined that prosecution has failed to establish its case.In the considered opinion of this court, the court below has meticulously examined the evidence produced before it and reached a plausible and correct conclusion.No perversity in the findings could be 4 M.Cr.

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

In order to examine the rival contentions raised in thepresent appeals, it will be necessary for us to refer to the factsappearing from the case of the prosecution.On 19.11.1988 at about 6.15 P.M. one Deo Pal, who wasexamined as PW1, had lodged the FIR in the Police Station atKakkarwai stating that on the evening of 19.11.1988 at about4.30 P.M., he along with his brother Devi Singh and one Kalluwere sitting in the cattle shed of Jawahar, carpenter.He hadgone to sharpen his sickle.After about 10 minutes, his brotherBahadur Singh (since deceased) came there to sharpen hisgandasa.In the meanwhile, appellants Ram Sanehi, Baladin @Balla, Shiv Dayal and Ramadin came there.Accused Shiv Dayalhas a sphere and Ram Sanehi, Baladin and Ramadin had guns.Appellant Shiv Dayal inflicted sphere blow on the left shoulderof Bahadur Singh and thereafter, the three accused carrying 6 guns fired from their respective guns.After receiving the bulletinjuries, Bahadur Singh fell down and died.The witnesses,present there, were not able to save him because of the fearcaused by the accused persons.After murdering BahadurSingh, Ram Sanehi said that they had killed him and his fatherPyare Lal should also be killed.Saying these words, theappellants proceeded towards the fields where Pyare Lal waswatering his bajara crops.Deopal, Devi Singh and his wifeMoola Bai were present in the field.At that time, appellantDharnidhar also came there and joined the other appellants.Dharnidhar snatched the kulhari of Pyare Lal.Thereafter, thesaid three accused, who were carrying guns, fired on Pyare Lal.Sustaining the fire arm injuries, Pyare Lal fell down.Notsatisfied with the same, Dharnidhar then cut his neck withkulhari.Deopal then raised an alarm and made a hue and cry.Several village persons rushed towards the spot but before theycould reach, the appellants escaped and went towards thejungle.This incident took place at about 4.45p.m.PW1 reportedthe matter to the police station, as already noticed, and on the 7 basis of the report, H.C. Shiv Charan prepared the report(Ext.Ka 27) made endorsement on the same at the G.D. report(Ext.Ka 28) and registered the case against all the appellantsunder Sections 147, 149, 302 and 149 of the I.P.C.The case was initially investigated by Ram Autar Mathur(PW 10) who went to the spot along with two constables but theinvestigation could not be completed because of paucity of light.Next morning the I.O. conducted inquest of the body of deceasedBahadur Singh and recovered one empty cartridge from the spot,collected blood stained and simple earth sample from the spotand prepared recovery memos.Pleura was lacerated.These injuries caused and it may be possible that these injuries caused on dated 19.11.88 at 4.30 o' clock in the evening.These injuries were normal but these injuries are sufficient for death.I had seized from the body of the deceased one cork and 21 metal pallets from the left side's lungs.One Cork and 12 pallets were seized from the right lung and from forensic cavity of muscles.2 Corks and 18 pallets were recovered from the lever and stomach cavity.From the body of the deceased one Baniyan and one Chaddi, One Lungi was recovered and after preparing its Bundles were given to the constable.The injury No. 1 and 2 by Kulahdi Ex2 was possible to have occurred.Axe was shown to the witness injury No.3 to 8 is possible to be caused by fire arms.Injury No. 9 to 10 could be caused by falling on the ground.be caused by fire arms.Injury No. 9 to 10These injuries were sufficient to cause death.These injuries could have been possibly caused on 19.11.88 at about 4.30 in the evening.One cork one big pellet and two small pellets' were recovered from his level and two corks and five small pallets were recovered from his left and right lever.These articles were handed over to the constable after sealing it.That from the body of the deceased one Kurta, One Dhoti, One Baniyan and One ring of Coper were recovered which were sealed and handed over to the Constable who had come with."This witness was cross examined at some length, but nothingfavourable to the accused could come on record.The statement 24 of this witness clearly shows that there were gun shot injurieson the bodies of both the deceased as well as sphere and kulhariinjuries on their shoulder and neck respectively.Their presence at the site was natural.In addition to this, it must be noticed that upon the statement ofShiv Dayal, the sphere (Ext. Ka 1) was recovered from thebushes of the village Kharwanch in presence of Thakur Das,PW 7, and Kanhaiya Lal.The ld.Sessions Judge, Jhansi,vide its judgment dated 7th August, 1992 after finding all theaccused guilty of different offences, including Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") punishedthem.The order of punishment reads as under:"Accused Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under section 302/34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Bahadur Singh.They and accused Dharnidhar are also sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302/149, I.P.C. for committing murder of Pyare Lal.Accused Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal are mentioned to the year's R.I. u/s 148 I.P.C. and accused Dharnidhar is sentenced to six month's R.I. u/s 147, I.P.C. All these sentences shall run concurrently.All the accused preferred appeals against the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence before the High Court whichalso came to be dismissed vide judgment dated March 22, 2004,wherein the High Court declined to interfere either with thefindings of conviction or order of sentence which consequentlystood confirmed.Accused Dharnidhar filed Criminal AppealNo.239 of 2005 against the judgment of the High Court, accusedRam Sanehi along with other accused filed an appeal beingCriminal Appeal No. 429 of 2005 and Shiv Dayal preferred aseparate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2005 againstthe judgment of the High Court.Thus, by this judgment weshall dispose of all the above three appeals as they are directedagainst the common judgment of the High Court and are basedupon common evidence.Sessions Judge, inter alia, is primarilyon the following grounds:i) The alleged eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 are family members of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses.The conviction of the appellants is based, 3 primarily, on the statements of these witnesses, which as such, is liable to be set aside.ii) The prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the alleged commission of the crime.The appellants had no motive to commit the said crime and, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution stands falsified.iii) The evidence, including the evidence of Dr. P.N.On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for therespondent has vehemently argued that there was sufficientdocumentary and expert evidence on record.The version of theeye witnesses cannot be doubted, their presence on the site wasnatural and they had no reason to falsely implicate all or any ofthe accused in the murder of their brother and father.He also completed theinvestigation at the place of the murder of Pyare Lal.The deadbodies of Bahadur Singh and Pyare Lal were subjected toautopsy on 21.11.1988 by PW6, and he found the followinginjuries on the bodies of the deceased."Postmortem report of Bahadur SinghAnte mortem injuries:-(1) Gun shot wound of entry 2 = cm x 2 cm x thoracic cavity deep on the left nipple.Blackening present.Direction from front to back.Margins inverted.(2) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 0.75 cm x thoracic cavity deep on upper and medical portions of chest of right side, 2 cm below from medical margin of clavicle.Blackening present and direction from back to front and backwards.Margins inverted.(3) Two gun shot wounds of exit measuring 1 cm x 0.75 cm diameter in an area of 2 cm on right lower portion of back of chest.(4) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on left lower portion of back, 30 cm below from left shoulder joint, direction from left to right.(5) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on epigastria portion of abdomen 18 cm above from umbilicus.Direction front to back.(6) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm on the epigtastrian portion of abdomen, 1 cm above from injury no. 5, Direction from front to back.(7) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on middle and front of forehead.(8) Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on middle and right side of back of chest, 4 cm away from mid line.(9) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on lower and left side of back of chest.(10) Incised wound 2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep, 9 cm below from the left shoulder.9 Internal examination showed that third and fourth ribs of left side and third rib of right side were fractured.Both lungs were lacerated.Thoracic cavity contained about 1 = liters of liquid blood.Peritoneal cavity contained about = liter of Liquid Blood.Stomach was lacerated and contained semi digested food material.Liver, gall bladder and spleen were lacerated, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante mortem injuries.The doctor recovered one cork and 21 metallic pellets from left lung and thoracic cavity.One cork and 12 metallic shots were recovered from right lung, liver and thoracic cavity.Two corks, 18 metallic shots were recovered from spleen stomach and abdominal cavity.Postmortem report of Pyare LalAnte mortem injuries:-(1) Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on right lower jaw.4 cm below from angle of mouth right side.(2) Incised wound 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep on front portion of neck.Under lying bone of cervical vertebrae No. 3 fractured.Soft tissues and muscle cut.(3) Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on lower and front portion of left arm.Direction from left to right, 8 cm above from elbow joint.Blackening present.Margins inverted.10 (4) Gun shot wound of exit 4 cm x 2 = cm on lower and front portion of left arm.Margins everted.(5) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left exilla.(6) Gun shot wound of entry 2 = cm x 1 = cm x thoracic cavity deep on left side of chest 11 cm below from left axilla.(8) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on upper and left portion of abdomen, 10 cm above from umbilicus, Blackening present.Margins inverted.Directions from front to back.(9) Abrasion 5 cm x 1 = cm on right lower front portion of thigh, 7 cm above from knee joint.(10) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on the rest of the middle finger of right hand.Internal examination showed that brain was pulpy.Third cervical vertebrae was fractured.Pleura was lacerated.Larynx, trachea and bronchi were cut.Both lungs were lacerated.Neck was cut.Abdominal cavity contained 11 about 200 ml liquid blood.Stomach was lacerated.Liver was partially lacerated.Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante mortem injuries.The doctor recovered one cork, one big metallic shot and two small metallic shot from stomach, 2 corks and 5 small metallic shorts were recovered from right and left lung." The prosecution had amongst others examined Deopal,PW1, Devi Singh, PW 2 and Manohar, PW 3 who had claimedto be the eye witnesses to either or both of the murders.Duringthe course of investigation, recoveries were made upon thestatements made by the accused.Thakur Das, PW 7 was anindependent witness for the recovery of sphere, as pointed out byaccused Shiv Dayal.The investigation of the case was conductedby different officers.H.C. Shiv Charan Singh, PW 11 was postedas Head Muherer and he had prepared (Ext. Ka 27) as well asregistered the case in GD as (Ext.Ka 28).PW1 and PW2 hadfully supported the case of the prosecution.The blood markswere found at both the places of occurrence.After completingthe investigation, challan under Section 173 of the CriminalProcedure Code (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') was filed 12 before the Court of competent jurisdiction.After the case wascommitted to the Court of Sessions, all the accused were tried inaccordance with the law.Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.was recorded and finally, as noticed above, they were convictedand sentenced by the trial Court and the same was sustained bythe High Court, giving rise to the present appeals.The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants, in fact,can be discussed together inasmuch as they are based uponsomewhat common submissions.There is no doubt that PW1and PW2, both are related to the deceased.The contentionraised before us is that both of them are interested witnessesand have not stated true facts before the Court and thus, theirstatements should be entirely disbelieved.It has come on record that PyareLal was pursuing a case in which members of the family of theaccused persons were involved in a murder.There wasapparently some anger and rift between the families.Accordingto the story of the prosecution, they had come prepared to killBahadur Singh as well as Pyare Lal as they were carrying guns, 13 sphere etc. The deceased were attacked by the accused in thepresence of their brothers, who could not intervene and savethem because of the fear of the gun fire and the manner in whichthe incident occurred.It was but natural for the prosecution toproduce PW1 and PW2 as the main eye witnesses as they hadactually seen the occurrence and they have been believed by thetrial Court, as well as by the High Court.The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency.Thakur Das, PW 7, appeared as awitness and corroborated the evidence of Ranjit Singh, PW 9.The sphere was sent for chemical and serological examination.The report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist (Ext. Ka 32)was received and it showed that the sphere contained humanblood.The involvement of accused Shiv Dayal along withother accused persons, the recovery of the weapons and the factthat human blood was traced on the recovered weaponcompletes the chain of events relating to the commission of the 25 crime.It will not be in conformity with the settled canons ofcriminal jurisprudence to disregard the evidence merelybecause Devi Singh, PW 2, had made a variable statement whichcould be the result of confusion or lack of understanding thequestion in its proper perspective, more so, when he immediatelyin answer to the Court's question, stated, that he had gone tovillage Durkhuru on the day subsequent to the commission ofthe crime and not on the same day.It will be unfair, in any case,to disbelieve the presence of PW1 and PW3 at the respectiveplaces of occurrence and their statements, merely because PW2'sstatement creates certain doubts as regards his presence.Asalready noticed, the counsel for the appellant had, with somevehemence, argued about the unnatural conduct attributed bythe prosecution to the accused.It was argued that brother ofdeceased Bahadur Singh was right in front of the accused at theplace of first occurrence, and they would have killed him ratherthan going to the other site to kill Pyare Lal, the father ofdeceased Bahadur Singh.This argument hardly cuts ice, muchless, leads to any favourable conclusion for the accused.There 26 is specific evidence on record which has been noticed by theHigh Court as well as by the Trial Court that Bahadur Singhwas prosecuted for the murder of Umrao, Ram Sanehi's fatherand was acquitted.The case was contested by Pyare Lal, fatherof Bahadur Singh.We have already indicated that there is somemotive apparent for commission of the crime, which furtherindicates in the light of this evidence that they preferred to killBahadur Singh and his father Pyare Lal.If this witness was lying, then he would havecertainly deposed that he also was an eye-witness to the firstoccurrence i.e. murder of Bahadur Singh.Thetruthfulness and bona fide of this witness can hardly be doubted.27 He has further deposed that Dharnidhar had not come withother accused but had suddenly entered there and snatched thekulhadi from his father.With that kulhadi, he has causedinjury on the neck of the deceased Pyare Lal.If this witness wasto falsely implicate all the accused, nothing preventing him fromstating that Dharnidhar had come with all other accused andthey together attacked the deceased and also that he was awitness to the murder of Bahadur Singh and that evenDharnidhar was involved in the murder of his brother.Hisstatement is fully supported by PW1, as well as theInvestigating Officer.If they were falsely implicated, in allprobability, PW1, PW2 and the Investigating Officer could havenamed Dharnidhar in relation to the first occurrence, i.e. murderof Bahadur Singh.The attempt was also made to create a dentin the case of the prosecution on the ground that Jawahar, whowas stated to be present, was not examined by the prosecutionand was the only independent witness.Thus, adverse inferenceshould be drawn against the prosecution for this purpose.Thiscontention has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court 28 and for correct reasons.Shiv Dayal was stated to have given sphere blow to thedeceased Bahadur Singh and thereafter with the intention to killPyare Lal, moved together with the other accused to the sitewhere Pyare Lal was murdered.Dharnidhar had joined RamSanehi, Baladin, Ramadin and Shiv Dayal.Thus, there were 5 34 persons who constituted a common unlawful assembly and werecarrying weapons with an intention to commit an offence.Shiv Dayal has been thrown the bhala to my brother namely Bahadur which was hit to his left shoulder sides chest portion.Then Ramsanehi, Balaprasad and Ramadinhad fired with their own rifflesrespectively.My brother Bahadur fallen onthe ground we persons who were presentthere has not said any word on account offear.After theirdeparture I have seen my brother Bahadur.He was dead.My brother Bahadur was laydown in the court yard which was in frontdoor of the Jawahar Badhai.I Devi andLally have been followed to Ram Sanehi andothers and reached to the court yard of thefield where my father was busy in storingthe jwar.My brother Manohar and motherMula bai were present there.I have seenthat these four accused were present there.In the meanwhile Dharnidhar came fromsome where/or from some place Dharnidharhas snatched the Kulhadi (an axe) from thehands of my father.Ram Sanehi, Baladinalias Balla & Ramadin had fired on myfather from their own riffles.My father laydown on the ground.Dharnidhar wascutting the neck of my father.After hearing theshouting so many persons rushed out here.But they could not reach at the spot.My father had been fallenat the distance of 7 steps away from theMahua Tree in the Ladaiya fields.Whenthe accused persons left that place at thattime we had gone to seen the condition ofmy father."36 (emphasis supplied) Let us examine the judgments of this Court in relation tocommon intention and commission of crime by the members ofan unlawful assembly.It is a settled principle of law that toshow common intention to commit a crime it is not necessary forthe prosecution to establish, as a matter of fact, that there was apre-meeting of the minds and planning before the crime wascommitted.

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

The prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted him and his family members and snatched away gold chains.Informing the said occurrence as also the grevious injuries sustained by him and his family members, the de facto complainant has preferred a complaint before the first respondent police.A case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for offences under sections 147, 294(b), 323, 355, 448, 427, 506(ii) and 379 IPC against six persons.On completion of investigation, charges have been altered to reflect offences under sections 294(b), 353, 355 and 448 IPC and only four of the six persons have been arrayed as accused.The same was taken on file in STC No.122 of 2012 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannar Koil.Accepting the plea of guilt by the four accused put up for trial, the trial Court, under judgment dated 25.09.2012, convicted them and imposed fines in meagre sums as follows:AccusedOffenceFine amountA1 and A2294(b) IPCRs.300/- eachA1, A2, A3 and A4352 IPCRs.300/- eachA3 and A4355 IPCRs.300/- eachA1 to A4448 IPCRs.300/- eachAgainst such finding, the present revision has been filed by the de facto complainant.3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon complaints preferred by the de facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for offences under sections 147, 294(b), 323, 355, 448, 427, 506(ii) and 379 IPC.Neither the Court nor the respondent police had caused notice to the petitioner/de facto complainant regards the final report despite two of the named accused in the First Information Report not being put up as accused.Heard learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions.The order under challenge calls for immediate interference.The very fact that as against alleged alteration of First Information Report and preparation of final report on 20.06.2012, the same were forwarded to Court only on 25.09.2012, on which very date, the accused appeared before Court, pleaded guilty and walked away with petty fines, reveals that the police and the accused are hand-in-glove.In adopting the practice above informed, justice has been the sufferer.The order of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannar Koil, passed in STC No.122 of 2012 on 25.09.2012, shall stand set aside;(ii)A further investigation in Crime No.204 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent shall be carried out by the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police (Cuddalore District).Upon completion thereof, its outcome shall be informed to the petitioner by such investigating officer.If aggrieved, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as available to him in law.(iii)A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, who shall cause an enquiry into the conduct of the first respondent and file a report informing the outcome thereof/action taken, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.16.09.2014Index :Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NogmTo1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannar Koil.2.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.C.T. SELVAM, J.R.C.No.257 of 201316.09.2014

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(a) P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur.On 18.3.2005, at about 12 noon, when he was in his office along with his Assistant Kumaravel, the accused/appellant appeared before him and gave a confessional statement that he threw his child in a well and caused the death of the child.The statement was reduced to writing and marked as Ex.P.W.1 prepared his report under Ex.He produced the accused along with Exs.He interrogated the accused, when he came forward to give a confessional statement and the same was also recorded by the investigating officer.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body of the child and prepared the Inquest Report in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars.He prepared the Observation Mahazar and also a rough sketch.Following the same, the dead body was subjected to Postmortem by P.W.10, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital.He opined that the child would appear to have died before 5-6 hours before the commencement of the autopsy due to Asphyxia due to drowning.P.8 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.(b) On the strength of Exs.P1 and P2, a case was came to be registered by the respondent Police in Crime No. 61/2005 under Section 302, IPC.The Inspector of Police, P.W.11, took up the investigation on receipt of the Express First Information Report (F.I.R.), Ex.P.6 which was despatched to the Court.(c) The accused was sent to judicial remand and the Material Object which was recovered from the place of occurrence was sent to the Court.On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the final report.The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution marched 11 witnesses and relied on eleven exhibits and one material object.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied them as false.No defence witnesses were examined.After hearing the arguments advanced, on the scrutiny of the materials, the Trial Court took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.The said document Ex.P.1 could not have been come into existence as put forth by the prosecution for more reasons:(a) P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer has candidly admitted that he has seen the accused only once.They were not previously acquainted.He did not know whether the accused was employed in Pondicherry and thus, in such circumstances, it is highly improbable and impossible that the accused met the Village Administrative Officer and gave such a confessional statement and thus, Ex.P.1 was nothing but one created and fabricated to suit the prosecution case.(b) Added further, the counsel stated that in the instant case, the writing of the charge would read that the child was born in the tenth month from the time of marriage and thus, it could be easily inferred that the fidelity of the wife was suspected.If it be so, the wife of the accused was a necessary and material witness.But, she was not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution that was fatal to the prosecution case.(c) Thirdly, even from the evidence of P.W.1, he took the accused/appellant at about 12.30 hours and produced before the Police Station and prepared Ex.P.1 by 12.20 p.m., and even the confessional statement alleged to have been recorded by the investigating officer was at about 1.30 p.m. and it is pertinent to point out that the Police Station is situated about 15 kilometres from the place of occurrence.The preparation of Ex.P.1 covering the distance of 15 kilometres, producing the accused before the Police Station within ten minutes and the recording of the confessional statement by the investigating officer at about 1.30 p.m., all would go to show that the documents could not have come into the existence, as put forth by the prosecution, nothing but it is a falsehood and thus, all these documents should have been rejected.Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the medical evidence was not in support of the prosecution case.The doctor thoroughly opined in the Postmortem certificate that the child died out of Asphyxia by drowning and he further placed that no water is found in the lungs.But, the witness spoke that the child was floating and if it be so, and if the child had died out of Asphyxia by drowning, the water should have been found.But, the doctor has given the answer in the negative aspect.But, in this case, the prosecution had the evidence through P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer to whom the confessional statement was made by the accused.Secondly, the child was found floating in the well and was taken from the well.1. To whom the said extra judicial confession is made?;Whether the person to whom the extra judicial confession is made, his evidence inspires the confidence of the Court?; andHe came to the village in the previous evening with his family and there was a commitment for the child in a temple.Accordingly, he invited his parents.P.1 and he also prepared Ex.The child was taken from the well.But, he came with a different stand when he was questioned under Section 300 of I.P.C. He stated that he went to the well to take bath at 8.00 a.m. on 18.3.2005 and when came back, he found the child missing.He went to the Police Station and a false case has been foisted against him.

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

ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.1.The petitioner by name R. Sekar, who has been detained as "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 04.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.Further, he brought to our notice that apart from copy of First Information Report, statements of witnesses were duly served on the detenu.Coming to the ground case, admittedly, copies of all the relied on documents were supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.In the First Information Report it is specifically stated that, VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The Sub-Inspector of Police, J9, Thuraipakkam Police Station has reiterated the same thing in his statement.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard arguments.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.553/2017 registered at Police Station Ganj Basoda district Vidisha against him and co-accused Vakil Panthi for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (N) (F) of the I.P.C.According to the prosecution, on 25.6.2017, the complainant lodged the F.I.R stating that in the night between 24.6.2017 and 25.6.2017, his daughter/the prosecutrix aged about 15 years and 20 days has been missing from his house.The police registered a case against an unknown person under Section 363 of the I.P.C. On 1.7.2017, the prosecutrix was recovered.Thereupon, the police recorded her case dairy statement.On the basis of her statement, the police made the applicant and others accused of the case for the offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections of law.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody in the case since 27/06/2017 and that the charge-sheet had been filed.(Rajkumar Vs.State of M.P) .that the prosecutrix's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C is recorded on 3.7.2017 by the J.M.F.C Ganj Basoda.After referring to her statement, he submits that the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the applicant had not committed any sexual act with her.On the other hand, he helped her when she got herself freed from the clutches of co-accused Vakil, to whom her father had sold her having taken from him Rs.50,000 to 60,000/-.He committed rape upon her several times.He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of village Uhar which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station and that he has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Hence, the application is allowed.The Court concerned is directed to release applicant Rajkumar on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (forty thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to its satisfaction for securing his presence in the course of trial of the case.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge (Rks) Digitally signed by R. K. SHARMA R. K.DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P.BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, SHARMA 2.5.4.20=fddb839268e92e8a7e21 3279c322478eb4761365df45a6e5 90a0c9b59957024a, cn=R. K.SHARMA Date: 2017.11.20 14:31:41 +05'30'

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

First and foremost, the testimony of PW/1 - the prosecutrix was recorded on 13/02/2002, while the alleged incident is of the year 1996 i.e. after 6 years of the incident.Evidently, at the relevant time, her age was 13 years.She was studying in 5th standard.She deposed that the incident took place on Sunday, at about 9.00 am.Her sister - Savita and one neighbour - Ravindra were present in her house.Her mother had gone to Chandrapur as there was an accident of her brother.Her father went on his morning duty.The accused came there, pressed her mouth and took her in the room which was::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 5 beside the kitchen room.He removed her nicker and committed intercourse with her and therefore, she became unconscious.She was taken to the hospital but she was not knowing.Her vagina was swelled.She gave report at Police Chowki, Sasti.apeal 423.02 5To support her testimony, the prosecution examined PW/2 - Savita.She deposed that the prosecutrix is her elder sister.At the relevant time, she was 11 years old.On the day of the incident, she herself, Ravindra and the prosecutrix were present in their house.Her father had been to his duty.The accused came to their house and he sent her for bringing biscuit packet.It was about 10.00 am.The accused send Ravindra outside and took the prosecutrix in the room by holding her hand and shut the door.Then the accused put down the curtains of the door.She and Ravindra saw from the window that the accused was sleeping on the person of the prosecutrix.Yes, smears from vagina collected and slides sealed and handed over to the police.In the cross-examination of PW/1 - the prosecutrix, it has brought on record that her father, accused and one Navnath Khanke were working in W.C.L. Their houses are situated in the same ward.At the relevant time, she was suffering from piles deceased and because of that, she was sick.The accused was on visiting terms with them.On the day, when she was going for lodging report, at about 9.00 am, a meeting took place at the house of Navnath where 25-30 ladies and 10- 12 gents were present.She was also called in that meeting.Then they went from the house of Navnath to the house of the accused.At that time, the accused had gone for the meeting of W.C.L. Union.The wife of the accused was present.The people::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 9 in the meeting did not give her idea to lodge report.Navnath gave information to the Police.When the accused was coming from union meeting, Police restrained him and took him to the Outpost and then to the Rajura Police Station.She herself, Navnath, 30-40 ladies and 10-12 gents went to the Rajura Police Station.She lodged report as per the say of Navnath.She has admitted that in their village, election of the Gram Panchayat took place before lodging the report and in that election, Navnath was defeated.apeal 423.02 9From the tone and tenor of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it appears that the accused tried to take the defence that because of political rivalry and on the say of Navnath, who was defeated in the Gram Panchayat elections, false report was lodged against the accused.In the written submission of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he has stated that as the parents of the prosecutrix did not want to lodge any complaint, Navnath organized a meeting in his house, men and women of::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 10 the ward were gathered and took the procession to his house, but he had left the house at 7.30 in the morning for attending a gate meeting, being the president of the Union.While returning home from the meeting at about 11.00-11.15 am, 35-40 men and women obstructed him on his way.The family of Navnath and his brother's family were present in the mob.The Police from the Police Station, Sasti came and took him to the Police Chowki without stating any reason.JUDGMENT : (PER PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16/07/2002 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.78/1996 whereby the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short "I.P.C.") and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.Criminal Appeal No.423/2002 is preferred by the accused against his conviction while Criminal Appeal No.581/2002 is preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22/01/1996, the accused committed rape on a minor girl, aged around 13 years.The crime was registered against the accused::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 3 vide Crime No.18/1996 at Police Station Rajura, District Chandrapur after which the matter was investigated and the accused was arrested.The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of the charge.The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced as aforesaid.The impugned judgment is challenged by the accused as well as by the State.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 3We have heard Shri R.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the accused and Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for the State.We have also perused the record.The sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliable.The accused has been falsely involved in this crime due to political rivalry.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 4::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 4On the contrary, Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, while supporting the conviction of the accused, argued for enhancement of sentence up to 7 years, which is the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.We have also perused the evidence on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the accused.She identified her signature and contents in the report and F.I.R. which are at Exhibit Nos.12 and 13 respectively.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::He was committing rape on the prosecutrix.Then the accused went away from the spot.She narrated about the incident to::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 6 her father in the evening.On the very next day, the prosecutrix gave report at Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 6The prosecution also examined PW/3 - Ravindra in support of the testimony of PW/1 - the prosecutrix and PW/2 - Savita. PW/3 - Ravindra also deposed in the same line as deposed by PW/1 - the prosecutrix and PW/2 - Savita.He deposed that he saw that the accused removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and also removed his pant.The accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.The accused told him that if he discloses about the incident, the accused will beat him.11. PW/8 - Mangala is the lady Police Constable, who deposed about taking the prosecutrix at Rural Hospital, Rajura on 22/01/1996 for medical examination, however, as there was no lady Medical Officer in Rajura Hospital, she took the prosecutrix in the Civil Hospital, Chandrapur.She produced on record the supporting documents (Exh.32, 33, 34 and 35).::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 7::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 7PW/11 - Dr. Mrs. Sharmili Amol Potdar is the Medical Officer at the General Hospital, Chandrapur at the relevant time.She deposed that on 22/01/1996, she examined the prosecutrix as per the requisition (Exh.32).On examination, she found that the prosecutrix was a young girl, looking sick, may be due to agony of pain.Her general condition was fair.She found tenderness over valva (labia majora), hymen torned and can introduce one finger easily.She gave following answers to the queries made by the Investigating Officer:-Yes, she can undergo sexual intercourse forcefully.Yes, it has been done.Yes, on examination of private part, there shows evidence of injuries on hymen.She handed over the public hair and blood sample after sealing it.There may be pain over back, may be due to injury to the back.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 8 Accordingly, she gave certificate (Exh.50).::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 8However, she denied the submission that she gave false report on the say of Navnath.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::From there, they took him to the Police Station, Rajura and arrested him.The Police registered a false case against him at the instance of opponents in the village.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 10On comparing the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the written submissions of the accused, they are mutually corroborated.From these facts, it can safely be inferred that the parents of the prosecutrix (step mother and father, who was in the habit of drinking liquor and was not performing his duty properly) were not ready to lodge report.However, Navnath took initiative, called meeting of the residents of the ward, and the report came to be lodged.The::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 11 report was lodged on the next day of the incident.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.With regard to her age, there is no serious dispute.At the relevant time, she was aged about 13 years.PW/11 - Dr. Mrs. Sharmili, the Medical Officer noticed tenderness over valva (labia majora), hymen torned and can introduce one finger easily.In her report (Exh.50), the Medical Officer has opined that the prosecutrix can undergo sexual intercourse forcibly and it was being done.She also opined that on examination of private part, it shows coitus has been done.She also noticed signs of blunt injury over her back.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 11Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the Medical Report is not clear with respect to the time of sexual intercourse and there are inconsistencies in the report of the Medical Officer (Exh.50) and the testimony of the Medical Officer before the Court.We are unable to accept this submission.It is true that the answer to query No.3 in the report (Exh.50) is " "Yes", on examination of private part, it shows coitus has been done", and in her evidence, she gave answer::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 12 " "Yes", on examination of private part, there shows evidence of injuries on hymen".A perusal of both the said answers would reflect that these answers support the case of the prosecution.Evidently, on the next day of the incident, the prosecutrix was medically examined where tenderness over valva (labia majora) and tearing of hymen were seen.Evidently, she was 13 years of age at the relevant time.As per medical report (Exh.50), her secondary sexual characters were not very well developed and her menarche was not started.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 12Learned counsel for the accused also strenuously argued that there can be many other reasons for tearing of hymen.There is no dispute with regard to this proposition.However, considering the facts which are brought on record in this case, mainly the testimony of the prosecutrix coupled with the opinion of the Medical Officer, the reason for tearing of hymen of the prosecutrix and tenderness over valva, in our::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 13 considered view, was only due to the forcible sexual intercourse with the victim and we do not find any other reason.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 13Much has been argued by the learned counsel Shri Joshi with regard to the false involvement of the accused in this crime by Navnath, who is the political rival of the accused.The defence counsel during the cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses could not bring on record any material omission or contradiction to disbelieve the witnesses and the prosecution story.Though, the testimony of PW/1 - the::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 14 prosecutrix, PW/2 - Savita and PW/3 - Rajendra - the eye witnesses were recorded after 6-7 years of the incident, they supported the prosecution case and stood up firmly during the cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 14Learned counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance on the bunch of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the other High Courts.In the instant case, looking to the oral testimony of the prosecutrix coupled with the testimony of the eye-witnesses, expert witness and medical evidence, there is no semblance of doubt about the false implication of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 15With regard to the State's appeal for enhancement of sentence, at the relevant time of commission of the offence in this case, the minimum sentence of imprisonment was seven years, however, with special reasons, the Court was empowered to reduce the same.Considering the time gap from the date of offence till date i.e. 24 years, in our view, there is no point in enhancing the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 16::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 16For the foregoing reasons, we do not find merits in both appeals filed by the State as well as by the accused and accordingly, the same are dismissed.The bail bonds of the accused are cancelled.He be taken in custody forthwith to undergo remaining part of his sentence.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.The three appellants and four other persons, namely, Dr. Amrik Singh, Iqbal Singh, Gursewak Singh and Sarwan Singh were charge-sheeted for the commission of different offences under the Indian Penal Code in Sessions case No. 151/95 in respect of FIR No. 334/83 of Hauz Khas police station.Vide judgment dated 29-05-99 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi held appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh, both of whom are real brothers, guilty under Sections 302/323 IPC and appellant Piara Singh was also convicted Along with the third appellant Resham Singh under Section 120B r/w Section 218 IPC while the other two accused Amrik Singh and Sarwan Singh, who were tried under Section 120B r/w Section 218 IPC, were acquitted.Resham Singh was convicted under Section 218 r/w 120B IPC also.Accused Gursewak Singh and Iqbal Singh died during the trial and so the case against them abated.Vide order dated 02-06-1999 learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded life imprisonment to appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh for the offence of murder and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment they were ordered to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.All the three convicted accused preferred separate appeals against their convictions and they were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants and other accused persons have been noticed by the learned trial Court in para No. 1 of the impugned judgment and they are as under:A telephonic information was received at P.S. Hauz Khas from Const.Ramesh Chander, Duty Constable, Safdarjang Hospital on the night intervening 22/23rd April, 1983 regarding one Gurdhian Singh have been brought dead to the hospital by his son Tarlochan Singh.On the basis of this information, DD No. 26A was recorded which DD was handed over to SI Govind Ram who Along with Const.Lila Singh went to the hospital where Gurnam Singh met him and gave his statement.A case Under Section 302/34 IPC was registered on the basis of statement of Gurnam Singh.In his report, Gurnam Singh stated that he was a taxi driver at New Friends Taxi Stand, Ber Sarai, for one year.Disputes were going on between Gurdhian Singh and Piara Singh over the taxi stand and litigation was pending in the court regarding the same.On that day, there was a small quarrel , between Kashmira Singh who was brother of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh, with Gurdhian Singh at about 9.30 P.M. in which Kashmira Singh received simple injuries.After the quarrel, Kashmira Singh went to the house of his relation while Tarlochan Singh went to his house for dinner.Kewal Singh was having a lathi in his hand and he gave beatings to him and Iqbal Singh with the same upon which both of them ran from there and raised alarm.On hearing the noise, Gurdhian Singh tried to run away after leaving his cot.Meanwhile, Kewal Singh caught hold of Gurdhian Singh and Piara Singh took out the Kirpan with him and gave blows with the same on the chest and abdomen of Gurdhian Singh who fell down.It is further stated in the report that he and Iqbal Singh rushed to call Tarlochan Singh at the spot and thereafter they took Gurdhian Singh to Safdarjang Hospital in injured condition where doctors declared him dead.The complainant also stated that he had received injuries on his arm and leg on account of lathi blows given to him by Kewal Singh....It appears that during the investigation the investigating officer found that accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh had after committing the murder gone to village Dasuya in Hoshiarpur District of Punjab and there they managed to get prepared false documents/record showing that Piara Singh had been arrested on 22/04/83 at about 8.30 p.m. in Dasuya village by co-accused Gursewak Singh, who during those days was the SHO of Dasuya police station, for an offence under Section 34 of the Punjab Police Act for creating nuisance in public after consuming liquor.They also managed to get prepared an MLC of Civil Hospital at Dasuya from co-accused Dr. Amrik Singh, who was working there, showing that he had medically examined Piara Singh at 9.30 p.m. and he was found under the influence of liquor and then a false kalandra was also got prepared from co-accused Resham Singh, who was posted as Head Constable at Dasuya police station, and it was filed in Court on 26/4/83 when Piara Singh, as per the pre-planned conspiracy between all the seven accused, appeared in Court and pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 10/- vide judgment dated 26-04-1983(Ex.PW-23/M).After their arrest accused Piara Singh allegedly got recovered blood stained kirpan used by him in the incident of murder at Delhi from some place in Punjab and accused Kewal Singh also got recovered the lathi used by him in that incident.They were also awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months for their conviction under Section 323 IPC.Piara Singh and Resham Singh were further awarded two years rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under Section 120B r/w 218 IPC.Resham Singh was also awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 218 IPC.On completion of the investigation the police charge-sheeted seven accused persons under Sections 302/34/201/218/193/212/120B IPC.The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 120B IPC and Section 218 IPC read with Section 120B IPC against all the seven accused.The two appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh were also separately charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with 34 IPC also.To prove its case prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses.The accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations in toto and pleaded false implication.Piara Singh claimed that he had been falsely involved in this case by the son of the deceased as there was a dispute over the taxi stand with his brother Kewal Singh.He took a plea of alibi and claimed that at the time of the alleged murder of Gurdhian Singh he was not in Delhi and was in Dasuya where he was arrested by the police for creating nuisance under the influence of liquor for which he had pleaded guilty before the Court.Appellant Kewal Singh claimed that since there was a dispute between him and the deceased about the taxi stand he and his brother Piara Singh had been falsely involved in this case by the son of the deceased.Appellant Resham Singh claimed that Piara Singh was actually arrested on 22-04-1983 by SHO Gursewak Singh(the deceased accused) who had also prepared the rukka for the medical examination of Piara Singh.Resham Singh further pleaded that he had prepared the kalandra on the instructions of Gursewak Singh and that kalandra was filed in Court where Piara Singh had pleaded guilty and judgment was passed against him.The plea taken by accused Amrik Singh, who was finally acquitted, was that the deceased was having some police officers in Delhi Police and it appeared that they had implicated so many persons falsely in this case.Four witnesses in defense were examined by accused Piara Singh, Resham Singh and Sarwan Singh.The trial court after examining the evidence adduced during the trial rejected the plea of alibi taken by accused Piara Singh and convicted all the appellants for different offences noted already.The star prosecution witness is PW-7 Iqbal Singh who not only was the eye witness of the assault on the deceased Gurdhian Singh by the appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh but he himself was also beaten in the incident.He has deposed that in the year 1983 he was working at New Friends Taxi Stand, Ber Sarai and knew accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh.He further deposed that there was a quarrel between the deceased Gurdhian Singh and accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh about the taxi stand.On 22-04-83 at about 9.30 p.m. when he along with Kewal Singh, Piara Singh, Kashmira Singh, Gurnam Singh, Gurdhian Singh and Tarlochan Singh was present at the taxi stand there was a quarrel between Kashmira Singh and Gurdhian Singh and in that quarrel Kashmira Singh received minor injuries.Thereafter Kashmira Singh left the spot and went to the house of accused Kewal Singh whom Kashmira Singh used to call as his Mausa.At about 11.30 p.m. accused Kewal Singh and Piara Singh came to the taxi stand in a vehicle bearing No. PJQ-9474 and at that time accused Kewal Singh gave lathi blow to him(PW-7) and Gurnam Singh(PW-2) on which they raised noise and Gurdhian Singh started running from there but accused Kewal Singh apprehended Gurdhian Singh and accused Piara Singh inflicted five or six blows of kirpan on the chest of Gurdhian Singh as a result of which Gurdhian Singh fell on the ground.The deceased was lifted and taken to Safdarjang Hospital where after some time the doctor declared him dead.PW-7 further deposed that the police met him in the hospital and since he had also received injuries on his left arm he was got medically examined and also that the police had recorded his statement in Safdarjang Hospital.The other eye witness of the incident is PW-2 Gurnam Singh.He has deposed that some litigation was pending regarding the said taxi stand between Gurdhian Singh, the deceased, and accused Kewal Singh and Piara Singh.On 22-4-83 at about 10.30 p.m. he along with Gurdhian Singh were present at the taxi stand when Kashmira Singh came there and enquired about Kewal Singh and Piara Singh from Gurdhian Singh.Kashmira Singh was told by Gurdhian Singht that he was not on good terms with Kewal Singh and Piara Singh and then they started exchanging abuses with each other and also had a scuffle by grappling with each other.Gurdhian Singh picked up a lathi lying there and hit Kashmira Singh with that lathi and when he(PW-2) intervened he was pushed back by Kashmira Singh due to which he received injury on his arm.PW-2 further deposed that Gurdhian Singh was having a kirpan which he took out from its case and then he(PW-2) went to call Gurdhian Singh's son from his house.At the house of Gurdhian Singh his son Tarlochan Singh(PW-9) and Iqbal Singh(PW-7) were present and both of them accompanied him to the taxi stand where Gurdhian Singh was found smeared with blood.At that stage the public prosecutor had sought permission from the Court to cross-examine PW-2 since he had resoled from the version of the incident which he had given to the police.The public prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine this witness and then this witness admitted that his statement had been recorded by the police regarding this case.However, he denied having claimed before the police that accused Kewal Singh and Piara Singh had injured Gurdhian Singh in the incident.PW-2 also denied having informed the police that he himself was also given a lathi blow on his arm and leg by Kewal Singh and Piara Singh.The learned trial Court found the evidence of the eye witness Iqbal Singh reliable despite the fact that he admittedly was closely related to the deceased and as such an interested witness.The learned trial Court also did not give any importance to the fact that admittedly there was enmity between the deceased and appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh and also the fact that one independent witness PW-16 Gurdhian Singh, who was examined to establish extra judicial confession made by Piara Singh to him on 23-04-83, had also not supported the prosecution.Learned Judge also found the evidence regarding recovery of Kirpan at the instance of Piara Singh and lathi at the instance of Kewal Singh to be reliable.At the same time he also observed that still no finding of guilt could be recorded until the plea of alibi of accused Piara Singh was considered and found to be false.While coming to the conclusion that the statement of PW Iqbal Singh and other evidence could not be said to be unreliable, no finding of guilt can be recorded until the plea of alibi of accused Piara Singh is considered and found to be false.On the contrary, if it is held that the prosecution has not been able to displace the defense of alibi set forth by accused Piara Singh, the accused shall be entitled to acquittal and with that the prosecution case against accused Kewal Singh and other accused persons may also fail....After observing so the learned trial Court went on to consider the plea of alibi taken by accused Piara Singh and came to the conclusion that this defense of Piara Singh was absolutely false and concocted.The learned prosecutor while arguing before us did not disagree with the view of the learned trial Judge that if the plea of alibi taken by the accused Piara Singh is accepted then the prosecution case not only against Piara Singh but against all the accused would fail.However, the learned prosecutor had submitted that the conclusion of the trial Court regarding the plea of alibi to be false and concocted was absolutely correct.It was contended that in view of the wholly reliable testimony of PW-7 Iqbal Singh, the eye witness of the incident, an evidence about recoveries of the weapons of offence at he instance of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh the plea of alibi taken by Piara Singh was rightly rejected by the trial Court.The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, was that evidence of the eye witness Iqbal Singh and that of other witnesses regarding the recovery of kirpan and lathi was totally unreliable and as far as the plea of alibi of Piara Singh is concerned, from the prosecution evidence itself it stands established that this plea of Piara Singh was correct and that the learned trial Court has rejected the plea of alibi on totally unsustainable grounds.We have considered the evidence and also the rival submissions made at the Bar by the counsel for the parties.That fact is established from the post-mortem report also about which no dispute was raised before us.According to PW-7 Iqbal Singh on 22/4/83 at about 9.30 p.m. accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh were present at their taxi stand at Ber Sarai, New Delhi and same day at about 11.30 p.m. Kewal Singh had first hit him and Gurnam Singh(PW-2) with a lathi and then Kewal Singh had caught hold of Gurdhian Singh and Piara Singh had assaulted Gurdhian Singh with a kirpan.We, however, do not find the evidence of PW-7 to be reliable at all.As far as the first informant is concerned he has not supported the prosecution.The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant was that the statement of Gurnam Singh, the author of the FIR of this case, containing the names of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh as the assailants and which statement has been treated as FIR by the police can be said to have been recorded later on and was ante-timed and since it was a false version of the incident Gurnam Singh finally did not stick to that version in Court when he gave his statement on oath.We find force in this argument.PW-7 has claimed that after the incident he had gone to the house of the deceased to call his son Tarlochan Singh(PW-9).Although PW-9 Tarlochan Singh in his testimony claimed that Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh(PW-2) had come to his house at about 11.35 p.m. and had informed him that his father had been stabbed with kirpans but he did not claim that Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh had told him that his father had been stabbed by Piara Singh and Kewal Singh.If actually PW-7 had witnessed the incident, as claimed by him, he would have told to the son of the deceased about the assailants also and the names of the assailants would also have been disclosed to the doctor who examined the deceased after the incident.However, a perusal of the MLC Ex. PW-14/A shows that even though Tarlochan Singh, the son of the deceased, had brought Gurdhian Singh to the hospital and had informed the doctor that there was an assault on his father but names of the assailants were not disclosed at that time.A perusal of the inquest report Ex. PW 23/F prepared on 23-04-83 also shows that the names of the assailants were not mentioned there also by the investigating officer.Similarly, in the brief facts Ex. PW-23/G prepared by the investigating officer on 23-04-83 the names of the assailants were not mentioned.The absence of the names of the assailants in these papers prepared by the investigating officer on 23-04-83 casts a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the account of the incident given by PW-7 Iqbal Singh.For this view we find support from a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2000(II) Apex Decisions (SC) 103, "Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P." wherein it was held that in the inquest papers at least the names of the assailants who are known by that time are expected to be mentioned by the investigating officer and if that is not done it can be presumed that by that time the assailants were not known.The contention that inquest report need not contain the names of the assailants, as has been raised in the present case also on behalf of the State, was also taken before the Supreme Court in the said case but was rejected.The afore said infirmities in the evidence of PW-7 Iqbal Singh coupled with the fact that there was enmity between the two sides make his evidence highly doubtful and unreliable.Learned prosecutor had also contended that the prosecution was not relying upon merely on the statement of PW-7 but there is evidence adduced to show that after his arrest accused Piara Singh had got recovered blood stained kirpan which was used by him in the incident and when that weapon was examined by the autopsy surgeon Dr. Chandrakant he had given his opinion Ex. PW-32/C to the effect that the injuries noticed by him on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination were likely to be caused by the said kirpan.Learned prosecutor had also submitted that accused Kewal Singh had also got recovered one lathi Ex. PX-I which he had used in the incident for causing injury to the eye witnesses Gurnam Singh and Iqbal Singh.As far as the recovery of lathi is concerned PW-7 Iqbal Singh had stated in cross-examination that accused Kewal Singh had thrown the lathi at the spot itself when they raised the alarm.However, PW-22 Ct.Leela Singh has claimed that accused Kewal Singh had got recovered the lathi from some place near the Deer Park on Africa Road.Another witness of this recovery is PW-27 Paramjit Singh, who in his cross-examination admitted that he was related to the deceased, has deposed that Kewal Singh had got recovered the lathi drom a place near ITI Hostel near R.K.Puram.If the accused Kewal Singh had left the lathi at the spot itself after the incident the same could not have been recovered from any other place.In view of these contradictory statements of the three prosecution witnesses the recovery of the lathi at the instance of Kewal Singh becomes doubtful and in any case PW-7 Iqbal Singh was not even shown the recovered lathi during his evidence to find out from him if it was the same lathi which had been used by Kewal Singh as had been claimed by him in his examination-in-chief.So, the evidence of recovery of the lathi, even if it were to be accepted, is of no help to the prosecution.Similarly, the evidence of recovery of kirpan at the instance of appellant Piara Singh is also of doubtful nature.PW-22 Ct.Leela Singh is a witness to the disclosure statement of accused Piara Singh pursuant to which he had allegedly got recovered one kirpan.Thus, according to this prosecution witness himself Piara Singh did not make any statement voluntarily.The investigating officer, who has not been examined as a witness because he died, appears to have threatened Piara Singh and then obtained a confessional statement from him.PW-22, however, does not claim that Piara Singh had after making the disclosure statement got recovered a kirpan.The prosecution has examined one Mahender Singh(PW-11), a resident of Punjab in village Jaswa, to prove the recovery of kirpan at the instance of Piara Singh.Although this witness had deposed that on 07-05-83 when he was present at village Roopowar at about 5 p.m. and was coming on his truck from the side of Tanda and going towards Gar Di Wala the police stopped him.At that time accused Piara Singh was present with the police officials and he led the police party in a jungle from where he took out a kirpan which was then sealed by the police.The learned trial Court entertained doubt about the truthfulness of the evidence of this witness on the ground that he was not truthful about his actual relationship with the family of the deceased.In his chief-examination he had not disclosed that he knew the family of the deceased and it was only in cross-examination that he knew the deceased Gurdhian Singh.It cannot be a coincidence that a person known to the deceased only could be spotted by the police on road side to be associated as a witness for the recovery of the kirpan.It appears that the investigating officer chose to associate only those persons as witnesses who were either related to the deceased or otherwise were known to him.So we also are not inclined to rely upon the evidence of PW-11 Mahender Singh.The learned trial Court also observed that the recovery of kirpan was established from the evidence of the police official PW-21 SI Ran Singh.There is no doubt that this witness has deposed about the recovery of kirpan at the instance of Piara Singh.However, we feel that since the investigating officer intentionally had been associating interested witnesses only at different stages we cannot place any reliance on the evidence of his subordinate police official.We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution evidence, as discussed above was not reliable and sufficient enough to convict the accused persons.Now we come to the plea of alibi taken by accused Piara Singh and the charge under Section 218 IPC framed against the accused persons.It is now well settled that plea of alibi is to be established by the accused who takes it.Learned prosecutor did not dispute this proposition.In the present case the plea of alibi had been taken not only during the cross-examination of the eye witness Iqbal Singh but also at the time of recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused had sought to establish the same from the evidence of prosecution witnesses from Dasuya police station to show that Piara Singh was not arrested by them on 22/4/83 as well from the documents placed on record by the prosecution.We shall now consider if the accused had been able to succeed in their plea or not and whether the learned trial Judge was right in rejecting their plea of alibi.The investigating agency in order to verify the fact about the arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya village his medical examination at Civil Hospital on the night on 22/04/83 and his conviction on 26/04/83 by a Magistrate's Court at Dasuya had during the investigation collected certain documents which actually showed that Piara Singh was arrested at Dasuya on 22/4/83 around 8.30 p.m. and at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day he was medically examined also by the acquitted accused Dr. Amrik Singh at the civil hospital in Dasuya and those documents had been submitted Along with the challan filed in the present case.The prosecution has placed on record a copy of the judgment (Ex.PW-23/M) passed by the Court of Shri S.C.Marwah, JMIC, Dasuya in kalandara case No. 126/1 of 1983 whereby Piara Singh s/o Gulzara Singh, the appellant in criminal appeal No. 330/1999, was convicted under Section 34 of the Punjab Police Act on the allegations made in the kalandra(Ex.PW-23/H) that he was arrested for creating nuisance under the influence of liquor at a public place.It was contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the conviction of Piara Singh as recorded by the Magistrate at Dasuya should not be given any importance since it had been obtained by playing a fraud on the Court and the Court did not go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against Piara Singh in the kalandra, which according to the prosecution case was a false document prepared by accused Head Constable Resham Singh of Punjab Police, and had convicted appellant Piara Singh simply on the basis of his pleading guilty which also he did as was the plan of all the accused persons.The prosecution claims that the averments made in the kalandra Ex.PW-23/H to the effect that Piara Singh was apprehended on 22-4-83 around 8.30 p.m. under Section 34 of the Punjab Police Act were false and this document was prepared by appellant Resham Singh only in order to help appellant Piara Singh in creating a plea of alibi to be used in the event of his getting implicated in the case of murder of Gurdhian Singh.That judgment does help the accused in his plea of alibi.Not only that, there are other reasons also for us to accept the plea of alibi taken by the accused that Piara Singh was first arrested around 8.30 p.m. on 22/4/83 at Dasuya and then he was medically examined also at about 9.30 p.m. at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya by Dr. Amrik Singh.As noticed already, that Dr. Amrik Singh who was charged for preparing a false MLC Ex. PW-28/A showing that he had medically examined Piara Singh on 22-04-83 at about 9.30 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Dasuya has been acquitted.The acquittal of that accused Dr. Amrik Singh shows that the prosecution has not been able to establish that Dr. Amrik Singh had prepared a false MLC(Ex. PW-28/A) and if that be so, it has to be held that the MLC Ex. PW-28/A was a genuine document.It was this very document which was sought to be shown as a forged document by the prosecution and it has failed to do that.PW-28 Dr. Ramgopal Singh, who was also working in the Civil Hospital, Dasuya has proved the aforesaid MLC, which is an attested copy of the original and this witness claims to have attested the copy of the MLC after comparing it with the original.He has also claimed that this MLC was signed by Dr. Basra.Since accused Resham Singh was claiming that Piara Singh had, in fact, been medically examined and this MLC was prepared at the time of his medical examination and the prosecution which was claiming the same to be a forged document, has failed to show that this was a forged MLC it has to be held that Piara Singh was actually medically examined by Dr. Amrik Singh at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya on 22-04-83 at 9.30 p.m. In these circumstances the statement of PW-7 Iqbal Singh to the effect that on 22-04-83 at 11.30 p.m. appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh were present at the taxi stand of Ber Sarai where according to him Gurdhian Singh was murdered becomes unacceptable.There is another reason also for us to accept the plea of alibi taken by the accused Piara Singh and the supporting pleas taken by his co-accused persons and to doubt the prosecution case regarding the involvement of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh in the incident of murder as was sought to be established through the testimony of PW-7 Iqbal Singh.In order to substantiate the allegation that on 22-4-83 Piara Singh was not arrested by the Punjab Police as had been claimed in the aforesaid kalandara by the appellant Resham Singh and he had also not been medically examined around 9.30 p.m. on 22-04-83 by the acquitted accused Dr. Amrik Singh at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya the prosecution had examined PW-31 HC Gurdev Chand, who on 22-04-83 was posted as a constable at Dasuya police station.He was examined to show that he had not got Piara Singh medically examined on 22-04-83 and that somebody had forged his signature on the MLC Ex.PW-28/A which showed that he had taken Piara Singh for medical examination.This witness, however, claimed that on 22-04-83 he was posted as a driver constable at Dasuya police station and on that day he had taken one person for medical examination and that MLC Ex.PW-23/Q bore his signature at point 'B'.This MLC, as noticed already, was according to the prosecution case a forged document but the learned trial Court has not accepted the same and has acquitted the accused who had allegedly prepared this false MLC.Since this witness did not support the prosecution he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor.In that cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the signature at point 'B' on Ex. PW-23/Q was not his.When he was cross-examined on behalf of the accused Resham Singh he categorically accepted the suggestion that the SHO had directed him to take Piara Singh to hospital for medical examination.This witness also admitted that on 22-04-83 at about 8/8.15 p.m. one person had come to the police station and had informed the SHO that some incident had taken place at the bus stand and then he(PW-31) along with the SHO went to the bus stand where they found accused Piara Singh creating nuisance.He further claimed that the SHO had tried to pacify Piara Singh but Piara Singh started abusing on which the SHO wrote an application and directed him to take Piara Singh to the hospital for medical examination which he did.This witness was not further cross-examined by the public prosecutor after he had made this statement in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused regarding Piara Singh having been found creating nuisance and his having taken Piara Singh to the hospital for medical examination.Therefore, the statement of this prosecution witness went unchallenged and stood admitted by the prosecution.Thus, the evidence of this prosecution witness himself who was examined to establish that he had not got Piara Singh medically examined on 22-04-83 on the contrary has substantiated the plea of alibi taken by appellant Piara Singh.The learned trial Court although referred to the statement of PW-31 HC Gurdev Chand while narrating the evidence of various prosecution witnesses but did not accept the same on the ground that he had not recorded any entry in the DD register while leaving the police station for getting medical examination of Piara Singh done nor even arrival entry was made by him on his return to the police station from the hospital.In our view this reasoning of the learned trial Judge is not sound enough to be sustained.As observed already, PW-31 was not cross-examined by the public prosecutor after he had stated in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that he had taken Piara Singh to hospital for medical examination after he had been arrested by the SHO at a bus stand for creating nuisance.Even when earlier this witness was cross-examined by the public prosecutor it was not suggested to him that his statement that he had taken one person for medical examination on 22-04-83 was false statement.This witness had denied the suggestion that on the MLC Ex. PW-23/Q(another copy of this MLC was marked as Ex. PW-28/A also) the signature at point 'B' purporting to be his signature were not his.The prosecution has not made any attempt to show that on the MLC of Piara Singh prepared at Dasuya hospital PW-31 had not put his signature in token of his having received the same after medical examination of Piara Singh.When the concerned person claims that the MLC was having his signature at point 'B' there is no reason to reject his statement and to hold that somebody had forged his signature.Another reason given by the learned trial Judge for disbelieving the statement of PW-31 is that PW-30 constable Surender Nath has not claimed that he had accompanied Gurdev Chand for the medical examination of anybody on 22-04-83 as claimed by Gurdev Chand.There is no doubt that PW-31 had claimed that constable Surender Nath had also accompanied him when he had taken Piara Singh for medical examination and PW-30 constable Surender Nath does not claim so but in our view that also cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of PW-31 which has remained unchallenged on behalf of the prosecution.Another reason given by the learned trial Court for disbelieving the plea of arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya on 22-04-83 is PW-30 Ct.Surender Nath, who was posted as a constable at Dasuya police station on 22-04-83, has deposed that on 22-04-83 he along with HC Resham Singh and another constable had left the police station for patrol and their duty was from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight.He further deposed that in his presence HC Resham Singh has not arrested any person that day between 4 p.m. to 12 midnight.Accused Resham Singh has not claimed that he had arrested Piara Singh.As noticed already, his stand was that SHO Gursewak Singh(the deceased accused) had arrested Piara Singh and he himself had simply prepared the kalandara as instructed by Gursewak Singh.Therefore, PW-30 claiming that Resham Singh had not arrested anyone on 22-04-83 does not in any way demolish the plea of alibi taken by Piara Singh.The afore said finding of the learned trial Court based on this statement of PW-30 appears to have been arrived at by the learned trial Judge without taking into consideration the plea taken by accused Resham Singh.Yet another reason given by the learned trial Court for not accepting the arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya is that the DD register containing entry No. 13 showing the arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya had been tampered with by tearing of some of the pages of that register including the one which contained the genuine entry No. 13 and replacing those pages with other pages after making an entry No. 13 showing the arrest of Piara Singh.In this regard trial court has also placed reliance on the CFSL report which says that some pages in the DD register of the month of April,1983 including the one containing the entry of arrest of Piara Singh were different from other pages and appeared to have been inserted after tearing original pages.The learned trial Court, however, has not returned any finding as to who had changed the pages of the DD register and the prosecution has also not led any evidence to show as to who was the custodian of that register.For the fore-going conclusions arrived at by us, all these three appeals deserve to be allowed and the three appellants have become entitled to be acquitted.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgmentand order dated 23.2.2005 of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), by whichthe appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and their convictionunder Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of 7 years RIimposed thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, was affirmed.The appellant no. 2, Kadubai is the motherof the appellant no. 1 and both the appellants were residing in the samehouse in village Palshi.According to the case of prosecution, a sum of Rs.5000 and some gold ornaments had been given at the time of marriage ofBhimabai.For about six months Bhimabai was treated well but thereafter theaccused started asking her to bring Rs. 1,000-1,200 from her parents tomeet the household expenses and also for purchasing manure.WheneverBhimabai went to her parental home, she used to tell her parents that herhusband and mother-in-law (accused appellants) were harassing her and usedto occasionally beat her.Her father PW.1 Tukaram along with some of hisrelatives went to the house of the accused and tried to persuade them notto ill-treat Bhimabai.Thereafter, the accused treated Bhimabai properlybut after about four months they again started harassing her.A few daysbefore Nag Panchami festival Bhimabai came to her parental home andcomplained that the accused were not giving her proper food, clothings andeven footwear.She also told her parents that her husband had asked her tobring an amount of Rs.1,000-1,200 for the purpose of household expenses andmanure.The case of the prosecution futher is that in the evening of15.9.1991 a person came from village Palshi on a motorcycle and informedPW.1 Tukaram that Bhimabai was unwell.PW.1 then immediately went to thehouse of the accused along with some of his relatives.There he saw thatBhimabai was lying dead and froth was coming out of her mouth whichindicated that she had consumed some poisonous substance.The Police Patilof the village PW.3 Sandu Mohanrao Patil lodged an accidental death reportat 9.00 p.m. on 15.9.1991 at the police station.On the basis of the saidaccidental death report, PW.6 Sandeepan Kamble, Police Sub-Inspector,visited the house of the accused, held inquest on the dead body ofBhimabai, and thereafter sent the same for post-mortem examination.The last time Bhimabai visited her parentalhome was on the occasion of the festival of Nag Panchami and she hadcomplained that she was being ill-treated and was sometimes given beatingfor bringing money from her parents.She has specifically stated that for aperiod of six months after the marriage, Bhimabai was treated well andthereafter she had started complaining about the harassment being caused toher.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not makedetailed enquiries as to what was the cause of death and where the incidenthad taken place.He has further deposed that Bhimabai had come to his houseabout six months earlier and had said all was not well between her and herhusband, but she had not given any specific details.The main witnesses regarding the alleged demand of money and alsoharassment and beating to Bhimabai are her father and mother, viz., PW.1Tukaram and PW.5 Sumanbai.In his examination-in-chief PW.1 has said thatwhenever his daughter came to her parental home, she used to complain thatshe was being subjected to harassment by the appellants on account of some"domestic reasons" and further that her husband (appellant no.1) had toldher that while coming back from her parental home she should bring Rs.1,000-1,200 for expenses and for manure as he had no sufficient money.JUDGMENTG.P. MATHUR, J. :PW.1Tukaram lodged the FIR of the incident at 7.00 p.m. on 16.9.1991 at P.S.Chikalthana, on the basis of which Case Crime No. 144 of 1991 wasregistered against the appellants under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted againstthe appellants and in due course, the case was committed to the Court ofSessions.The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 498-A,304-B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 306 read with Section 34 IPCagainst both the appellants.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimedto be tried.The prosecution in order to establish its case examined sixwintesses and filed some documentary evidence.The post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Bhimabai wasconducted by a team of two doctors of Department of Forensic Medicine andToxicology, Medical College, Aurangabad, namely, Dr. S.M. Jawale and Dr.The doctors did not find any sign of external orinternal injury on the body of the deceased and in their opinion, the causeof death was insecticide poisoning.The viscera was preserved for chemicalanalysis.The report of the post-mortem examination was admitted by thedefence.The specific case of the prosecution is that Bhimabai ended her life byconsuming poison because of harassment caused to her by the appellants foror in connection with demand of dowry.It is, therefore, necessary tobriefly examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.PW. 1 Tukaram,father of the deceased, has given details of the prosecution version of theincident in his statement in Court.He has deposed that in the marriage hehad given Rs. 20,000 as dowry.Initially, Bhimabai was treated well forabout six months, but thereafter the appellants started ill-treating her.Whenever Bhimabai came to her parental home, she used to complain that forsome domestic reasons she was being harassed.When she had visited herparental home on the last occasion, she had said that her husband Appasahebhad asked her to bring Rs. 1,000-1,200 for domestic expenses and forpurchasing manure as he had no sufficient money.Bhimabai had complained tohim that she was not being given proper food, clothings and even footwearand occasionally the appellant no. 1 used to beat her.The last time shevisited her parental home was during the festival of Nag Panchami and atthat time she looked depressed.The witness has further deposed that on thedate of incident, a man came from village Palshi on motorcycle and informedthat he should immediately go there as Bhimabai was not well.He then wentto village Palshi along with other persons of his family where he reachedafter sun set.He saw that Bhimabai was lying dead and froth was coming outof her mouth which was smelling of Thimet (insecticide).He has also deposed that it was after about 1-1/2 years ofmarriage that Bhimabai first complained to him about the harassment beingcaused to her.There used to be some bickering in the marital life ofBhimabai and her husband on trifling matters.He has admitted that it wasappellant no. 1 who had sent a person on motorcycle who had giveninformation regarding Bhimabai being unwell and that both the appellantswere present at the time of her funeral.PW.2 Babaji is real brother offather-in-law of PW.1 Tukaram.He has deposed that on an earlier occasionhe had gone along with PW.1 and some others to the house of appellant no.1to persuade him not to harass Bhimabai and to treat her well.In his cross-examination he has admitted that when he had gone to village Palshi to talkwith the appellants regarding the ill-treatment being meted out toBhimabai, there was no talk regarding monetary giving and taking.He alsoadmitted that he had not gone to attend that funeral of Bhimabai.PW.5Sumanbai is the mother of the deceased Bhimabai.She has stated in herexamination-in-chief that Bhimabai was being ill-treated by the appellantsand the reason for ill-treatment was that they were demanding money to bebrought from her parental home.In her cross-examination, PW.5 Sumanbai has stated that after newsabout the condition of Bhimabai was given by a man from village Palshi, shealong with her husband and some other relations went there and noticed thatBhimabai was lying dead in the house and froth was coming out of her mouth.She has further stated that she did not make any enquiry as to how Bhimabaihad died.In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recordedvery next day of the incident i.e. on 16.9.1991 she did not state thatcause of ill-treatment was "a demand for money and a consequent beating".When confronted with her aforesaid statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., shereplied that she did not know why there was no mention in the saidstatement that the cause for ill-treatment was "a demand for money and aconsequent beating".She further stated that it will be correct to say thather daughter was receiving ill-treatment as a result of "domestice cause".The learned trial Judge then sought clarification from the witnessses byputting the following question."Que:- What do you mean by "domestic cause"?Ans.:- What I meant was that there was demand for money fordefraying expenses of manure etc. and that was the cause."In the very next paragraph she stated as under :-"It is not true to suggest that in my statement before the police I never said that ill-treatment was as a result of demand for money from us and its fulfillment.I cannot assign any reason why police did not write about it in my statement."3 Sandu, Police Patil of village Palshi has deposed that at about4.20 p.m. on 15.9.1991, Narayan who is uncle of appellant no.1, Appasaheb,informed him that the wife of Appasaheb had expired.He then went to thehouse of the appellant and saw Bhimabai lying with froth coming out of hermouth.Thereafter, he gave a report about the incident in writing at thepolice station.PW.5Sumanbai has deposed that Bhimabai was receiving ill-treatment as a resultof "domestic cause" and to a specific question put by the Court as to whatshe meant by "domestic cause" she gave a reply that there was a demand formoney for defraying expenses of manure etc. It is important to note that inher statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on the very nextday of the death of Bhimabai, this witness did not state that the cause forill-treatment was "a demand for money and a consequent beating".Theevidence on record does not indicate that the police had any reason tofavour the accused and deliberately omitted to mention about the allegeddemand of money while recording the statement of PW.5 Sumanbai underSection 161 Cr.P.C. The evidence shows that the accused come from veryhumble background and they could not have exerted any kind of influence,financial or otherwise, upon the police so as to manage a statementfavourable to them when in the course of investigation the statements ofwitnesses were being recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Accepting thestatements of father and mother on their face value that utmost which canbe held is that the appellant no.1 had asked his wife Bhimabai to bringmoney for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure.Asalready stated, the appellants were also charged under Sections 498-A and306 read with Section 34 IPC but were acquitted of the said charges by thelearned Sessions Judge, which order has attained finality for the reasonthat the State did not prefer appeal agains the same.The appeal before theHigh Court and also in this Court has been preferred by the appellantschallenging their coviction under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC.It has been held in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thadi Narayan, AIR (1962) SC240 that Section 423(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (whichcorresponds to Section 386(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) isclearly confined to cases of appeals preferred against orders of convictionand sentence, the powers conferred by this clause cannot be exercised forthe purpose of reversing an order of acquittal passed in favour of a partyin respect of an offence charged, in dealing with an appeal preferred byhim against the order of conviction in respect of another offence chargedand found proved.

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard finally.This is the first bail application on behalf of the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants are in custody since 21.06.2014 in connection with Crime No.577/2014 registered at Police Station Kolgowan, District Satna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 376- G and 506 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that initially a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC on the basis of FIR, however, thereafter after recording the statement of married major prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., section 376- G of IPC is added.The applicants are in custody and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, without commenting upon the merits M.Cr.C.No.10776 of 2014 2 of the case, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Jaswant Balmik and applicant No.2 Chhotu Basor be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 / - (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court /trial Court securing their presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ/-

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

07.8.13 Item No. 93 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 93And In the matter of: Sk. Mujibor Ali @ Sk. Dilkush Ali & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal & Ors.Opposite Parties Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Kamal Kanta Kar For the Petitioners Mr. Sandip Kundu For the State Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Atis Biswas Mr. Suman Chakraborty For the de facto complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Arambag Police Station Case No. 476 dated 17.7.2013 under Sections 498A/323/325/406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioners are all relatives of the husband of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.ALLOWED Hence in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties each, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with the further condition that the Petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 will meet the concerned Police Station once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

PARIPOORNAN, J.:The appellants in this appeal, Prem Kumar Singh (a),Prem Singh S/o Mundrika Singh and Ramesh Singh S/o ChandrikaSingh are Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 219 of1983, Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau.The abovetwo accused, along with one Mundrika Singh, Accused No. 6,father of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and eight others werecharge-sheeted to stand Sessions Trial for the murder of oneTarkeshwar Prasad Singh on 13.1.1983 at 6.30 p.m. at a placeknown as Ketat.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged for of-Thedefence plea was that the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhin the bus, belonging to Santosh Transport Company, mighthave been caused at the hands of some unknown dacoits andthe accused persons have been falsely implicated by theinformant because of long drawn enmity between the parties.The plea of alibi was also put forward by Accused No. 6Mundrika Singh, Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, Accused No. 10Raja Dixit and Accused No. 7 Muni Dixit.On an analysis ofthe entire evidence in the case, the Additional SessionsJudge, Palamau, by judgment dated 9.6.1987, held that oninstigation given by Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh to killTarkeshwar Prasad Singh, the deceased, Accused No. 1 PremSingh and Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh intentionally causedthe death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh by firing at him withtheir rifles in consequence of which Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhdied instantaneously on the spot.TheSessions Judge came to the conclusion that there isabsolutely no evidence of any other attack by the remainingaccused persons (other than Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6).Theoffence under section 27 of the Arms Act was also not provedagainst such persons.In the result Accused No. 6 MundrikaSingh was found guilty under section 302 read with section34 IPC and convicted thereunder.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 werefound guilty for offence under section 302 IPC for causingthe murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and they wereconvicted thereunder.They were also found guilty foroffence under section 307 IPC for attempting to commit themurder of PW 5 and 6 and were accordingly convicted.Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh and oneChandrika Singh are brothers.Accused No. 1 Prem Singh isthe son of Mundrika Singh.Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh isthe son of Chandrika Singh.It is alleged that one Rajan,brother of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and Bishwanath, brotherof Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh, were murdered by TarkeshwarPrasad Singh.The case was stillpending when the incident relevant to the instant casehappened on 13.1.1983 at about 6.30 p.m. at Ketat.It isfairly clear from the evidence in the case, that enmityexists between the members of the appellants' family andthose of the deceased family.The prosecution alleged thaton 13.1.1983 after attending the hearing of the murder caseof Rajan and Bishwanath at Daltonganj, Tarkeshwar PrasadSingh accompanied by Bashishth Narain Singh, PW 8, as alsoSheo Pratap Singh and Ramadhar Pathak, boarded the busbearing Registration No. BRO 3555 of Santosh TransportCompany, for returning to Rehla at 5.30 p.m., and the busstopped for a while at the stop of Ketat, when car bearingRegistration No. WMB 5989 came from behind and stopped infront of the bus.The time was about 6.30 p.m. Then AccusedNos. 2 and 6 and their colleagues Satyender Singh, MunniDixit got down from the car.Accused No. 6 was empty handedbut the remaining persons were armed with rifles.In themeanwhile Jeep bearing Registration No. BRO 2770, which alsoarrived from the side of Daltonganj, stopped in front of thebus.From that Jeep, Accused No. 1, armed with a rifle, andhis colleagues Rajeshwar Singh, Bishwanath Singh, ParsuramDixit, Basistha Dixit, Fakira Dixit and Chandardhan Singhand two other unknown persons, all armed with guns alike,alighted.The accused and other co-culprits startedproclaiming that as Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was inside thebus, he should be cut into pieces.On hearing this, thepassengers of the bus were struck with terror and startedfleeing away.Passengers were in the process of gettingdown from front and rear entrances.At that time AccusedNos.1 and 2 came inside the bus from the front entrance.PW 8 Dudhnath Singh, in order to hide his identity, hadwrapped his face with the chadar and rushed towards the backdoor of the bus, when he saw Accused Nos. 1 and 2 firingindiscriminately at Tarkeshwar126Prasad Singh.In that firing Ram Raj Pandey - PW 5, aforest guard, and Ghanshyam Languri - PW 6, a police offi-cial, also received injuries.PW 8 Dudhnath Singh had bythat time managed to get down from the bus like many otherpassengers and he concealed himself nearby in thick bushes.On knowing that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh had died, theaccused and others raised victory slogans and fled towardsDaltonganj in their car and jeep.On hearing the news, SubInspector Sachchidanand Deo, PW 14, entered the informationas Entry No. 195 (Ex. 4) at 7.00 p.m. in Rehla PoliceStation and rushed to the place of occurrence, arrivingthere at 7.15 p.m. On seeing the police PW 8 Dudhnath Singhcame out of the hiding and made a statement (Ex. 5) whichwas sent to the Police Station, Bishrampur and on this basisthe case was registered vide FIR (Ex. 7) at 9.00 p.m. PW 5and 6 were transported to Daltonganj hospital.Though thesearch was made for the culprits they were not found.TheSub Inspector retained to the spot at about 1.30 a.m. andprepared the inquest report with respect to the dead body ofTarkeshwar Prasad Singh.PW 1 Bashishth Narain Singhand Bipin Bihari Singh attested the documents prepared atthe spot.The dead body of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh wassubjected to postmortem examination by Dr. R.K.P. Pandey (PW4).No doubt he had developedweakness in the eyes two months prior to the date ofexamination, but he had clear vision and his eyes werealright at the time of the occurrence.He admitted that hehad given statement before the police that Ramesh Singh andPrem Singh started firing at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh afterentering into the bus.He heard the noise of firing when hewas fleeing from the bus and also heard the shout ofTarkeshwar Prasad Singh to save him.PW 2 Ran Vijay PratapDeo, deposed that he boarded Santosh Bus in the evening tocome back to Rehla along with PW 1, PW 8 and TarkeshwarPrasad Singh and when the bus halted near Ketat village todrop some passengers, a fiat car came from Daltonganjdirection and stopped before the bus.Accused Ramesh Singhand others with rifles in the hands, and Mundrika Singh gotdown.Mundrika Singh's hands were empty.A jeep also camefrom behind and Prem Singh and others got down from the jeepwith the rifles.The jeep and the car surrounded the busand thereafter, he heard the noise of firing from the busgate.Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh were standing near thefront gate of the bus with rifle.The moment he came out ofthe bus, he heard the noise of firing andsimultaneously theshout of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.fence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC for causingthe murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.They were alsocharged for offence under section 307/34 IPC for attemptingto cause murder of Ghanshyam Languri and Rajnath Tewari, twoco-passengers, who boarded the bus along with TarkeshwarPrasad Singh.The remaining nine accused persons werecharged for offences under section 302/ 149 IPC.6 Mundrika Singh was charged for offence, under section147 IPC also, whereas the ten other accused persons werefurther charged for offence under section 148 IPC read withsection 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons pleadednot guilty for each of the charges framed against them.Exceptaccused Nos. 1 and 2 and 6, the other accused were notfound guilty for any of the charges framed against them andthey were acquitted and discharged from the liability oftheir respective bail bonds.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 weresentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC.Accused No. 6 was also sentenced to imprisonment for lifeunder section 302 read with section 34 IPC.Accused Nos. 1and 2 were further sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years for their conviction under sec-tion 307 IPC.It was further held that both the sentencespassed against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall runconcurrently.Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 filed Criminal AppealNo. 90 of 1987 before the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench,Ranchi.A Division Bench of the High Court, after a verydetailed discussion of the entire evidence, by Judgmentdated 8.9.1989, acquitted accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh andcon-firmed the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section302 of the Indian Penal Code.The conviction of AccusedNos.1 and 2 under section 307 IPC was set aside.The HighCourt observed that the case of Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singhis not free from doubt and the case against him appears tobe similar to the other co-accused, who were acquitted bythe Sessions Judges.In this view, the conviction ofAccused No. 6 Mundrika Singh, appellant No. 3 before theHigh Court, was set aside and be was acquitted of thecharge.But as regards Accused Nos. 1 and 2 the High Courtcame to the conclusion that though their conviction andsentence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code areliable to be set aside, their conviction and sentence undersection 302 IPC were justified.We heard Sri Rajender Singh, learned senior counsel forthe appellants and Sri H.L. Agrawal, learned senior counselfor the respondent.Statements of driver, conductor and other witnesseswere recorded- The accused surrendered in court and werearrested later and chargesheeted.One of the accusedChandardhan Singh was subsequently murdered on 23.6.1983.Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were sentenced and other accusedwere acquitted by Sessions Judge.The postmortem examination of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhwas conducted by PW 4 on 14.1.1983 at 10.50 a.m. atSubdivisional Hospital, Daltonganj.The record relatingthereto discloses the following injuries : -Six oval lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4" to 1/2"in diameter on the middle and left side of the front of the chest;One oval lacerated wound with inverted margins of the size 3/4" in diameter on the upper part of the left side of abdomen with two metal pieces embodied in the wound;Three circular lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4" to 1/2" in diameter on the right shoulder with blackening of the skin around the wound.Fractures of the body of the external bones of third, fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and cartilages on the right side, as well as the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and on the left side were noticed.The third and the fourth thorazix vertebra, the right of devicles, right scapula, and the upper part of the numerous on the right side were also found fractured.Injury Nos. 1 and 3 referred to above were wounds of entry, while injury No. 2 was the wound of exit.All the above injuries were caused by fire arms.Death of Tarkeshwar Singh had been caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of above noted injuries.The time elapsed since death was with 12 to 18 hours of the postmortem examination.All the injuries individually were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Ext. 3 is the postmortem examination.The medical examination of PW 5 Ram Raj Pandey on 13.1.1983conducted by Dr. K. Singh disclosed the following:Lacerated wound on left side of neck 1" x 1/2" surrounded by charring of skin.The X-ray plate dated 14.1.1983 showed a big oblique subset with small radio opaque particle.It was a skin (deep) injury caused by afire arm, may be a rifle.Age of the injury was within 24 hours.Ex. 2 is medico legal certificate.Dr. K. Singh, who examined PW 6 found the following injury:-One lacerated wound on left side of the shoulder 3 " x 1".The depth could not be probed.This injury was surrounded by charring skin.The X-ray plate no. 41 dated 14.1.1983 showed three shots on the upper left side of back.It was simple in nature caused by afire arm such as a rifle or gun.Age of the injury was within 12 hours.Ext.2/1 is the medico legal certificate.As stated earlier, the plea of the appellants was thatthe prosecution allegations are untrue and that they wereinnocent.Accused Nos. 1 and 6 and two other accusedadvanced the plea of alibi and examined DW 1 to 3 in supportof the same.The said evidence did not find favour with thetrial court.The appellants also examined DW 4 Kuldip Royand DW 5 Priya Brat Singh to show that Tarkeshwar PrasadSingh was a terror.Certain crucial aspects appearing in the case deserveto be highlighted.Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was shot deadinside the bus bearing Registration No. BRO 3555 at the busstop Ketat at about 6.30 p.m. on 13.1.1983.The deceased metwith instantaneous death.PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 an PW 8 are theeye witnesses.PW 8 lodge FIR on the same day at 7.30 p.m.PW 5, forest guard, was a co-passenger and independentwitness.Thepostmortem report and the evidence of PW 4 proves that theinjury resulted due to shots of fire arms.There was,admittedly enmity between the family of the informants andthat of the accused.Deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad singh,along with PW 1, 2, 8 and PW 5 & 6, and few others wasreturning in the bus belonging to Santosh Transport Company,on 13.1,1983, after attending the murder case of Rajan andBishwanath.The prosecution states that Prem Singh andRamesh Singh (Accused Nos 1 and 2), who came from behind inthe jeep and the car along with few others, fired fatalshots at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh with their rifles infurtherance of common intention of the other accused per-sons, which caused the instantaneous death of TarkeshwarPrasad Singh.The courts below have concurrently held thatthe motive suggested by the prosecution against the accusedpersons is established.We shall discuss in brief theevidence of the four cye-witnesses PW 1,2,5 and 8, to theextent it is necessary to show how far the prosecution hasestablished its case.The main arguments advanced before us onbehalf of theappellants-accused are (a) PW 1 to 8 arc not really eyewitnesses and they were not able to depose, who fired thefinal shot and when; (b) the shot received by TarkeshwarPrasad Singh is of the gun and not of the rifle as spoken tothe prosecution witness; (c) there is inconsistency in theprosecution evidence, and what is more the statement in FIRis not fully substantiated.We were taken through the evidence of PW 1, and 4(medical witness), PW 5 independent witness (Forest Guard)and PW 8 - first informant and PW 12, We have also gonethrough the FIR appearing at pages 51-54 (paper book No. IIIAnnexure p-10) and also the statement given by the accusedin their examination under Section 313 of Criminal ProcedureCode.He knew Mundrika Singh, Ramesh Singh andPrem Singh for a long time.He also speaks about theenmity between the accused and Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.Ac-cording to him, there was indiscriminate firing in the bus.PW 5, a forest officer and independent witness, statedbefore the Court that he boarded Santosh Bus at Daltonganjbus stand on 13.1.1983 and when the bus stopped in front ofKetat village, 5-6 persons surrounded the bus and startedfiring indiscriminately.He was injured due to firingTarkeshwar Prasad Singh died inside the bus, hit by the bul-let.Persons firing were outside the bus next to the busdoor and were firing inside.The bullet hit the witnessafter breaking the glass of the bus window.He knewTarkeshwar Prasad Singh before since he was a forestcontractor.PW -8 Dudhnath Singh, who gave the FIRavailable at pages 51-54 of Volume III of the paper book, isthe brother-in-law of the deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.In the FIR he has stated that along with Tarkeshwar PrasadSingh, PW 1, 2 and others, they boarded the bus atDaltonganj' and when the bus reached Ketat village at about6.45 in the evening to drop a passenger, a car, belonging toChandrika Singh, bearing No. WHB 5989, came overtaking thebus and stopped in front of It.The passengers, sitting init, got down and were armed with guns and rifles.Herecognised those persons Among them Ramesh Singh, AccusedNo. 2, and others had rifles.immediately after this thejeep, bearing No. BRO 770, came and Prem Singh, Accused 1,and others got down with rifles in hand.All the persons inthe car and the jeep surrounded the standing bus and saidthat 'sala' Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is in he should be takenout and cut into pieces.The persons traveling inside thestarted begging for life and started fleeing.Prem Singhand Ramesh Singh were identifying the, passengers and PW 8,by hiding his face, got down from the rear gate.TarkeshwarPrasad Singh was in the back.As soon as the witnessreached the rear gate, he saw Prem Singh and Ramesh Singhentering the bus from the front gate with their rifles andstarted indiscriminate firing on Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.The130witness ran outside to save his life, but while running heheard Tarkeshwar Singh's shouts from inside the bus.He hidhimself in nearby bushes.The reason for this murder isthat Prem Singh, Ramesh Singh and others had enmity towardsTarkeshwar Prasad Singh and wanted to take revenge due tothe pending murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath inDaltonganj.As PW 8, the witness, substantiallycorroborated what he stated in the FIR.He deposed that hewas travelling along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 1 andothers in the bus belonging to Santosh Transport Company.At about 6.45 p.m. at Ketat village the bus stopped to dropa passenger when a Fiat car bearing No. WHB 5989 stopped infront of the bus and Ramesh Singh and others came out of thesame with rifles and thereafter a jeep bearing No. BRO 2770came and Prem Singh and others got down out of the jeep withrifles and all of them abusing Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhstated that he should be cut into pieces.Prem Singh andRamesh Singh stood near the front door of the bus and firedshots with rifles.PW 8 was successful in fleeing away bycovering his face with a chadar.He saw that TarkeshwarPrasad Singh got injured by the bullet inside the bus.Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was behind him when firing had takenplace.He did not see bullet being fired on any otherpassenger other than Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.who was a forest guard, was injured, hit by abullet.The FIR available at pages 51-54 of volume III ofthe paper book and the deposition of the eye witnesses, PW1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8, of when PW 5 is an independentwitness, clearly bring out the fact that Accused Nos. 1 and2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles, with a few otherpersons, that they got into the bus from the front and firedindiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.PW 5, a forestofficer as an independent witness, who himself sustained in-juries, has also stated that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh diedinside the bus due to hit by the bullets. 'Mere is nocontradiction with regard to the crucial aspects, namely,that these witnesses travelled with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhin the same bus, that the bus stopped at Ketat village todrop a passenger, at that time Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came ina jeep and a car with rifles, from behind, along withothers, surrounded the bus and after proclaiming thatTarkeshwar Prasad Singh is inside the bus and he should becut into pieces, they entered the bus and firedindiscriminately, at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, which resultedin the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh instantaneously.Six metallic pieces recovered from the dead-bodywere properly sealed and sent to the police.All theinjuries were caused by some fire arms.The postmortem re-port - Annexure p-8, (Volume III of the paper book)-mentionsabout two metallic pieces embodied in the wounds in the up-per left side of the abdomen and also refers to a recoveryof total six metallic pieces.The postmortem report alongwith the evidence of the medical witness PW 4 substantiatesthat the injuries sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh wereas a result of shots received from the fire arms and thatthey were fatal.The direct evidencein the case, amply corroborated by the motive of theaccused, positively points out the intention of the accusedto murder Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.Sachchidanand Deo, Inspector of Police, PW 14, whorecorded the FIR, stated that he had seized two bullet onthe front gate foot-steps of the bus and that he did notfind any rifle or gun at the place of occurrence or nearbyand that he recorded the FIR and other statements from thewitnesses etc. It is also important to notice that PW 8 hasgiven the number of the Fiat car and the jeep and PW 12Chandreshwar Upadhyay, who came along with Prem Singh injeep has categorically stated that the number of the jeep isBRO 2770 and Prem Singh regularly used to bring him in thatjeep.It willbe found from page 825 of the Report that the accused in thesaid case produced "a 12 bore gun" Ext. p-16, for which heheld the licence.He denied that he had firedwith the said gun.His case was that Gurnam Singh, whoreached the spot at about the time of incident, had fired atthe deceased Dalip Singh.There were certain puzzlingfeatures of the injuries of Dalip Singh, It is in thatconnection the court observed as follows:-"In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused."The above observations were made in a case where the weapon.with which the victim sustained injuries was before theCourt and there was doubt whether the injuries could havebeen caused by using that weapon - Extp-16, in the reportedcase.In this case, the rifles used by Accused Nos. 1 and2 were never recovered.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.)

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

M.A.13222/2017 (stay), Crl.Petitioners are the parents-in-laws of the deceased.CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 1 of 6The husband and wife are alleged to have shifted to Delhi where the husband was working.It is alleged in the FIR that from time to time the husband of the deceased as well as the petitioners used to make demand for dowry and the father of the deceased would meet the demand from time to time.It is alleged that few days before her death, the father of the deceased had provided Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a TV.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 & Crl.M.A.31993/2018 (for early hearing)Petitioners impugn order dated 31.05.2017, whereby, charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 498A/34 304B/34 IPC and an alternative charge under Sections 302/34 IPC has also been framed.Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of the deceased, who contended that his daughter had got married on 25.02.2008 and she was initially living with her in-laws at their house in the village.It CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 1 of 6 is alleged that immediately after marriage, petitioner No.2 started demanding dowry from her and even the petitioner No.1 - her father-in-law used to harass her.Within one year of marriage she was turned out of her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents.Subsequently, it is alleged that the parents made her understand and she went back to her matrimonial house.Further, it is alleged that the petitioners being uneducated and the deceased being a graduate was being harassed with regard to upbringing of the child.The deceased is alleged to have committed suicide on 19.06.2012 and chargesheet was filed alleging that the nature of injuries recorded in the MLC was not supportive of the theory of suicide and indicated towards the commission of offence of murder.On perusal of the record, the Trial Court framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC.Alternatively, the Trial Court has framed a charge under Sections 302/34 IPC.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations with regard to demand for dowry and harassment are general and vague and CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 2 of 6 there is no material to show that the petitioners were either residing with the deceased or were present at the time when she died.CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 2 of 6Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has framed an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC merely on presumption.8. Learned APP for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that there is sufficient material to show that the deceased was subjected to demand for dowry as well as harassment from time to time on account of dowry and further the demands for dowry were met by the parents of the deceased from time to time.Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that a cheque for Rs.1,44,000/- was given to the petitioner No.1 to meet his demand for dowry.It is disputed by the petitioners that the said amount was given towards dowry.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Trial Court has framed an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC raising a negative presumption.The Trial Court has inter alia held as under:-"From the material on record, I am of the view that there is prima facie case for framing charge against accused Babu Lai Jha and Urmila Devi u/s. 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC.As far as alternative charge u/s. 302 IPC is concerned, since the presence of these two accused at the spot is neither confirmed nor ruled out, it is better to frame charge in the alternative u/s. 302/34 IPC as well.Charges framed accordingly to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."A charge cannot be framed solely on a presumption that their presence is neither confirmed nor ruled out.For framing a charge, grave suspicion is required to be shown by the prosecution of the involvement of the accused in the subject offence.Coming to the charge under Sections 498A and 304B/34 IPC, I am prima facie of the view that there is sufficient material to give rise to grave suspicion against the petitioners of having committed the subject offence.The complainant, i.e., the father of the deceased, her mother and her brother have categorically stated that from time to time demand for dowry was being raised by not only the husband but also the petitioners.They have also averred that the said demand was being met from time to time.The complainant has also alleged that few days before the death of the deceased, he had paid Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a TV.The death of the deceased has occurred within 7 years of marriage and is a death other than from natural circumstances and there are averments of the family of the deceased that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to demands for dowry inter alia by the petitioners.In my prima facie view, the allegations give rise to grave suspicion of petitioners having committed an offence under Sections 498A/304B IPC and the facts, as alleged, satisfy the basic ingredients of the said Sections.In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as it framed charges under Section 498A/34 & 304B/34 IPC against the petitioners.CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 5 of 6Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the limited extent that the impugned order, insofar as it frames alternative charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against the petitioners is concerned, is set aside and the impugned order, insofar as it frames charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC against the petitioners is concerned, is sustained.The Trial Court shall, accordingly, modify the charges in terms of this order.The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

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

As per prosecution case, on 23.5.14 at about 8 p.m. one patient Shama was admitted in Neuro Surgery Ward.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.347/14 under Sections 353, 323/34, 506-B of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings.The complainant asked the attendants of the patient to control the number, then petitioner and 4-5 others beat the doctors who were on duty.On the report, Crime No.347/14 under Sections 353, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC has been registered.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise.3 M.Cr.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 49 of 2012 filed by respondent No.1 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (East), Karkardooma Court, Shahdara, Delhi alleging offences under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) alongwith quashing of the summons issued pursuant thereto.Succinctly stating the facts of the present case as emerging from the petition are that marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.11.2001 as per Hindu rites, customs and Crl.M.C. No. 447/2013 P age 1 of 14 ceremonies.At that time, she took along with her their minor daughter who was only five years old.Since then, there have been continuous inter se disputes between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.1 which are pending adjudication before various courts.During the course of the said proceedings, pleadings were filed by the petitioners which were taken to be defamatory by respondent No.1 and accordingly a criminal complaint was filed.On the basis of the said complaint case No. 49/2012, the petitioners received summons on 01.02.2013 from the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under Sections 500/34 IPC.It is against the said complaint case and the summons received by the petitioners that the petitioners have filed the present petition.Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the respondent No.1 has not specified the averments in the pleadings on the basis of which she is resting her claim for defamation.Pleadings filed by the petitioner in the civil proceedings as well as the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the basis of the complaint for defamation.Respondent Crl.M.C. No. 447/2013 P age 2 of 14 No.1 has not identified any specific allegations/imputations made by the petitioners against her constituting an offence of defamation of respondent No.1 in public.It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inferences drawn by respondent No.1 on the basis of circumstances and statements made during litigation between the parties cannot be considered defamatory under Sections 499/500 IPC.The police officer, who investigated the complaint of respondent No.1 and witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, cannot be made co-accused in a defamation complaint.The petitioners have always made highly defamatory false statements.The opinion given by the IO in the closure reports without any substantive proof on record are not the acts done in official capacity and may have an effect of tarnishing the image of respondent No.1 before the public.It was also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that despite the defamatory allegations made by the petitioners and other accused persons against respondent No.1, the trial court has ordered to file supplementary chargesheet against the petitioners after finding the truth in the protest petition of the respondent No.1 in FIR No. 273/2010 under sections 498A/406/34 IPC.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

Allowed md.Shrabanti Das and another ... Petitioners Mr. Suman Chakraborty .. for the petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kr.Roy, Mr. Arabinda Manna .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Onda Police Station Case No.114 of 2018 dated 07.1`0.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The petitioners are the brother and the married sister, respectively, of the husband of the victim.There does not appear to be any witness to the incident which led to the unnatural death of the victim.1 2 Considering the material against the petitioners, their custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.C.R.M. 11124 of 2018 is allowed as above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is pertinent to note the facts giving rise to the appeal in a detailed manner.The respondent no. 2­ complainant is the director of a money lending company by the name of Dharshan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. The appellant, who is a retired bank employee, approached the complainant’s company in the month of January 2008 for a loan of Rs. 27,00,000/­. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2 transferred the funds as a loan, which was to be repaid by the appellant within a year with interest.N. V. R AMANA , J.1. Leave granted.Further, respondent no.2 alleged that when he approached the appellant, he was threatened by the appellant with dire consequences.Thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint based on which the FIR bearing I/C.R. No. 22/2012, dated 25.01.2012, was filed before the Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad, against the present appellant under Section 406, 409, 417, 420, 294 (b) and 506 (2) of IPC.The appellant 2 preferred an application under Section 482 of the Cr.The charge sheet No. 28 of 2012 dated 01.03.2012, came to be filed against the appellant under Sections 406, 420 and 417 of IPC.Pursuant to the same, the Magistrate issued summons.The appellant alleged that on 04.12.2013, he was given a copy of the said charge sheet, and that the charges were framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day in a blank sheet without giving him an opportunity of being heard, as the appellant was unaccompanied by any counsel.In light of the aforesaid developments, the appellant filed an application seeking amendment of the prayer in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 4033 of 2012 wherein he sought for the inclusion of prayer seeking to quash and set aside the charge sheet no. 28/ 2012 in FIR No. I/C.R No.22/2012 and the charges framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 04.12.2013 and all further proceeding carried out in 3 Criminal Case no. 388/2012 pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate.It is pertinent to note that, simultaneously respondent no.2 had preferred a summary suit in Summary Civil Suit no. 928/2011 seeking the recovery of Rs.33,46,225/­ which was inclusive of the interest upon the principal amount.The same was admitted on 25.04.2011 and is still pending before the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad.Vide order dated 12.04.2018, the High Court dismissed the quashing petition preferred by the appellant and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months.The High Court further went on to observe that, prima facie an offence of cheating under Section 420 is made out but charge under Section 406 pertaining to criminal breach of trust is not applicable in the given factual scenario.However, the High Court did not remove the charges under Section 406 and observed that no case has been made out to get the charge quashed.Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the appellant has preferred the present Special Leave Petition.Moreover, it is pertinent to note that after filing Summary Suit No.928 of 2011 on 21.04.2011, the complainant has filed the written complaint dated 05.01.2012 and has attempted to give the cloak of a criminal offence to the present case which is purely civil in nature, just to harass the appellant.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

69.In all these revisions, the petitioner is one and the same namely, Sadasivam.pri Crl.R.C.Nos.1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220 and 1221 of 2008 10.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.inCriminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records made in C.C.No.70 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore –http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Order dated 24.08.2007 as confirmed by Judgment made in C.A.No.284 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore – Order dated 20.3.2008, set aside the same and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran for R1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Ms.T.Girija for R2 COMMON ORDER The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 20.10.1992, he did not disburse the loan amount of Rs.2,284/- to one Mannu Naidu, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,284/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.2.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 14 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.3.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 69 of 2001 to run concurrently.The lowerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.5.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner by making false entries in the records has misappropriated a sum of Rs.56,810/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 477(A) (14 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.6.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 19 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.19 and 62 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.7.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) (one count) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 71 of 2001 to run concurrently.8.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.286 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.9.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 28.03.1994, he did not disburse the amount of Rs.3,073/- to one Ravikumar, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,073/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.10.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 14 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.11.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 73 of 2001 to run concurrently.12.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.288 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.13.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner has assisted the first accused in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,613/-.Hence, the petitioner washttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 charged for the offence under Section 409 r/w.109 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.14.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 17 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.15.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.16.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.282 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.17.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner had forged the documents and misappropriated a sum of Rs.29,000/- which had to be disbursed to one Unnamalai.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.18.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 25 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.19.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 81 of 2001 to run concurrently.20.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.296 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lowerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.21.The petitioner in Crl.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) (28 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.22.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 30 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.30 and 74 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.23.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) (1 count) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 72 of 2001 to run concurrently.24.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.287 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 r/w 34 and 477 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.26.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and 32 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.27.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 r/w 34 and 477 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 r/w 34 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 477 of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 82 of 2001 to run concurrently.28.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.297 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.29.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 18.07.1995, he did not disburse the amount of Rs.3,230/- to one Sundari, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,230/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.http://www.judis.nic.in 1530.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 32 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.31.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 80 of 2001 to run concurrently.32.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 preferred appeal in C.A.No.295 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Whileso, he has misappropriated several amounts from several persons by not disbursing the amount to them and making false entries as though the amount has been disbursed or by disbursing the amount to another person instead of disbursing the amount to the relevant person.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) (4 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.34.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 22http://www.judis.nic.in 17 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.35.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 79 of 2001 to run concurrently.36.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.294 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 18Whileso, without the knowledge of one Parasuraman, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,500/- and made false entries in the records as though the amount has been disbursed to the said Parasuraman.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.38.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 21 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.39.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 78 of 2001 to run concurrently.40.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.293 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 2041.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.9,400/- from several persons and made false entries in the records as though the amount has been disbursed to them.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.42.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 16 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and 37 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.43.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.44.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.292 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Whileso, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated several amounts by making false entries in the records as though the amounts have been paid to the persons who did not own agricultural land, however, the amounts were not paid to them.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.46.When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 (1) (A) of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials available against him, he said that inorder to dismiss him from service a false case has been foisted against him.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 20 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.47.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigoroushttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 76 of 2001 to run concurrently.48.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.291 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.49.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated several amounts from several persons, by receiving the amounts from them and not making entries in the relevant records; by making false entries in the records as though the amounts have been disbursed tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 24 the relevant persons and by giving only part payment however made false entries in the records as though the entire amounts were paid to them.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) (151 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.50.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 51 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.51 and 124 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.51.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) (1 count) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 75 of 2001 to run concurrently.52.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.290 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.53.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, without the knowledge of one Ganesan, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,000/- and made false entries in the records as though the amount has been disbursed to the said Ganesan.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.http://www.judis.nic.in 2654.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 25 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.55.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 27 run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 74 of 2001 to run concurrently.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.57.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 20.10.1992, he did not disburse the loan amount of Rs.2,750/- to one Mannu Naidu, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated the said sum.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409,http://www.judis.nic.in 28 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.58.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 14 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.59.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 70 of 2001 to run concurrently.60.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.285 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 409 r/w.109 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.62.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 13 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No materialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 30 object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.63.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67, 68 of 2001 to run concurrently.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Whileso, though the petitioner's wife did not own any land obtained chitta and adangal from the Village Administrative Officer and gave to the first accused and as such, misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,395/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 409 r/w.109 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.66.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 15 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.67.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.68.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.281 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.The petitioner during his tenure as Clerk, Cashier, Senior Grade Clerk, Secretary Incharge and Secretary in the Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, has misappropriated several amounts from several persons.Initially, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies ordered for preliminary enquiry for the loss caused to the Society.Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was conducted.During enquiry, the statements of all the victims were recorded and they were forwarded to the Deputy Registrar.Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar lodged complaint before the first respondent Police.The first respondent Police, after completing investigation filed final report before the Trial Court.After trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated supra.http://www.judis.nic.in 3370.When the revisions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo dated 10.01.2019 signed by him as well as by the revision petitioner.The relevant portion of the memo reads as follows:“1) It is most respectfully submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvannamalai, vide letter dated 13.04.2018 in Na Ka 1250/1998 Sa Pa, has stated that the Revision petitioner should pay Rs.3,60,424.95/- only (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Four and Ninety five paise only) to the PACB, Mallavadi, Thiruvannamalai.http://www.judis.nic.in 34 Therefore, the Revision Petitioner begs to consider his old age & physical ailments mentioned above, leniency may be shown while passing the orders and thus render justice.”73.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.74.On a perusal of the entire records, including the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and other documents relied upon by the prosecution, the same were considered by the lower Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court.It reveals that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are official witnesses and they sanctioned the departmental proceedings and approved the criminal complaint against the accused persons.P.W.5 is the crucial witness who clearly deposed that while he was working as Sub-Registrar at Chengam and he perused the entire documents in which it is revealed the lot of discrepancy in the amount, the share amount deposited in the Bank, share amount collected from the agriculturist were not deposited in the Banks and the loans were advanced when a person is not owning lands and the said loan amount was taken and prepared a bogus document as if the loans were sanctioned to the agricultural persons and the said amount was mis- appropriated by the Officials.On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 and other witnesses, this Court is also satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt on the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, the conviction passed against the petitioner is confirmed.The petitioner shall pay the entire fine amount in default shall undergo one week simple imprisonment.Further, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,60,424.95/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Four and Ninety Five Paise only) before the Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thiruvannamalai/ second respondent on or before 24.01.2019 and shall file a memo before the Trial Court.The petitioner is further directed to surrender before the Trial Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and serve the above sentence.76.In the event of the petitioner failing to pay the amount of Rs.3,60,424.95/- before the Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thiruvannamalai/ second respondent on or before 24.01.2019, the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 37 and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court shall stand restored.77.Accordingly, these criminal revisions are partly allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.10.01.2019 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No1.The Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.3.The Sub Inspector of Police C.C.I.W.C.I.D.4.The Special Officer, Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thiruvannamalai.http://www.judis.nic.in 38 M.DHANDAPANI,J.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

Brief facts of this case are that the complainant's cousin Mohd. Haroon s/o Abdul Lateef R/o 44/33 Ajeetganj Colony, P.S. Babupurva Kanpur has a shop of repairing of interlocking machine situated at House No. 109/198 Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Nazirabad.On 6.4.1987, complainant was present in the shop of his brother Mohd. Haroon and talking with him; at 7:30 pm, Ramji Nai, House No. 109/91 Resident of Mohalla Jawahar Nagar and his brother in law, Ram Chandar and two unknown people came to the shop armed with countrymade pistol, threatened and said to make arrangement of Rs. 1,000/- till tomorrow, otherwise, you will be no left alive and also said that immediately give him Rs. 100/- for wine then Mohd. Haroon tell him that he had no money.On this, the companion of Ramji Nai abusing him said that he would not give such money, kill him today.On this pretext Ramji Nai fired by countrymade pistol on Mohd. Haroon with intention of killing him.This bullet hits on left hand of Mohd. Haroon when both of us shouted then all the miscreants fled from the spot.Due to terror of this miscreants, panic caused among the shopkeepers and they started closing their shop quickly.Lacerated wound 4cmX2cmX muscle deep, bone exposed on left hand and wrist back.Bleeding profusely.This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 28.4.1993, in Sessions Trial No. 567 of 1991 convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 324 IPC to undergo two years R.I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default payment of fine one years R.I. all the sentences shall run concurrently.On this allegation injured as well as complainant rushed to the police station and lodge the written report (Exhibit Ka 1) against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and two unknown miscreants.Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka 2) registered at 8:05 pm under Section 307 IPC.The case was entered by means of General Diary.On the request letter of the S.H.O. Nazirabad, Mohd. Haroon was examined by the Doctor G.V. Saxena (PW-4) who has medically examined Mohd. Haroon.On medical examination following injuries were found on PW 2 Mohd. Haroom:-Injury kept under observation.Advised x-ray, caused by hard and blunt object, Duration about fresh.Investigation of this case is conducted by Investigating Officer during investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of witness and also prepared site plan and collect the injury report and collect the relevant papers.Investigating officer was not examined by prosecution during trial.After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet submitted against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and Mohd. Hasoon under Section 307 IPC.The charge framed against Ram Chandar, Prem Shankar on 12.9.1991 under Section 307/34 and against Ramji Nai under Section 307 IPC on 12.9.1991 charge read over and explained to the accused in hindi.They pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution examined four witnesses PW 1, Abdul Jabbar complainant of this case and cousin of the injured.PW 2 Mohd. Haroon injured, PW 3 Shiv Autar Pandey, Head Constable and PW-4 Dr. G.V. Saxena.After the conclusion of trial statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that witnesses giving false statement due to enmity.No defence witness was examined by appellant.Learned trial court after hearing both the parties acquitted Prem Shanker and Ram Chandar against the charge levelled u/s 307/34 IPC.Only Ramji Nai is convicted under Section 324 IPC as aforesaid.Being aggrieved with the order of sessions court, sole appellant Ram Ji Nai preferred this appeal.No appeal preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of accused Ram Chandar and Prem Shankar.This is a clear cut bullet injury and injured witness is most reliable witness and the testimony of the injured witness PW 2 cannot be doubted at strech of imagination.Statement of PW 2 regarding implication of appellant is clear and cogent.Prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant as such appeal is liable to be dismissed.One of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no independent witness examined by the prosecution and only related & interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution so no reliance has been placed on the testimony of these two witnesses.In his statement, he fully narrated the version of the prosecution, injured witness (PW 2) corroborated the version of the FIR but he clearly denied the role of the co-accused Ram Chandra, on this point, he already declared hostile and on the basis of this statement, Ram Chandra was acquitted by the learned trial court but with regard to the evidence against Ram Ji Nai, concerned PW 2 clearly shows that Ram Ji Nai inflicted injury by firing gun shot by countrymade pistol.Although, the medical examination report does not fully corroborate the oral evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 but during examination of PW 4, he clearly stated that if the bullet hit on hand then such type of injury may also occur so it cannot be said that injury inflicted on the hand of the injured witness did not cause by the countrymade pistol.Their evidence has a ring of truth.Hence, learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC resultantly, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed.Coming to the sentence to be imposed on the appellant since incident occurred more than 33 years ago and presently, the appellant is aged about 60 years and during intervening period, he had not indulged into any criminal activity nor he had any criminal background and presently, appellant is well rooted in society.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for showing leniency in this matter regarding sentence, is liable to be acceptable.Failing to deposit the same, appellant shall surrender or he be taken in custody to serve out one year rigorous imprisonment as default sentence.So the appeal is 'dismissed' on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence as above.

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

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE kafeel Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 26/09/2019 03:45:54Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing..Requisition the record of the lower Court.Heard on I.A. no. 5984/2015 which is an application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Rahul S/o Sardar Mogiya The present appellant suffered the conviction and the jail sentence as follows :After going through the impugned judgment and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on merit of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.30,000/- and solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on Page no. 2 payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15th October, 2015 and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.List for final hearing as per the scheme formulated.C c as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE amol

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-(a) There is a Kaliamman temple at Melmanakkudi Village, which is situate within Bhuvanagiri Police Station limits.A festival on the day before the Tamil New Year's day had been celebrated for quite long by the villagers in the said temple.The temple was not provided with electricity connection.During the times of Festival, electricity connection had been usually taken from the house of one Krishnamoorthy Nadar (since deceased).For the New Year's festival in the year 1985, as usual, electricity connection had been taken from the house of the deceased.(c) Accused 1 to 6 are residents of Memanakkudi Village.Accused 1 to 3 are brothers.Accused 4 and 5 are their step-mother's sons.Accused 6 is their cousin P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased.(d) During the course of the meeting, accused 3 suggested that the electricity connection for the temple should be taken in his name.He was in possession of the cash belonging to the temple and he would utilise the same for the purpose of electricity connection.This was objected to by P.W. 1 and others and that they then suggested was that the electricity connection should be taken in the name of one Kalimuthu, Village Administrative Officer, of Akkadavalli.In the process of such an altercation, accused I was stated to have pushed P.W. 1 down and beat him at his right hand and back by means of a stick.P.W. 2, who had been present there, tried his level best to separate them.But, it proved futile and consequently, he was stated to have given a hit on the head of accused 1, by means of a stick, which was lying there.At that time, the deceased was stated to have intervened, pacified them and averted any untoward incident being happened.The deceased was also stated to have proclaimed that he would take the electricity connection to the temple, in his own name, utilising his own funds.At that time, accused 1 to 6 registered their protest and questioned whether it was proper for all the things to be done in the name of the deceased, in relation to the temple.So, saying, they vowed to wreak vengeance and then left the place.(e) The deceased, after reaching his house, was sitting in the front verandah of his house, which is situate on the north of the east-west road, that is to say, his house faces south.There is also a lamp post on the western extremity of the road at a point when the road takes a slight tilt and deviates towards south-western direction.A bulb in the said lamp post was burning during night hours.There is also another lamp post on the eastern extremity of the road on the northern side at a point or place, where the said road takes a turn and deviation towards north-eastern direction.The bulb in the said lamp post was also not burning during night hours.There is one more lamp post situate on the eastern side extremity of the road on the southern side at a point where the road takes a turn and the bulb in the said lamp post was also not burning during night hours.Kaliamman temple is situate 100 feet away on the west of the house of the deceased.(f) The deceased mandated his son P.W. 2 to bring cattle to-the-shed in the backyard of his house to the lane situate on the east of his house for tying the cattle there.While doing so, P.W. 2 was stated to have put on the light above the window facing the lane.At that time, P.W. 1 was stated to be washing his hands in the hand pipe situate on the backyard of his house.The moment the cattle was brought by P.W. 2 to the lane, the deceased took custody of the cattle and tried to tether it to the peg on hook there.(g) At that time, accused 2 emerged from the garden belonging to accused 4, arming himself with a crowbar (MO 3), after removing the fence put up on the eastern ridge of the lane.On receipt of the hit, the deceased sat down in quick succession, he gave two more hits with M.O. 3 on the head of the deceased.Thereafter, the deceased fell down.At that time, P.W. 3 and one Prakasam were making onward march from north to south in the lane and they had the opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.(h) Thereafter, the injured - deceased was bodily lifted by P.Ws. 1, 2 and others and placed in the front Verandah of their house.P.Ws. 1 and 2, along with their mother Thillaiammal took the injured - deceased in the bus to Bhuvanagiri Police Station.They reached the police station at 10.30 p.m., P.W. 11 Head Constable was then in charge there.P.W. 1 gave a report, to P.W. 11, who reduced the same into writing, as per his dictation.Accused 1 also appeared before P.W. 11 at 11 p.m., and gave a report, as respects the occurrence.He would, however, send P.Ws. 1 and 2, injured - deceased and accused 1, with a memo to the hospital for treatment.Then, he visited the scene village at 11-30 p.m. and returned to the police station at 2 a.m., (on 14-4-1985).Thereafter, he registered a case in crime No. 151/85 for alleged offence under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code.Exhibit P. 13 is the printed FIR.(i) P.W. 8 was the then Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Chidambaram.He examined the injured-deceased at 11-15 p.m. and treated him for the injuries.Exhibit P. 7 is the copy of the accident register.He examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at 11.20 p.m. One after another and treated them for their injuries.Exhibits P. 8 and P. 9 are the copies of the accident registers issued to P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively.Exhibit P. 16 is the printed FIR.(k) The deceased, sent to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, got admitted as an inpatient there at 3 a.m on 14-4-1985 and he breathed his last at 3.50 a.m there.(l) P.W. 12 left the police station and reached the scene village at 4 a.m. After inspecting the scene, namely, the lane lying on the east of the house of the deceased, he prepared Exhibit P. 2 observation mahazer at 6 a.m. Exhibit P. 17 is the rough sketch of the scene.At 6-15 a.m., he seized M.O. 1 series-stones, under the cover of Exhibit P. 3 Mahazar.Exhibits P. 2 and P. 3 were attested by P.W. 5 and another.He searched for the accused and they were not available.He returned to the police station at 9.15 a.m.(m) He came to know then that the deceased died at 3.50 a.m. at Cuddalore Head Quarters Hospital, as revealed by Exhibit P. 18, death intimation.He then altered the case in Crime No. 152/85 into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He prepared express reports and sent the same to the court and the officers concerned.Exhibit P. 19 is the express FIR.(n) P.W. 13 was the then Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Chidambaram Town Police Station.On receipt of express FIR at 9.15 a.m., he went to Bhuvanagiri police station and took up further investigation.At 10.15 a.m., he recovered the blood stained Cement scrapping (M.O. 4) from the front verandah of the house of the deceased.He also seized the sample earth (M.O. 5).(o) He then went to Cuddalore Headquarters Hospital.He held inquest over the body of the deceased.Exhibit P. 20 is the inquest report.During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others.He handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable, P.W. 10 at 3.30 p.m., along with Exhibit P. 11 requisition for the purpose of autopsy.(p) P.W. 9 was the then Medical Officer attached to the Government Headquarter's Hospital, Cuddalore.On receipt of requisition, Exhibit P. 11 at 4 p.m., he commenced autopsy over the body of the deceased at 4.30 p.m. on the same day.Exhibit P. 12 is the post mortem certificate.He is of opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple fracture of skull bone with coreberal haemorrhage and shock 12 to 14 hours prior to autopsy.(r) P.W. 13 then examined P.W. 9 in the hospital.Thereafter, he went to the scene village and examined P.W. 5 and others.On 15-4-1985, he examined P.W. 4 and others.In the process of obeying of such a command, P.W. 2, switched on the bulb hanging above the window facing the lane on the east and brought the cattle to the lane.At that time, P.W. 1 was washing his hands in the hand pipe situate on the backyard of his house.The cattle brought by P.W. 2 was handed over to the deceased to be tethered in the lane in a peg or hook situate there.JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.Appellants were respectively accused 1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 195 of 1985 on the file of Court of Session, South Arcot Division, Cuddalore.They faced their trial for the charges as below :-Firstly, accused 1 & 3 to 6 147Secondly, accused 2 148Thirdly, accused 2 302Sixthly, accused 1, 3, 4 & 5 323Seventhly accused 1, 2 & 5 323Lastly accused 1, 2 & 5 323Learned Sessions Judge found accused involved in Charge Nos. 6, 7 and 8, not guilty and acquitted them thereof.He, however, found accused 1 and 3 to 6 guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted them thereunder then sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and accused 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in respect of accused 6, instead of under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code), convicted them thereunder then sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.P.W. 4 had been engaged for providing sound and light, during the celebration of the festival in the said temple.(b) It so happened, an issue, as respects electricity connection for the said temple came to be raised and in that connection, that villagers at 8.00 p.m., on 13-4-1985, congregated in front of the temple.At 11.55 p.m. he examined accused 1 and treated him for the injuries.Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the injured-deceased, he referred him for further treatement and management to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore.(j) P.W. 12 is the Sub Inspector of Police Bhuvanagiri.He has gone for investigation in connection with another case and returned to the police station at 2-10 a.m. (on 14-4-1985).He perused the FIR in crime No. 151/85 and on such perusal, he came to the conclusion that what P.W. 11 Head Cosntable had done in registering the case only under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code was not correct and what he had done was that he registered the complaint of P.W. 1, namely, Exhibit P. 1, as Crime No. 152/85 for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.Exhibit P. 15 is the printed FIR.He also registered the complaint given by accused 1, namely, Exhibit P. 14, as a case in Crime No. 153/85 for alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.Immediately after arrest and on interrogation, one of the accused namely, accused 2 gave a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act stating that he kept concealed the crowbar underneath the culvert in the lake at Melamanakkudi.The admissible portion of the said confession statement in Exhibit.Pursuant to the said confession, he took P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13 to lake at at Melamanakkudi he took out the crowber M.O. 8 kept concealed underneath the culvert in that lake, which was seized under Exhibit P. 6 mahazar.Then all the accused were brought to the police station and from there, they were sent to court for remand.After completing the investigation in crime No. 153/85, he dropped further investigation.Chidambaram Taluk Inspector filed a final report under Section 173(4) Crl.P.C. against accused in crime No. 152/85 for the aforesaid offences.On committal, charges, as aforesaid, had been framed against accused and when they had been questioned as respects those charges, they denied the same and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in proof of the charges so levelled against the accused, examined P.Ws. 1, to 13, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20 and marked M.Os.The accused when questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C., as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied their complicity in the crime.They did not choose to examine any witness of their behalf.Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed, rendered the verdict as aforesaid.Arguments of Mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution were heard.Accused 8, it is said, died pending appeal : Consequently, the appeal as against him has to abate, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated under Section 394 Crl.Of them P.Ws. 1 and 2 narrate the entirely of the occurrence, which consists of two parts, namely, occurrence that had happened at or about 8.00 p.m. on the fateful night in front of Kaliamman temple and the other part of the occurrence that took place in the lane, situate adjacent to the house of the deceased, on the east; whereas the other witness, namely, P.W. 3 speaks to the latter part of the occurrence only.The picture, as painted by P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the occurrence is not at all in accord with the earliest information.Exhibit P. 1 proceeds on the footing that the entirety of the occurrence involving in causation of injuries to not only the deceased, but also to some of the prosecution witnesses, happened only in the lane situate adjacent to the house of the deceased on the east.The said occurrence happened at 9 p.m. No doubt true it is that the narration in Exhibit P. 1 leads us to think that igniting cause for the occurrence was relatable to dispute relatable to Kaliamman temple.In the said occurrence, the deceased was stated to have been attacked by accused 1 to 6 with stones, culminating in the deceased sustaining certain injuries on his upper lip and head.Likewise, P.W. 1 was attacked by accused, 1, 2 and 5, with stones, resulting in his sustaining an injury on his right hand.These things apart, Thilliammal was the victim of attack at the hands of accused 1, 2 and 5, in the sense of her tuft being caught hold of by them and she being beaten with their hands.This sort of an occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 8 from the beginning to the end.For projecting such a version, there was no time left either for P.W. 1 or others, interested in his welfare, to consult and confabulate for giving a version, different from the one that had happened, with a view to implicate the persons involved in the occurrence.Head Constable or other Police personnel working in Bhuvanagiri Police Station, so that there was any sort of want of cordial atmosphere between him and the police personnel.P.W. 1 had a bitter experience with them, so that there was no lovelost between him and the personnel in the police station.Of course true it is that under the foot of Exhibit P. 1, no certificate had been appended to by P.W. 11 that the same had been recorded, as per the narration of P.W. 1 and the same, after having been recorded, had been read over to him.Therefore, normal it is, we feel, that the prosecution entertained some sort of anxiety to some how or other throw mud on P.W. 11 Head Constable and that perhaps was the reason for the prosecution to have resorted to seek permission of the Court by treating him as hostile, on the ground that he had exhibited an element of hostility to the case of the prosecution.The Court below also readily granted such a permission and allowed the prosecution to put questions in cross-examination treating him as hostile.The grant of permission by the Court below to treat P.W. 11, as hostile, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel, is rather unwarranted and we only feel that the Court below, without applying its mind, simply granted permission to treat him as hostile, when the prosecution prayed for such a permission.P.W. 11, put in such a position, cannot be expected to say that he had not faithfully recorded the version as projected by P.W. 1, simply because he has not appended a certificate at the foot of Exhibit P. 1 to the effect that the same had been recorded as per the narration of P.W. 1, besides the same having been read over to him.May be the non-appendage of a certificate, due to the negligence on his part and for such negligence, the prosecution must have to pay its price.to 3, it examined in detail, would reveal the core improvement of the prosecution case beyond recognition, by giving different place of occurrence, introduction of lethal weapon utilised, in causing injuries to the deceased and what not.When the issue relatable to taking electricity connection the temple was being discussed in a heated fashion, there arose a wordy altercation between P.W. 1 and accused 1 and such an altercation rose to the height of mutual fight between them, which resulted in accused 1 beating on his right hand and back by means of a stick, thereby causing him injuries.P.W. 1 who was stated to have been present there, too up a stick, which was lying there and gave a hit with such a stick on the head of accused 1 causing him bleeding injuries.In order to avert any further untoward incident, the deceased intervened and pacified P.Ws. 1 and 2 and took them to his house.Thereafter, the deceased was sitting in the verandah of his house.He would mandate P.W. 2 to go to the backyard and bring the cattle tethered there to the lane.It is only at that juncture, accused 2 arming himself with M.O. 3 crowbar emerged therein through the garden of accused 4, situate adjacent to the lane, after removing the fence and hit with M.O. 3 on the right flank of the deceased.Immediately after the receipt of the hit, the deceased sat on the ground.In quick succession, he also gave two more hits with M.O. 3 on his head causing bleeding injuries.On receipt of those injuries, the deceased fell down over on the ground.Rest of the accused, namely accused 1 and 3 to 6 hurled stone on P.Ws. 1 and 2, besides the deceased.In the process of hurling of such stones, P.W. 1 would categorically state even in chief examination that why were not at all injured by any of the stones to hurled on their person.P.W. 3, a near relation of the deceased, not being a resident of the locality, had an occasion to pass through that lane from north to south so as to make himself available in the scene and have the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence and in the process of hurling of stones, though he was also available in the vicinity, he also did not sustain any sort of a scathing injury on his person.The shifting of the place of occurrence to the lane, adjacent to the house of the deceased on the east is not without significance.If the prosecution projects that the occurrence had happened in front of the temple, then there was necessity to cite a witness of independent origin available in the vicinity to the temple, when especially the time and day of the occurrence was the day of celebration of Tamil New Year's festival in the temple and such being the situation, the prosecution would be impelled to come forward with an explanation for the non-examination of natural witness in the locality, who had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.Another intriguing factor is that if we examine the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 8, we find that P.W. 2 had on his person as many as three injuries as revealed by Exhibit P. 9 copy of the accident register.He had not at all come forward with an explanation as to how he came by the injuries, especially when we took into account that in the process of hurling of stones by the accused, as already stated, neither he nor his brother P.W. 1 was injured.It is quite interesting to note from what he has stated to the doctor, P.W. 8, that he was assaulted with stick by known persons near the temple.It is here we have to take into account the defence version, as respects the place of occurrence.Accused 1 would assert in Exhibit P. 14 he gave to P.W. 11 that the occurrence took place near the temple and he was assaulted with a stick by specified individuals, that is to say, the prosecution party.Exhibit P. 10 is the copy of the accident register, which reveals that he had four injuries on his person on various portions of his person, namely, parietal region, dorsum of hand, middle lateral portion of left fore arm and lateral aspect of right shoulder.The injuries are either contusions or laceration.The prosecution would resort to explain the injury on the head of accused 1, by making P.W. 2 to say that he gave a hit on his head, when he was engaged in hitting P.W. 1 by means of a stick near the temple.The other injuries found on his person had not at all been explained.It is to be noted here that the candid admission made by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination is that before ever, he along with the deceased, his brother P.W. 2 and his mother Thillaiammal, went to the police station he saw accused 1 in the police station, giving a complaint Exhibit P. 14 It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 1 alone gave Exhibit P. 1 at the earliest point of time before even accused 1 gave the complaint.In unguarded moments, somehow or other, the truth had come out in the form of a candid admission by P.W. 1, in the course of cross-examination.Why we point out all these aspects is that the prosecution had not come forward with the true origin and genesis of the occurrence and had made assiduous attempt in projecting a version before Court, divorced of reality of the situation, thereby making this Court not possible to sift truth from falsehood.We may also point out here the calculated attempt made by the prosecution to make it appear that a lethal weapon had been used in the commission of the heinous crime of murder of the deceased.From Exhibit P. 7, we are able to decipher that crowbar had been introduced by interlineation in the column relatable to the alleged use of weapons for causing injuries.Further, Exhibit P. 7 is not the original; but its triplicate.The accident register is usually prepared in triplicate; the original being sent to Court, the duplicate being retained by the investigating agency and the triplicate by the Medical Officer himself, who issued copy of the accident register.It is also usual to prepare copies of the accident register with carbon copies underneath the original and the triplicate by writing on the original by means of a ball-point or pencil.Unusual it is to find the triplicate copy of the accident register, namely, Exhibit P. 7 being written in ink with all sorts of interlineations, not only with regard to the weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime; but also in nothing down the injuries.The marking of the triplicate, with all such corrections and interlineations make us feel that all is not well with the prosecution in projecting the true version as respects the manner of occurrence and the usage of weapon in the commission of the crime.The manner of occurrence, we feel, is highly artificial.Where was the occasion for the deceased to go and take the custody of the cattle from P.W. 2 for tethering the same to the peg or hook in the lane, except for the purpose of his receiving a hit on his right flank and two hits on his head at the hands of accused 2 by means of a crowbar ? Is it not possible for P.W. 2 to have tethered the cattle brought from the backyard by himself to the peg or hook there ?Admittedly, the occurrence took place during dark hours of the night.Therefore, visible factor looms large and assures importances.For the so-called eye witnesses, to introduce the course of events that had followed at the time of occurrence.But for the switching on of the bulb hanging over the window facing the lane on the east, there could have been no visible factor at all for anyone to have witnessed anything.Switching on the bulb was necessitated by a mandate being issued by the deceased to P.W. 2 to fetch the cattle from the backyard to the lane and in such process, P.W. 2 was stated to have switched on the bulb so as to enable them to have visible factor to witness the course of events that was to follow.But for the switching on the bulb situate above the window facing the lane on the east of the house of the deceased, there could have been no visible factor at all for anybody to have witnessed anything.Therefore, we are of the view that the case of the prosecution is also riddled with artificialities and inherent improbabilities, in projecting the manner of the occurrence.The investigation in this case, we also feel, is rather tainted, slipshod and perfunctory.We are unable to digest, when P.W. 12 Sub-Inspector of Police would state that when he returned to the police station at 2.10 a.m. after having been engaged in investigation in another case, he happened to see the records in the case in Crime No. 151/85 and immediately he felt that the action of P.W. 11 was not proper and therefore, he registered two cases in Crime Nos. 152 and 153 of 1985, based upon Exhibits P. 1 and P. 14 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. in both the cases.We are quite astonished to hear him say that he immediately left the police station and reached the scene village at 6.00 a.m. and after inspecting the scene, he would prepare an observation mahazar, Exhibit P. 2, besides preparation of the sketch, Exhibit P. 17, as if he was engaged in the heinous crime of murder.This is the first time, we are able to come across a case registered under Section 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. getting prime attention at the hands of the public personnel like P.W. 12, in the sense of rushing to the scene of occurrence and collecting material and other available clues in proof of the case of the prosecution.The hand of fabrication is also getting exposed by the inbuilt materials available on record.There is one more instance, which we can also point out for exposing the hand concoction of the investigating agency.P.W. 13, Inspector of Police would categorically state, in his evidence in chief-examination, that he conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased between 12 noon and 6.30 p.m. If he had conducted the inquest during the relevant period, as revealed by the inquest report Exhibit P. 20, we are absolutely at a loss to understand as to how the Dr. P.W. 9 could have received the requisition, Exhibit P. 11 at 4.00 p.m. and commenced autopsy at 4.30 p.m. From this, we are able to infer that the records have been manipulated in such a way to suit to the exigency of the case of the prosecution and in the process of preparation of such records, the hand of concoction got automatically exposed by the mistakes they had committed unawares.Further, the injuries found on the person of accused I had not been properly explained.Even the little bit of effort had by the prosecution in explaining the injury on his head through the medium of P.W. 2 faced colossal failure, as we had pointed out earlier.From this, the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution made assiduous attempts in suppressing the genesis and origin of the occurrence cannot be ruled out of the consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the case.For all the reasons, as above, we are of opinion that the prosecution thoroughly failed in bringing home the guilt of all the accused to any offence whatever, the consequence of which is that there is no other go except to acquit all the accused by giving them the benefit of reasonable doubt.

['Section 302 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 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on the question of admission.This appeal is having arguable point, hence admitted for final hearing.T h e appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 451of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation and under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the injuries received by the victim is simple in nature.Only one cut injury was found on the head of the victim.No other incised wound was found on the body of the victim.Learned trial Court has erred in convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC as well as other offences.It is further submitted that the disposal of the appeal will take considerable time, therefore, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State objected this bail application.Perused the statement of the victim and other witnesses and also perused the statement of the doctor R.K.Baliya (Pw-1) and also considered the fact that both the appellants were on bail during trial.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 01/08/2019 11:20:12

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

C.C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) V. JUDGE Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2018.06.14 16:04:16 +05'30' Pallavi sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig HRecord of the trial Court be called for.sh For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is e allowed.ad Also heard on I.A. No. 9306/2018, an application for suspension Pr of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence a hy punishable u/s 451 of IPC, r/w Section 354 (ka), 354 & Section 8 of POCSO Act with a direction to undergo one year R.I. with a fine of ad Rs. 500/- in first count, one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- in second M count, three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in third count and three years R.I. with a fne of Rs. 1,000/- in fourth count.of The trial Court has already suspended the sentence and released rt the appellant on bail.ou In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed and subject to depositing C the fine amount, jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.h It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- ig (Fifty thousand only), alongwith solvent surety to the satisfaction of H the trial Court by the appellant, he be released on bail.It is further directed that appellant shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18.12.2018 and on such other dates, as may be notified by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)The question which arises for consideration, at the outset, is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not.The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.M. A No. 13306/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the appellant / plaintiff under Section 340 read with Section 195 (b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting the criminal law into motion against the respondent No.1/ defendant LPA 134/2011 Page 1 of 14 No.1 and any other person/ persons for having committed the offences referred to in Section 195 (b)(i) Cr.29, Serial No. 201 to 218, Serial No. 435 dated 18.03.2008 registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bingha, U.P. It was contended on behalf of the appellant / plaintiff that upon an enquiry from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, the appellant / plaintiff had been informed that no such document had been registered in that office.LPA 134/2011 Page 2 of 14P.C for an enquiry and for submitting a complaint in writing.We may point out that that application had been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 by the learned Single Judge holding as under:-LPA 134/2011 Page 13 of 14As a result, the present appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, there is no occasion for us to examine the matter on merits.The appeal is dismissed as such.

['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

State of M.P.) changed his course of life and living as peaceful citizen.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and would make himself available as and when required.He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant.The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; applicant would not move in the vicinity of complainant party in any manner;The applicant shall not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; and he would not move in the vicinity/area of the complainant party.The applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andAs per the undertaking given by counsel on behalf of the applicant, it is hereby directed that applicant shall plant 5 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem/ Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. "o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA" He shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 6-8 ft.This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2019, registered at Police Station-Gohad, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-C, 354-D and 363 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has apprehension of his arrest on the basis of offence registered as above.The main allegation against the co-accused Sahdev Khare.Prosecutrix was in relationship with the said person and only allegation against the applicant is that he has seen couple together and therefore, he wanted some favour.The statement initially recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was non-implicative.Prosecutrix wants to live separately and did not want to go with her parents and therefore, ordered for Nariniketan, thereafter, Juvenile Justice Board.She made statement against the present applicant.He fairly submits that he has 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs.He also would not move in the vicinity of complainant party in any manner.Therefore, under these undertakings, the applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicant.Heard learned counsel for the parties and case diary perused.Considering the submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs., so 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs.State of M.P.) that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time.For ensuring the compliance, he shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the applicant.The progress reports shall be submitted by the applicant before the trial Court on expiry of every three months for two years.It is the duty of the trial Court to monitor the progress of the trees because human existence is at stake because of the environmental degradation and Court cannot put a blind fold over any casualness shown by the applicant regarding compliance.Therefore, trial Court is directed to submit a report regarding progress of the trees and the compliance made by the applicant by placing a short report before this Court every quarterly (every three months), which shall be placed under the caption "Direction" before this Court.Any default on behalf of applicant in plantation or caring of trees shall disentitle the applicant from enjoying the benefit of bail.The applicant shall be at liberty to plant these saplings /trees at the place where he lives or place of his choice if he intends to protect the trees on his own cost by providing tree guards or fencing.This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs.State of M.P.) attributes of human existence."It is not the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a Thought."A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2019.09.13 18:18:45 +05'30'

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction dated 30th March 2005 and sentence dated 31st March 2005 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 05/2004: Sessions SL No. 103/2004, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant no. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing an offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 1 to 4 each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and further convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 2 to 4 each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, all sentences having to run concurrently.She alleged that due to severe threats given by the accused, the informant could not come before the Learned Court although 3 the police had taken no action over the alleged offences.Pursuant to the direction passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code, Farakka Police Station Case No. 20/2004 dated 29th February 2004 was started against the present appellants for commission of offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code.The allegations made by the de facto complainant in the said First Information Report were as under:-The accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 lived right next door to the complainant.The daughter of the complainant was aged about 14 years.At 6 p.m. on the day of occurrence the accused no. 1 told the daughter of complainant that his mother had sent for her for some urgent reason.Accordingly, she told her mother that her next door neighbour Minati Halder had sent for her and asked whether she should go.As the complainant consented, she went to Minati's place.The complainant waited for quite a while, but as Kalpana did not return she went to Minati's house.There she found her daughter lying in the room, all but dead and almost naked with her pants and clothes lying around blood-stained.As soon as the complainant entered the room, the accused no. 1 ran away.The complainant asked her daughter about who had done this to her.The victim girl said that Ujjal Halder (of that household) called her there on a false pretext and taking advantage of the vacant house, forcibly raped her.When she said she would tell this to all, he tried to throttle her.Then as the complainant raised a cry, the villagers and the people of the household came there and heard this.The accused no. 3 throttled the victim girl lest she would talk.Then as the people of the complainant's household and the villagers came to see the aftermath, the accused no. 2, 3 and 4 ordered 4 everyone out and shut the door, saying that they would take her to the hospital themselves.After a while, the appellants proceeded with the victim girl in a van towards Beniagram P.H.C. Hospital.She died on the way.After a while, as the aforesaid witnesses went to the hospital the doctor said that the victim girl had died and the accused had taken her to the cremation ground for burning.As the aforesaid witnesses went to Beniagram cremation ground, they found accused no. 2, 4 and some other unknown people burning the victim girl in the cremation ground.As the witnesses created an uproar, the accused threatened that they would settle the issue in the village and if people informed the police, they would kill them.The above incident was intimated to the Farakka Police Station in writing through another person.But the police then took no action.3. Investigation commenced.The Investigating Officer prepared a sketch map and examined witnesses.As the dead body of the victim was forcibly cremated several months ago, no post-mortem examination of the deadbody could be held.She deposed about a 'salishi' or 'bichar' that took place after 2/4 days.In fact the 'bichar' took place twice.He too was a post-occurrence witness.The victim told him as well as PW 1 that the appellant no. 1 had raped her and had tried to throttle her.6 The appellant no. 2 also tried to throttle her.The accused then drove them out.The appellant thereafter took away the dead body and burnt it without any post-mortem examination.After that the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 threatened him.They further stated that they would do some 'bichar' in the village only.In his cross-examination PW 3 stated that there was a panchayat member in the village and a chowkidar.But, he was not doing his duty properly.He deposed that in the burning ghat at that time there were about 8/10 persons.The 'dom' or the' 'ijaradar' was actually not present there.PW 4 was a co-villager and a post-occurrence witness to the incident.He saw the victim lying naked.PW 1 told him about the incident.After that the appellants 2, 3 and 4 threatened her that they would assault her and they ousted PW 4 from their house.The local doctor Dr. Sajal Pandit stated that the victim was brought dead to him.On their way back, PW 4 could see the burning ghat.They all asked the appellants 2, 3 and 4 as to why they were burning the dead body of the victim without conducting post-mortem examination.But the said appellants did not allow them to stay near the burning ghat and they stated that they would do 'bichar' of the matter in the villager itself.PW 5 was the father of the victim.At the time of the incident he had been to the river for catching fish.After coming back home at about 3 O'clock in the night, he found his daughter absent and learnt that she was taken to the burning ghat.Then he went and saw the appellants 2, 3 and 4 and some others burning the dead body of his daughter.She saw the victim lying naked on floor of the appellant's house with clothes stained with blood.The victim's mother narrated the incidence to her.She also saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim and thereafter the appellant no. 2 threatened her and drove her out of their house.PW 6 deposed that at that time the victim was still alive, but the appellants brought a van and took her away.In her cross, she stated that she told the police that she had seen the victim in almost senseless condition.Hearing hue and cry raised by the victim's mother, she went to the appellant's house and saw that the victim was lying on the floor of the house.The victim's mother narrated the incident to her.The appellant no. 1 tried to throttle the victim, but thereafter fled away.Then the appellant no. 2 throttled the victim and forcibly ousted them from the house.After that the appellants went to a burning ghat and cremated the victim.After completion of investigation, PW 14, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 21st May 2004 under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code.On 12th August 2004 charges were framed against the appellant no. 1 under Section 376 of the Penal Code and against all the four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as also under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.During trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish its case.The case of the defence was mainly a denial of the prosecution case.She alleged that the accused had offered money to her, but she refused to accept the same.In her cross, she categorically said that when she went to see her daughter, the appellant no. 4 pulled her down from the van in which the appellants carried her daughter allegedly for treatment.PW 2 was a co-villager and a post-occurrence witness.She deposed that the victim told her that the appellant no. 1 had ravished her.After the appellant no. 1 tried to throttle the victim, the appellant no. 2 too came and throttled the victim.Seeing all these, PW 1 the mother of the victim became ill.The appellants 2, 3 and 4 drove them out of their house.In her cross-examination PW 2 vouched that she had stated to the police that she saw the appellant no. 2 throttling the victim girl and that the appellant no. 1 was also going to throttle the victim.She admitted that PW 1 was her 'ja'.She also stated that the accused were one group and the witnesses were the other group.PW 3 was a co-villager and an uncle of the victim.He deposed that the appellants then took the victim away in the name taking her to a hospital.The local doctor, Dr. Pandit said that the victim was brought dead.PW 7 was a neighbour of the victim.In her cross, PW 7 deposed that she stated to the police that she had seen the victim in the appellant's house in unconscious state.She also stated to the police that the appellant no. 2 had throttled the victim and the appellant no. 1 had tried to throttle her.She admitted that there were divisions in the village, the accused belonged to one division and the others belonged to another division.PW 8 was a doctor who examined the appellant no. 1 and found him sexually capable.PW 9 was a neighbour of the victim.He heard about the incident from others in the village.PW 10 was another neighbour who admitted his signature on Ext.3 which was a mass petition given to the police in respect of cremation of the victim's dead body without the parents' permission.PW 11 was a learned Advocate who prepared the de 8 facto complainant's petition under Section 156 (3) of the Code.PW 12 was the victim's brother and a pre-occurrence witness to the incident.The appellant no. 1 had called the victim to his house.Thereafter PW 12 went to the market and came back after the incident and found his mother crying.In the cross-examination he stated that the police had arrested the accused after 3/ 4 days of the incident.PW 13 was a co-villager who had turned hostile.PW 14 was the Investigating Officer of the case.He examined available witnesses and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 376, 301, 201, 34 of the Penal Code.In his cross- examination, he admitted that the burning ghat was not a registered one.In his answer to question no. 8 under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant no. 1 stated that he did not know whether the victim's father killed her, but the said father was the one who had burnt her.Likewise in his answer to question no. 9, the appellant no. 1 reiterated that the victim's father had burnt her.The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that there was an inordinate delay, in filing the complaint, of more than five months and the same was not properly explained.He submitted that even the purported initial intimation to the police about the incident was neither proved nor explained.According to him, mere saying that an intimation was sent to police is not enough.As per the Learned Advocate the only evidence present in the case is alleged verbal dying declaration, which is itself a very weak piece of evidence.The Learned Advocate submitted that the appellant no. 1 did not murder the victim nor was there any medical evidence on rape 9 or murder.He wondered as to why the doctor to whom the victim was taken was not examined.Moreover, if the intention were to murder, then the appellants would not have taken the victim to a doctor, but would have directly proceeded for the burning ghat.He further submitted that there was no document of any 'salish' or 'bichar'.Even the so-called mass petition was not exhibited.The Learned Advocate submitted that PW 2 was contradicted by the Investigating Officer over the issue whether she saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim or the appellant no. 1 for that matter throttle the victim.According to the Learned Advocate, PW 2's deposition that it was discussed about who would be accused and that there were two divisions in the village exposed the malice of the informant's side in falsely implicating the appellants.He also referred to a cross-examination of PW 3 which mentioned that the local people burnt the body.The Investigating Officer also deposed that PW 4 did not state that he had seen the appellant no. 2 throttling the victim.The Learned Advocate relied on a few decisions on the question of delay in lodging First Information Report and the need to explain the said delay.The decisions are - AIR 73 SC 501: Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; (1994) 5 SCC 188: Mehraj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P.; AIR 2007 SC 155: Ramdas & Ors.vs. State of Maharashtra; (2014) 9 SCC 365: Ramaiah @ Rama vs. State of Karnataka.On the question of reliance on a dying declaration made only to the victim's mother, he relied on (2001) SCC (Cri) 1148, Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar.The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State strongly supported the conviction and sentence.He submitted that the incidents 10 commenced from the victim going to the appellant's house upon the appellant no. 1's call and ended at the burning ghat.All these long the victim was under the control of the appellants.As the appellants had full knowledge of the incident, they should have explained as to how the victim got killed and illegally cremated.There were several witnesses like PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to the verbal dying declaration.According to PWs 1 and 2, the appellants took away the dead body.PWs 2, 3 and 4 saw the appellant no. 1 throttle the victim.PWs 1, 6 and 7 were the ones before whom the victim said that the appellant no. 1 tried to throttle and kill her.PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 raised the question before the appellants as to why they did not send the dead body of the victim for post-mortem before cremation.PWs 1, 4 and 12 said that the incident was reported to police and police came and assured them that the police would inquire further and take appropriate steps.PWs 3, 4 and 5 saw burning of the dead body.PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim.He submitted that threats were given by the appellants not to report to the police.The Learned Advocate further submitted that a 'bichar' was held.As police did not do anything, the de facto complainant filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code.Delay has thus been well explained.In any event, the circumstances as referred above provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.From the evidence of PW 1, the mother of the victim and PW 12, the victim's brother it is clear that the appellant no. 1 had asked the minor victim to come to their house on the pretext that his mother had asked for her.After taking permission from her mother, the victim girl went to the appellant's house.There, by taking advantage of absence of others, the appellant no. 1 raped the victim.According to the statements given by the victim to other witnesses like PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 after committing such crime, the appellant no. 1 throttled her as she stated that she would tell others about the incident.PW 6 saw the appellant no. 1 throttle the victim.When the victim girl did not return home for sometime, her mother PW 1 went to the house of the appellants and found the victim girl lying practically naked on the floor of the room.Seeing PW 1, the appellant no. 1 fled away from inside the room.The victim then told PW 1 about the incident.Thereafter the appellant no. 2 also came and tried to throttle the victim.By this time upon hearing the hue and cry raised by PW 1, other neighbours like PWs 3, 4 and 6 had come to the appellant's house.They too saw the victim girl in such dishabille condition.PWs 2, 3 and 4 saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim.Thereafter the appellants, in an ostensible use of their relatively elevated status and position of influence, ousted all the visitors from their house.Then the appellants took the victim girl in a vehicle purportedly to see a doctor.In fact, the appellant 13 no. 4 pushed away PW 1 when she tried to get into the car.There is no witness about what happened inside the vehicle.But, the local doctor Dr. Sajal Pandit to whom the appellants took the victim stated to other witnesses that he had found the victim brought dead.Thereafter without intimating the police and waiting for a post-mortem examination over the dead body and without any kind of permission from the victim's parents, the appellants took the dead body to an unofficial burning ghat and illegally cremated the dead body.PWs 3, 4 and 5 were the witnesses to such cremation.The non-examination of the doctor to whom the victim was taken was a gross error committed by the Investigating Officer.But, that does not take away the copious amount of evidence adduced by others about the sequence of events.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

Waregaon, Taluka Fulmabri, District Aurangabad.The marriage of the deceased Muktabai was solemnized on 22-04-2002 with one Sunil s/o.Fakirchand Sonawane.The gold ornaments and dowry of Rs.35,000/- was given in marriage to husband and inmates of matrimonial home of deceased Muktabai.The elder sister Anita of deceased Muktabai agreed to gift the cot/bedstead in the marriage to deceased Muktabai.After marriage, the deceased Muktabai joined the company of husband Sunil for cohabitation at her matrimonial home located in Sanjay Nagar area, Aurangabad in joint family comprising in-laws, brother-in-law Bharat and his wife accused Rekha.It has been alleged that after the marriage, the deceased Muktabai was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the sister- in-law accused Rekha for demand of cot/bedstead agreed to be given in marriage by elder sister Anita.According to prosecution, the deceased Muktabai was subjected to torture on trifle reasons.She was also beaten-up and abused by the sister-in-law, accused Rekha for demand of money.It has been contended that on 28-11-2002, the brother PW- 1 Santosh received the message that the sister Muktabai sustained burns and she was admitted in Government Hospital, Aurangabad, for medical treatment.Thereafter, the brother, parents and other relatives of deceased Muktabai rushed to the Government Hospital to see the deceased Muktabai.When they all arrived in the hospital, the accused and other inmates of matrimonial home of deceased Muktabai were present near her.Thereafter, on 30-11-2002, the deceased Muktabai::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 3 32-CriAl-262-04-J spill-the-beans that since last two days of burning incident, her sister- in-law accused Rekha was ill-treating her on flimsy reasons.She was also assaulted and abused by accused Rekha.At last, on 28-11-2002, in the wee hours of the morning at about 6.45 a.m. the accused-Rekha poured the kerosene oil on the person of deceased Muktabai and set her ablaze.Thereafter, the husband Sunil, in-laws and others taken her to the Government Hospital for medical treatment.The brother Santosh rushed to the Police of Jinsi Police Station and filed the complaint-application for recording the declaration of sister Muktabai afresh to ascertain the cause of her burns and for penal action against the culprits.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::It is to be noted that after occurrence of burning incident of deceased Muktabai, she was immediately escorted to the Government Hospital, Aurangabad, for medical treatment.The injured deceased Muktabai verbalized that she received the burns due to sudden blaze of stove.The police personnel deputed at GHATI Hospital recorded the MLC No. 3395/SSG/dated 28-11-2002 at 7.45 a.m. The concerned P.S.O. of Jinsi Police Station took the entry of MLC in the Station Dairy and enquiry was entrusted to PSI Shri.The requisition was forwarded to the Executive Magistrate Mr. Imranul Haq for recording statement of injured Muktabai.Accordingly, the Special Executive Magistrate immediately on 28-11-2002, visited to the injured Muktabai in the hospital and recorded her statement for cause of her burn.The deceased Muktabai once again disclosed that she sustained the burns accidentally due to sudden blaze of stove.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::4 32-CriAl-262-04-JMeanwhile, the PW-1 Santosh moved an application to the police to record the statement of his sister deceased Muktabai afresh to ascertain the cause of her burn.Therefore, the police personnel PSI Sirsath, once again rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of deceased Muktabai.However, at this juncture, the injured Muktabai blamed her sister-in-aw accused Rekha for her burns.She divulged that the accused Rekha subjected her to cruelty for demand of money.She used to abuse and torture her mentally and on 28-11-2002 at 6.30 a.m., the accused Rekha poured the kerosene on her person and put her on fire.The appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer RI for 15 days.The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer RI for fifteen days.All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently to serve out the punishment.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::2 32-CriAl-262-04-J::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Pursuant to First Information Report (FIR) of injured Muktabai recorded by police personnel PSI Shri.Sirsath, on 30-11-2002, the Crime No. I- 41 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 307 and 504 of IPC came to be registered.The investigation was set in motion.Investigating Officer (IO) recorded statement of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.He collected the documents of spot panchnama, etc. prepared during enquiry of MLC.Pending the investigation, the injured Muktabai, on 02-12-2002 at about 11.25 a.m. succumbed to burn.IO drawn inquest panchnama and referred the dead body for autopsy.IO applied Section 302 of IPC against the accused.IO send the seized muddemal to forensic laboratory for Chemical Analysis.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to frame charge against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.The appellant- accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses to bring home guilt of the accused.However, the learned Sessions Judge, held the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC and rendered the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, which is the subject-matter of present appeal.The learned counsel Shri P.F. Patni appearing for appellant scathingly assailed that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence is totally illegal, perverse and bad in law.The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record in its proper perspective.There were no allegation of abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased Muktabai.But the learned trial Court suo-moto framed the charge under Section 306 of IPC.The conviction of appellant-accused under::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 6 32-CriAl-262-04-J Section 306 of IPC without any evidence is erroneous, illegal and against the principles of law.The leaned counsel Shri Patni also criticized the findings of conviction of appellant-accused under Section 498-A of IPC.According to learned counsel Shri Patni, there are general and omnibus allegations of cruelty on the part of accused to the deceased Muktabai.The evidence of prosecution witnesses are vague and cryptic in nature and not sufficient to draw adverse inference against accused.He has also harped on the circumstances that victim Muktabai sustained burns accidentally owing to sudden blaze of stove.The documents of MLC and dying declaration recorded by Special Executive Magistrate at the earliest on 28-11-2002, all pointed out the incident of accidental burns.But, later-on, at the behest of brother and other relatives, the deceased Muktabai changed the version and blamed the accused Rekha for her burns.The multiple dying declarations of deceased Muktabai recorded on 30-11-2002, all were the product of tutoring and prompting to deceased Muktabai by her kith and kins.There was delay in lodging the FIR.According to learned counsel, all the prosecution witnesses are related and interested witnesses.The evidence of neighbourer or denizens of locality is not available on record.The learned counsel explained the circumstances on record and submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to nail the appellant-accused in this case.There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.There were no allegations against the husband, in-laws and brother-in-law of deceased Muktabai.He fervidly contends that the prosecution failed to prove charges against the accused::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 7 32-CriAl-262-04-J beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant-accused be absolved from the charges pitted against her.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::The learned APP raised the objections to the arguments advanced on behalf of appellant-accused.According to learned APP, the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the circumstances on record and drawn adverse inference against appellant-accused for charges of cruelty and abetment to commit suicide by the deceased Muktabai.The learned APP submits that deceased Muktabai died due to burn and her death was occurred within 7/8 months of her marriage.The victim Muktabai in her dying declarations before Police and Special Executive Magistrate (Exhibits-20 and 23 respectively) stated about the harassment by the accused for demand of money.The brother and sister of deceased also testified about the oral dying declaration of Muktabai.Therefore, learned APP urged not to cause any interference at the instance of appellant in the findings of conviction of appellant- accused recorded by learned trial Court.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides.I have also delved into the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record including factual score of the matter.I find painful to subscribe to the findings of conviction of the appellant-accused recorded by learned trial Court.It is not in dispute that the deceased Muktabai died due to shock following 80%::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 8 32-CriAl-262-04-J burns.The PW2- Dr. Shinde conducted the Post mortem (Exhibit-3).The Inquest Panchnama (Exhibit-24) also indicate the cause of death of Muktabai due to burns.According to prosecution, the accused Rekha was the author of burn injuries sustained to deceased Muktabai and therefore, the accused Rekha was the perpetrator and responsible for homicidal death of victim Muktabai.The prosecution also cast allegation that the death of victim Muktabai was an dowry death caused due to burns within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution relied upon the oral dying declaration of deceased Muktabai made to brother and sister PW-1 Santosh and PW3-Anita.The prosecution also attempted to keep reliance on the written dying declarations (Exhibit-20 and 23) of the victim Muktabai recorded by Special Executive Magistrate PW 6 - Sanjay Vyawahare and PW - 7 PSI Sirsath.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to appreciate the versions of brother and sister, PW 1 and PW 3 of the Muktabai in regard to cause of her burns.The evidence of dying declarations (Exhibits-20 and 23) of the deceased Muktabai was also discarded by the learned trial Court on the ground that it may be the product of tutoring and prompting by the brother and sister etc. Therefore, the learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses for the allegation of homicidal death of victim Muktabai.It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the conduct and demeanour of PW 1 Santosh and PW 3 Anita found suspicious and dubious one.The PW 1- Santosh must have received::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 9 32-CriAl-262-04-J the information about the exact cause of burn of sister Muktabai on very same day i.e. 28-11-2002, when he immediately visited to sister Muktabai in the hospital.But, PW 1- Santosh attempted to suppress these facts and approached to the Police at belated stage on 30-11- 2002 with the allegation of homicidal death of sister Muktabai by the accused Rekha.Be that as it may, the learned trial Court refused to accept the evidence of oral and written dying declaration propounded on behalf of prosecution and proceeded to exonerate the accused for the charges of murder and dowry death as envisaged under Section 302, 304-B of IPC.The learned trial Court held that there was no agreement for giving cot/bedstead in the marriage to deceased Muktabai.The PW 3 Anita was intending to give the cot / bedstead as gift on her own volition to younger sister Muktabai in her marriage.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Eventually, the learned trial Court exonerated the accused for the charges under Section 302 and 304-B of IPC, but, held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC.It is worth to mention that there were no allegations on behalf of prosecution that owing to maltreatment/cruelty, the deceased Muktabai committed suicide.In contrast, the prosecution came forward with specific allegations that the death of victim Muktabai was homicidal and accused Rekha was responsible for her death.In alternative, the prosecution alleged that the death of victim Muktabai occurred due to::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 10 32-CriAl-262-04-J burn within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by accused for demand of dowry.It was an offense of dowry death punishable under section 304-B of IPC.But, as referred above, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused on both these counts of offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC pitted against her and proceeded to convict her under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Albeit, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC on the allegation that the deceased Muktabai on 28-11-2002, committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set herself ablaze.The learned trial Court drawn the adverse inference of self immolation of deceased Muktabai on the basis of attending circumstances found prevailing over on the scene of occurrence reflects from document of spot panchnama (Exhibit-17).The learned trial Court in paragraph No. 19 observed as below :-POINT NOS.4 AND 5 : It is not in dispute that within 8 months from the date of the marriage Muktabai died of burns.Muktabai's relatives namely her brother and sister tried to take revenge of the death of their sister making out a story that Muktabai was in fact murdered.However, it has been held that prosecution has failed to establish that the death of Muktabai was a murder.PW7 has stated that during investigation, he drew panchnama of the place where Muktabai was burnt.To prove panchnama Exh. 17, the prosecution examined Sk.Yakub (PW5).Yakub admitted his signature::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 11 32-CriAl-262-04-J upon the panchnama, but refused to support its contents.However, PW 7 in his evidence stated that he drew the panchnama Exh. 17 and the articles found at that place namely a stove, match box and burnt clothes of Muktabai were seized.It is mentioned in the panchnama that the floor of the room was emitting smell of kerosene, means the kerosene was spread on the floor.The half burnt clothes of Muktabai were sent to CA and Chemical Analyzer had found residue of kerosene on the clothes.Had it been a case of accident as stated by the accused due to sudden rise of the flames of the stove, then in that case there would not have been spreading of kerosene on the floor and residues would not have found on the clothes of the deceased.The fact that kerosene was found spread on the floor and residues were found on the clothes of the deceased shows that kerosene was poured on her before she was set ablaze.The possibility of accused setting fire to Muktabai is ruled out.There is also no possibility of there being accidental rise of the flames from the stove.The only possibility is that Muktabai committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her.As she herself poured kerosene nobody could reach her till she was engulfed by flames.The relatives of the husband of Muktabai tried to suppress the fact of death of Muktabai being suicidal, as in that case they would be blamed.The prosecution witnesses namely PW 1 and PW 3 also suppressed the fact as they wanted to take revenge of the death of Muktabai, as Muktabai was telling them that accused was harassing her for not fulfilling a demand of cot.The only unescapable conclusion under the given circumstances is that Mutkabai committed suicide."::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::12 32-CriAl-262-04-JIt would be reiterated that no one else put forward the theory of suicidal death of victim Muktabai in this case.As referred above, prosecution cast allegation of murder and dowry death as envisaged under Sections 302 or 304-B of IPC.The accused categorically came forward with specific defence of accidental death of victim Muktabai.It has been contended on behalf of accused that there was mishap occurred with the deceased Muktabai and she sustained the burns due to sudden blaze of stove.The accused also reproduced it in her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In such backdrop, the Court has to evaluate the circumstances to determine whether the death of victim Muktabai was homicidal or accidental in nature.The learned trial Court discarded both the possibilities and arrived at the conclusion that the death of victim Muktabai would be an suicidal death.The above referred observations of learned trial Court for conclusion of suicidal death appears to be rest on figment of imagination, surmises and conjuncture.The deceased Muktabai at the threshold narrated the history of accidental burn for MLC No. 3395/SSG dated 28-11-2002 (Exhibit-30).It has an reference in the letter (Exhibit-31) dated 28-11-2002 addressed to Special Executive Magistrate by Police Personnel PW-7 Mr. Shirsath.Moreover, in dying declaration (Exhibit-32) recorded by Special Executive Magistrate Mr. Haq, the deceased Muktabai divulged about the accidental burns due to sudden blaze of stove.The learned trial Court refused to keep reliance on the dying declaration of victim Muktabai (Exhibit-32) recorded by Special Executive Magistrate Mr. Haq.According to learned trial Court, it was not proved and deceased::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 13 32-CriAl-262-04-J Muktabai might have given it under pressure of husband or relatives of accused.These sort of findings of learned trial Court appears to be preposterous and incomprehensible one.It is to be noted that these documents (Exhibits 30, 31 and 32) were brought on record on behalf of accused during cross-examination of IO PW-7 Mr. Shirsath only to fortify her defence.The prosecution did not painstake to produce all these documents fairly on record to ascertain the truth.It was the defence of accused that deceased Muktabai sustained burns accidentally.The defence of accused was required to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and it is not necessary to prove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Ironically, the learned trial Court on its own proceeded to substitute a new story of suicidal death, totally different from one propounded on behalf of prosecution in this matter.It is to be born in mind that law does not permit such endeavour on the part of learned trial Court to reconstruct a new theory of its own from the residual part of evidence of prosecution and convict the accused on that basis.The Honourable Apex Court in paragraph No. 11 has held that :::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::It is well settled that the prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges.It must stand on its own legs.Nor can the Court on its own make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis."In the case of Prafulla Bora and others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::In the matter in hand, it would be reiterated that the learned trial Court on the basis of document of panchnama of spot of incident (Exhibit-17) and CA report attempted to introduce the new story of suicidal death of Muktabai and convicted the accused under Section 306 of IPC.The approach of the learned trial Court for inventing the new story of suicidal death of deceased Muktabai is totally absurd, illogical and not within the ambit of law.It is fallacious to fasten the guilt on the accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC under the pretext of suicidal death of Muktabai.Moreover, there are no circumstances available on record to show that accused at the relevant time instigated the deceased Muktabai to commit suicide.In the result, the conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC deserves to be set aside and quashed.The conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court about the cruelty meted out to victim Muktabai also found erroneous, imperfect and perverse one.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Admittedly, the allegation of cruelty recorded in dying declaration by public servant being hearsay evidence cannot be taken into consideration to evaluate the guilt of accused.The learned trial Court, taking recourse of legal ratio laid down in the case of Ganinath Patnaik Versus State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 619, rightly held that the allegations made in the dying declarations are not admissible to hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.In such circumstances, the evidence of PW 1- Santosh and PW 3 - Anita only remained available for appreciation for the allegation of cruelty.But, the evidence of these witnesses found cryptic and slender in nature.They made allegation about maltreatment to deceased Muktabai for demand of cot/bedstead and thereafter demand for money.These witnesses cast stray and general allegations without any details of it.The learned counsel Shri.Patni for accused rightly kept reliance on the ratio laid down by Honourable Apex Court in Jagdishraj Khutta' s case as referred above.The general and omnibus statement of prosecution witnesses without::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 17 32-CriAl-262-04-J any supporting evidence cannot be taken into consideration to book the guilt of the accused.The evidence of no any neighbourer or denizens of the locality is available on record to nail the accused in this case for charges of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::In sequel, there is no impediment to arrive at the conclusion that the entire approach of learned trial Court for convicting the accused under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC is erroneous, illegal and bad-in- law.There were no circumstances on record sufficient to conclude that the appellant-accused abated the commission of suicide by the deceased Muktabai.It would hazardous to draw inference that the suicide by deceased was the direct result of instigation by the accused.Moreover, as referred above, the prosecution did not make any allegation of abetment of suicide of the deceased Muktabai.The learned trial Court discarded the evidence of prosecution witness in the form of oral and written dying declaration and turned down the allegation of homicidal or dowry death of deceased Muktabai.Unfortunately, the learned trial Court on the basis of residual part of evidence i.e. spot panchnama (Exhibit-17), C.A. report etc, proceeded to introduce new theory of suicidal death, which was totally not in consonance with the allegations propounded on the part of prosecution.The law does not permit such endeavour to re-construct the story of its own out of the rest and convict the accused.In such circumstances, the impugned findings of conviction and resultant sentence rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad deserves to be set aside and quashed.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::18 32-CriAl-262-04-JAccordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 473 of 2002 dated 31-03-2004, against present appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.She is acquitted from the charges pitted against her.The bail bonds furnished by appellant-accused stands cancelled.The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant being meager amount, same be forfeited to Government.The order about destruction of muddemal property is hereby confirmed.The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

The said case arises out of a complaint preferred by the second respondent, who at the relevant point in 2006 was a nun and shehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 has alleged in her complaint that she was repeatedly raped by certain Father Rajarathinam arrayed as A1 in this case.The case has been charge sheeted, committed to sessions and the charges have been framed and now pending trial before the Mahila Court, Trichy.At this stage, the petitioner herein has come forward with the present petition for quashing the charges.Isacc Mohanlal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that after the repeated acts of alleged rape by the first accused, the prosecutrix / second respondent approached the petitioner, who at the time was functioning as Provincial in the church hierarchy and he is said to have hold preliminary enquiry into the allegation made against A1, who at the relevant time was a Principal in a college run by the Jenit's and subsequently held out threat to the petitioner.Before the Sessions Court, the petitioner faces trial for the charges under Sections 201 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.On a reading the entire final report, which necessarily includes the statements of witnesses, including that of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 prosecutrix, it is clear that the allegation of rape was directed only against the first accused and that itself has spread over a period of time.Even according to the statement of the second respondent, she was once conceived in one of those repeated acts of force-sex and the same was aborted and the only allegation, where she brings in the present petitioner is that on 29.09.2010, she made a complaint to the petitioner in his capacity as Provincial and further makes a statement that the Provincial on enquiry discloses that the first accused had denied the allegations made against him.The threat part of the second respondent is said to have been taken place subsequent to this enquiry.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the second respondent.The second respondent has also filed as styled as counter affidavit.On a reading of the same, it gives the wholesome concession to all the accused, who she had earlier alleged to have either raped her or supported the acts of rape as the case may be.http://www.judis.nic.in 4A reading of the entire statement of the witnesses including the prosecutrix, one fact that stands out is that nowhere there is an allegation that the petitioner had either harboured criminal or participated in any of the acts constituting rape at any point of time nor he suppressed any information deliberately to the Investigating Agency.Possibly if the Investigating Agency has treated him as a witness he might have been parted with any information.Herein the Court now wants to rely on the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.This Court does not want tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 N.SESHASAYEE, J., ta stretch it for the offence of 376, for which the first accused now faces trial.Necessarily, charges for this offence should also now go.In conclusion, this Court holds that the charges framed against the present petitioner for the offences under Section 201 and 506(i) IPC r/w 34 IPC is quashed and this criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.03.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ta Note: Issue Order copy on 05.04.20191.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, 4th Circle, Fort Police Station, Trichirappalli.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.CRL.O.P.[MD]No.21512 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Basu, J.Appellant Narayan Prasad Sen was convicted under Section 489B/511 and also under Section 489C of the IPC in connection with Shankar Mukherjee, being suspicious of the movement and action of the appellant, reported the matter to the CBI authority and according to suggestion and advice of CBI officials, a trap was laid down on 22nd January, 1995 at "Gyan Sweets" where the appellant was supposed to come along with counterfeit currency notes for exchange.On 22nd January, 1995 as per previous plan, CBI officials were present along with independent witnesses and appellant was apprehended within the shop along with 23 number of 500/- rupee currency notes and 57 number of 100/- rupee currency notes.On interrogation of appellant and without, getting any reasonable explanation from him over his possession of so many counterfeit currency notes, the boarding house at.Sealdah where the appellant was staying temporarily was also searched and a Rs. 100/- denomination note was seized.Search was also made at the official quarter of the appellant at Coachbehar Fire Service Station and a 500/- rupee currency note was seized.CBI, on receipt of a regular complaint from Shankar Mukherjee and after seizure of counterfeit currency notes, started investigation and in course of investigation, obtained expert's report regarding the counterfeit notes and after being satisfied with a strong prima facie case about possession of counterfeit notes by the appellant and his intention to transact with those counterfeit notes, CBI submitted charge sheet against the appellant recommending his trial in open Court under Section 489B/511 and under Section 489C of the IPC.The learned Sessions Judge of City Sessions Court at Calcutta, from the necessary papers placed before it.framed charge against the appellant and since the appellant denied the charge and pleaded his innocence, CBI authority was asked to produce evidence to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant.CBI during trial examined 14 witnesses in all including Shankar Mukherjee, the complainant, several witnesses to search and seizure, Mr. S.K. Joshi.the technical officer of bank note press who submitted report on examination of the counterfeit currency notes and officers of the CBI including the investigating officer.Appellant, during trial and also during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr. PC took a specific plea that out of inter-union rivalry, Shankar Mukherjee hatched a conspiracy against the appellant and in connivance with CBI officers, a concocted case was prepared against the appellant.The learned Sessions Judge of City Sessions Court, after considering the evidence produced by CBI during trial particularly with reference to the search and seizure taken place at "Gyan Sweets", came to the conclusion that appellant, was found in possession of several counterfeit currency notes and with reference to the report of the expert and statement of the expert as P,W,8, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that all the currency notes found in possession of the appellant were counterfeit notes.The learned Judge mainly banking upon the statement of Shankar Mukherjee P.W. 10 followed by search and seizure of the appellant came to further conclusion that appellant had the intention to exchange the counterfeit currency notes and the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, accepted the prosecution case and held the appellant guilty for the offence both under Section 489B/511 and under Section 489C of the IPC.Mr. Roy contends that P.W. Shankar Mukherjee lodged the complaint regarding possession of counterfeit currency notes by the appellant and also regarding the intention of the appellant to put those currency notes in circulation and thereby to make material gain in the form of collection of genuine currency notes.Mr. Roy submits that following the complaint of P.W. Shankar Mukherjee.CBI officials with the help of independent witnesses like Pradip Kr.Roy, Pranab Saha, Pradip Thakwani recovered the currency notes from the possession of the appellant and on examination of those currency notes by P.W. S.K. Joshi, a Government expert it was ascertained that those currency notes were counterfeit notes.In this appeal we have the privilege to consider the written note placed before us both by Mr. Safiullah appearing for the appellant as well as by Mr. Roy representing the CBI authority and we have considered both the written notes along with oral submissions put forward by the learned advocate of both the sides.It will not be out of record to mention that Mr. Safiullah was very much candid and clear that his only point to challenge the order of conviction and sentence centers around the question of legality and propriety of the investigation started by the CBI on the basis of a complaint from a citizen within the territory of this State.Thus, having regard to the submissions of both the sides along with their written note, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.The order of conviction and sentenced passed against the appellant are hereby confirmed.The prayer for certificate to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is considered and rejected.Pranab Kumar Deb, J.I agree.

['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

According to prosecution version, accused-appellant Zahid Khan as well as deceased Khalid used to ply their respective rickshaws.Three-four days prior to the incident, rickshaw of deceased Khalid has got struck with rickshaw of accused-appellant Zahid Khan and due to that reason, accused-appellant Zahid Khan has threatened him.On that day at about 7:00 pm accused-appellant has sent one boy to call the deceased from his house and accused-appellant Zahid Khan took position in nearby lane (Gali) by concealing himself.When deceased Khalid, while taking his rickshaw, reached near water tank in the lane, accused-appellant Zahid Khan attacked him with knife.Deceased Zahid Khan sustained knife injury at his abdomen.Hearing his noise, one Bhoora Khan and Zafar Khan as well as some other nearby residents rushed to spot but Zahid Khan fled away from there.Injured Khalid was medically examined by PW-6 Dr. S.K. Gupta vide MLC Ex. Ka- 3 and he has sustained following injuries:(i) Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep.Loops of intestines were protruding out.19. PW-5 Zafar Miyan has stated that accused-appellant is known to him.On day of incident at around 6:45 / 7.00 PM while he was passing through Jail road and he reached near house of Azam Khan, after hearing noise, he reached in the lane and saw that accused-appellant Zahid Khan was causing injuries to Khalid.At that time Bhoora Khan, Bachhan Khan and Sher Ahmad have also reached there.This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 16.9.1982, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, in Session Trial No. 33 of 1982, State vs. Zahid, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Ganj, District Rampur, whereby, accused-appellant Zahid was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine he has to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.Kept under observation.Advised X-Ray.It was on left side of abdomen 6 cm below umblicus.(ii) Incised wound 4.5 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on inner surface of right hand.It was a simple injury.Deceased Khalid, being in injured condition, was admitted in hospital but during course of treatment on 21.09.1981 he succumbed to injuries.Inquest proceedings were conducted by Investigating Officer P.W.-9 S.I. Ompal Singh vide inquest report Ex. Ka-10 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.Deceased has sustained following injuries.(i) stitched wound 3.2 cm left iliac region of abdomen 10 cm below and laterally to umblicus 2 cm above the ingunial legament left side that is in the lowest part of the abdomen.(ii) stitched wound 4.5 cm right palm posteriorly between thumb and index finger (roots) extending upwards to dorsum of palm.Cause of death of the deceased was on account of injury no.1 causing hemorrhage and shock.Investigation of the case was conducted by PW-9 S.I. Ompal Singh.After completion of investigation, accused-appellant Zahid Khan was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 304 IPC.Trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against accused-appellant Zahid Khan, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of accused-appellant Zahid Khan, prosecution has examined nine witnesses.After prosecution evidence, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he has denied prosecution evidence and claimed false implication.However, no evidence was adduced in defence.After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, trial Court convicted accused-appellant Zahid Khan under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced as stated in opening part of this judgment.Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, accused-appellant Zahid Khan has preferred the present appeal.Heard Sri Moeez Uddin, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Attreya Dutt, learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned Amicus Curiae has argued:I. that both the eye-witness PW-3 Bhoora Khan and PW-5 Zafar Miyan are inimical witnesses and their presence at the spot is highly doubtful and that there are contradictions in their testimony.It was stated that statements of these witnesses are not reliable.that prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of accused-appellant to cause death of deceased Khalid.The prosecution version that a few days prior to the incident, rickshaw of deceased has got struck with rickshaw of accused-appellant, is not established.It was stated that accused-appellant has taken a specific plea that as he used not to run any rickshaw.that alleged statements of deceased, recorded by PW-1 Salim Khan, which has been treated as dying declaration, is not reliable and there is no evidence that deceased was in a fit state of mind to make such an statement.As per prosecution version, deceased has sustained serious injuries at his abdomen area and thus, it does not appear reliable that he was in such mental state to make any such statement.Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that first information report of this case was lodged by deceased himself within half an hour of the incident naming the accused-appellant Zahid Khan.Both the eye-witnesses PW-3 Bhoora Khan and PW-5 Zafar Miyan have made clear and consistent statement.No material contradiction or inconsistency could emerge in their cross-examination.Their version is amply supported by medical evidence.There are no reasons to disbelieve the alleged dying declarations.Learned State counsel submitted that there is overwhelming evidence against accused-appellant, which has been duly appreciated by trial Court and that conviction of accused-appellant is based on evidence.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.In evidence PW-1 Salim Khan has stated that on 17.09.1981 Khalid has got written tahreer Ex. Ka-1 from him and whatever was dictated by Khalid, the same was written down in the same.The tahreer was read over to him and after that Khalid has affixed his thumb impression on the same.PW-1 Salim has stated that Khalid has got written the following tahreer from him:udy rgjhj fgUnh **Fkkuk bZUpktZ xat jkeiqj fuosnu gS fd rhu pkj fnu igys esjk fjd'kk tkghn eksgYyk tsy jksM dh fjd'kk ls Vdjk x;k Fkk rks blus eq>s dgk Fkk fd rw>s ns[akwxkA vkt djhc 7 cts 'kke tkghn us eq>s cqykus ,d yM+dk Hkstk vkSj vius vki Nqi dj xyh eas [kM+k gks x;k tc eS viuk fjd'kk ysdj Vadh ds ikl vk;k rks blus Nqjh ls esjs Åij okj dj fn;k Nqjh esjs isV esa o nk;s gkFk esa yxh esjs 'kksj ls eksgYys ds Hkwjk [kka o tQj vk;s vkSj cgqr ls vkneh vk;s ftUgsa vkrk ns[kdj tkghn Hkkx x;k esjh jiV fy[k dj dkjokgh dh tk;s eq>s vLirky Hkst fn;k tk;sA** izkFkh [kkyhn iq= cUus [kak eksgYyk enjlk dksuk Fkkuk xat jkeiqjA rgjhj ys[kd& lyhe [kka iq= utkdy vyh [kka eksgYyk BksVj Fkkuk xat jkeiqj g- vaxzsth lyhe [kka 17-9-81PW-2 Dr. P.L. Shah has conducted postmortem.PW-3 Bhoora Khan has stated that he knows the accused-appellant Zahid Khan.On the day of incident, at around 7:00 pm when he was going towards his field and reached at some distance from the house of Azam Khan MLA, near turn of road, he heard noise and when he reached there, he saw that in the lane accused Zahid Khan was giving knife blow at stomach of Khalid.PW-3 Bhoora Khan raised alarm and thereafter accused-appellant ran away towards north side.PW-3 Bhoora Khan further stated that one Bachhan Khan, Zafar Khan and some other persons have also reached there.Deceased Khalid, while he was in injured condition, has dictated a report to Salim Khan.They all raised alarm and thereafter accused-appellant fled away.Deceased Khalid sustained injuries at his stomach and hand.20. PW-4 constable Omkar Singh and PW-7 constable Devendu Singh have assisted during investigation.21. PW-6 Dr. S.K. Gupta has medically examined the deceased Khalid Khan, while deceased was in injured condition.PW-8 Rashid is brother of deceased and he has stated that after incident, deceased was admitted in hospital and on 21.09.1981 he was to be taken to Delhi institute but as soon as he was taken out from the hospital, he succumbed to injuries and thus, deceased was again taken back to the same hospital.PW-9 S.I. Ompal Singh has conducted investigation.He has stated that on 17.09.1981 after registration of case he has recorded statement of Khalid at the police station.PW 9 Ompal Singh has spoken the contents of exhibit Ka-6 as under:"rkbZn o rLnhd jiV nkf[ky djrs gq;s C;ku fn;k] fd eaS fjd'kk pykrk gwWA rhu pkj fnu igys esjk fjd'kk tkfgn dh fjd'kk ls Vdjk x;k Fkk tks fd tsy jksM ij jgrk gS rks tkfgn us eq>ls dgk Fkk fd rq>s ns[kwXkkA vkt djhc] 7 cts tkfgn us eq>s ,d yM+ds ls cqyok;k tcfd eS viuh fjd'kk ysdj tsy jksM dks tk jgk Fkk ml yM+dk dk uke irk eS ugh tkurk gwW vkSj tkfgn [kk xyh esa Nqidj [kM+k gks x;kA tc eS viuh fjd'kk ysdj eksgYyk ?ksj ehjckt [kk dh Vadh ds ikl igqWpk rks tkfgn [kk us esjs Åij Nqjh ls okj dj fn;kA Nqjh esjs isV o nkfgus ckg esa vaxwBs o vaxqyh ds ikl yxhA esjs 'kksj ij eksgYYkk Hkwjk [kka o tkQj vk x;k ckn dks vkSj Hkh cgqr ls vkneh vk; x;s FksA ftUgsa ns[kdj tkfgn Nqjh fy;s gq;s Hkkx x;kA eSusa ogh ij lyhe [kka cki dk uke utkdr vyh [kka ls bl ckr dh] [kqn cksydj ,d rsgjhj fy[kokbZ tks eSus cksyk mlus ogh fy[kk eq>s i<+dj lqukdj esjk fu'kkuh vaxwBk yxok;kA rsgjhj ysdj Fkkus vk;k vkSj nhokuth dks rsgjhj nsdj jiV fy[kkbZA nhokuth us jiV fy[kdj udy eq>s nh gSA vkSj pksVsa ns[kdj fy[kh gS vc eS vLirky tk jgk gwWA**"PW 9 further stated that during course of investigation, statements of other witnesses were recorded.On 21.09.1981 after receipt of information regarding death of Khalid, case was converted from Section 324 to Section 304 IPC.Perusal of record shows that conviction of accused-appellant Zahid Khan is based on dying declaration of deceased Khalid as well as testimony of eye-witness PW-3 Bhoora Khan.So far the dying declarations of deceased Khalid are concerned, the case of prosecution is that in alleged incident deceased Khalid has sustained knife injuries at his abdomen area.For reporting the matter to police, he dictated a tahreer exhibit ka-1 to PW 1 Salim Khan and submitted the same to police and case was registered on the basis of that tahreer.On fourth day deceased succumbed to injuries and thus, after death of deceased, the said document (exhibit ka-1) amounts to dying declaration made by deceased before PW 1 Salim Khan.Secondly after registration of case at the police station, statement (exhibit ka-6) of deceased was recorded under section 161 CrPC by PW 9 SI Ompal Singh at the police station itself and thereafter he was sent to hospital.As stated earlier, on 21.09.1981 deceased succumbed to injuries, thus according to prosecution said statement exhibit ka-6 made by deceased to PW-9 SI Ompal Singh would also fall within the ambit of 'dying declaration'.Here it may be stated that both PW-1 Salim Khan and PW-9 SI Ompal Singh have made clear and consistent statements regarding alleged statements exhibit ka- 1 and exhibit ka-6 respectively.PW-1 Salim has made a consistent and cogent statement that on 17.09.1981 Khalid has got written tahreer exhibit Ka-1 from him and whatever was dictated by Khalid, the same was taken down in the tahreer exhibit ka-1 and that it was read over to him and after that Khalid had affixed his thumb impression on the same.PW-1 Salim has also spoken about contents of exhibit ka-1 in his statement.The investigating officer (PW 9) was not contemplating to record the dying declaration of the victim inasmuch as the victim was seriously injured and immediately needed medical aid.Before sending him to the hospital for proper treatment, PW-9 thought it fit to get the version about the occurrence recorded from the victim himself that had taken place and that is how Exhibit Ka-6 came to be recorded.No such evidence was brought on record to support the said allegation.Date: 06.08.2020 A. Tripathi (Raj Beer Singh, J)

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

The incident generated widespread nationaland international coverage and was widely condemned both inIndia and abroad.This incident brought in questionthe safety of women into city like Mumbai which, with its activenight life was considered safe heaven for women.The SessionsCourt in Delhi, delivered its verdict on 10th September 2013,convicting the perpetrators of the crime.Another incident inthe financial capital of the country - Mumbai, shocked thewhole nation.This time it was another young girl Esther aged22 years who fell prey of the bestial proclivity at the hands of aman who ended her journey of life mercilessly for satisfying hislust."It took me quite a long time to develop the voice and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent"2 The prosecution case, as unfolded, discloses thatMs.Esther Anuhya, aged 23 years, on completion of her B-TechDegree course, was recruited as a Software Engineer in TCS inGoregaon at Mumbai.The deceased was a resident ofMachilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh and had completed hergraduation from Kakinada.On acquiring a degree, she shiftedto the city of Mumbai and was residing in YWCA Hostel forWomen in Andheri.The deceased came to reside with her parents atMachilipatnam on account of the leave availed by her and shestayed there from 22nd December 2013 to 4th January 2014.Shri Singavarapa Surendra Prasad, PW No.26, the father of thedeceased accompanied her to Vijaywada, nearest Railwaystation to Machilipatnam at about 5.00 a.m on 4th JanuaryTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 6 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc2014, from where a train was available to Mumbai.Estherboarded LTT Express at Visakhapatnam which reaches Mumbaion the next day at 5.00 a.m. At 9.00 p.m, she had a telephonicconversation with her father and she informed her father thatshe had reached Solapur.The LTT Express was to reachMumbai at 5.00 a.m in the morning and accordingly reachedthe station.PW No.26 - Singavarapa - attempted to contacther in the morning on her mobile phone to inquire whether shehad reached safely, but the call was not answered and themobile went on ringing.The father, thereafter, contacted theHostel to inquire whether Esther had reached there but hereceived a reply in the negative.On 5th January 2014 itself, thefather (PW 26) approached Vijaywada Railway Police Stationand lodged a missing complaint.With the said missingcomplaint, the devastated father landed at Lokmanya TilakTerminus Railway Station, Mumbai.He was informed by therailway police that the jurisdiction was that of Kurla PoliceStation and resultantly, he approached the Kurla Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::Then, began a frantic search of Esther and itcontinued till the date when it was revealed on the father thatTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 7 CONF_CASE_3_15.dochis daughter is no longer alive and this happened on 16 thJanuary 2014 when body of Esther was traced in the bushes onthe Express Highway.The body was found in a burnt anddecomposed condition but the father could identify Esther, hisdaughter by the ring in her finger and also from her belongingswhich were lying nearby.The area where the body was tracedwas falling in Kanjur Marg area and a complaint came to belodged at Kanjur Marg police station alleging that Esther wasmurdered by some unknown person.3 On a complaint being lodged, the Investigatingmachinery was set into motion by the Kanjur Marg PoliceStation.The spot panchnama was drawn in presence of panchwitnesses.A broken wrist watch of Fast Track Company,knicker and a pad, one pink colour T-shirt of 'M' size, one scarfof slate colour with white dots, one mobile phone containingTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 8 CONF_CASE_3_15.doctwo sim cards, and a tuft of hair were found lying on the spotand all the said articles were seized by drawing a panchnama.The same were forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory.A map ofthe spot came to be drawn and it reveals that the said spot is ata distance of approximately 8.90 metres from the Service Roadadjoining to the Eastern Express.The Forensic Personnels whoreached the spot also collected the samples of soil, dry grassand oily grass at the place of incident.The photographer wasalso summoned who clicked the photographs of the spot alongwith the photographs of the body of the deceased.InquestPanchnama was drawn in presence of panch witness and itdivulged that the body was in a partly burnt condition and onthe chest portion, there was a black brassiere which was alsopartly burnt.The portion of abdomen was completely burnt,whereas the private parts and adjoining parts were found to bepartly burnt.and reserved the final opinion, pending the Chemical Analysisof the samples.4 The investigation was carried out initially by KanjurMarg Police Station but it came to be transferred to the CrimeBranch.PI Dattatraya Naikodi registered the FIR, and carriedout further investigation in Crime No.6 of 2014 for the offencepunishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian PenalCode.Further investigation was carried out by PW No. 34Nishikant Tungare, Sr.Police Inspector attached to Kanjur MargPolice Station.During the investigation, the CCTV footage fromthe Lokmanya Tilak Terminus was obtained with the assistanceof PW No.33 Shri Vishal Patil who was on duty in RPF, sincethe security of LTT was under the Government Railway Forceand RPF.The necessary clippings/footage was collected fromthe 36 cameras installed at the LTT Railway Station.The CCTVfootage revealed that Esther had walked out of the Railwaystation on 5th January along with one stranger who was walkingalong with her, carrying her trolley bag.Thecomplainant identified his daughter who was going along witha trolley and while coming out, she was talking on mobile andone stranger was pulling her trolley bag.Similarly, one Nokia Mobile was alsoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 11 CONF_CASE_3_15.docfound in another pocket of his jeans pant with one sim cardwhich was seized.After the arrest of the accused, he made astatement of disclosure in presence of panch witness that hewas ready to produce the motor cycle which was used by him tocarry the deceased to the spot of crime.On such disclosurestatement being made, the motor cycle came to be seized.Further, the accused also made disclosure statement leading toseizure of bag and articles belonging to the deceased whichcame to be seized from two distinct places.The said articleswere identified by the complainant as the one belonging to hisdaughter.On seizure, the said articles were forwarded forChemical Analysis.The accused was also referred for medicalexamination and was examined by Dr.The spot panchnama reveals that the body of thedeceased was found at a place located to the East of the ServiceRoad of Eastern Express Highway at a distance of about 29 feet.All the said articles were seized from thesaid spot and came to be seized.The Inquest panchnamadiscloses that the dead body of the deceased was partly burntand blackened.It also mentions of long black hair of thedeceased which were found in partly burnt condition, eyes wereopen and had blackened.The face was completely burnt and soalso both the ears.Some portion of the body including the lefthand was bereft of any skin and was exposed.The right handwas spread over and the second finger was bent and yellowmetal ring was found in the middle figure.The caseof the prosecution is unfolded by the complainant, the father ofthe deceased who is examined as PW no.26 i.e. Singavarapa.PW No.26 is resident of Nobel Colony, Machilipatnam, AndhraPradesh.Deceased Esther, aged 23 years was his daughter.Hehas deposed before the Court that she had completed her B-Tech and she was a scholar academically and on acquiring theeducational qualification, she immediately secured a job in TCSas a software engineer.In Mumbai, he had arranged for herstay in YWCA Hostel for Women at Andheri.Shri Singavarapadeposed that whenever his daughter used to get leave, she usedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 28 CONF_CASE_3_15.docto come to stay in Machilipatnam and on 22 nd December 2013,she came to reside with him and stayed till 4th January 2014.He further deposed that on 4 th January 2014, he took her toVijaywada which was the nearest railway station and fromthere, she boarded LTT Express which reaches Mumbai at 5.00a.m on the next day.He contacted her on her mobile phone at9.00 p.m when he was informed by his daughter that she hadreached Solapur and that she was going to sleep.He hasfurther deposed that when he attempted to contact her in themorning, her mobile phone was ringing but nobody wasresponding.He, therefore, contacted the YWCA Hostel and itwas reported that Esther did not report to the hostel.Shrikant Ladeis a Post Graduate in Bio-Chemistry and trained at Centre forDNA Finger Printing Diagnosis at Hyderabad.He had deposedthat he had handled 2500 cases and had given evidence in 200cases.In his deposition, he has given the details of theuniqueness of a body cell containing DNA and has deposedDNA technique is a very sensitive and stable technique.Hedeposed that from 15 intact cells, DNA profile is generated andthe source of DNA is stated to be any type of body cell, blood,semen, saliva, hair with root without root, teeth, nails,dandruff, ear wax, muscle tissues and bone.He furtherdeposed that on 18th January 2014, he received a letter fromKanjur Marg Police Station and received 2 sealed phials, onesealed test tube and three plastic containers in sealed condition.He further deposed that the description of articles in parcelswas blood sample of Singaravapa, the father of the deceased.He was requested by the Investigating Agency to examine theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 31 CONF_CASE_3_15.docvaginal swab, bone, teeth and nail of deceased as against theblood sample of the claimant i.e Singavarapa (PW 26).Hefurther deposed that he extracted DNA from the bone teeth andblood sample of Singavarappa and the DNA profiles weregenerated.Hefurther deposed that he had also obtained the articles in sealedparcel i.e Identity card, belt, spectacles, jeans pant, ladies halfT-shirt, ladies top, kajal pencil and he had extracted DNA fromsweat detected from Exhibit-1 i.e. Identity card with belt andspectacles and the bone of deceased which was received at thetime of earlier DNA sampling.He opined that DNA profileof sweat detected on Identity card, belt and spectacles and DNAprofile of bone teeth is identical and from one and the samesource of female origin.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::14 The deceased Esther who had boarded the train atVisakhapatnam, reached its destination at Mumbai with Estherbut thereafter, her whereabouts were not known and she didnot report to the Women's Hostel at Andheri where she waslodged.The Investigating Agency was therefore, focused oninvestigating as to how did this young girl who alighted thetrain at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, reached the place where herbody was traced i.e. on the Service road adjoining the EasternExpress Highway.The prosecution relied on the CCTV footagefrom the cameras which were installed on the Lokmanya TilakTerminus to establish and prove that Esther had reached LTT.The Investigating Agency approached the RPF authorities sincethe security of the LTT was entrusted to the GovernmentRailway Force and the RPF.He also informed that he was a coolie and his services areTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 43 CONF_CASE_3_15.docconfirmed as a gang-man.PW No.19 Surendra informed thesaid person that he can go to the General coach and he wentthere and came back informing that there was no place in thegeneral boggie and thereafter this witness told the said personto go to sleeper coach since there was quota for NashikManmad.PW No.19 deposed that the said person was havingThumbs-up bottle in his hand and there was no luggage.The CCTV footage which was obtained, during thecourse of investigation, was also shown to one Hemant DharmaKohli examined as PW No.27 who was residing in the vicinitywhere the accused was residing i.e. at Kanjur Marg.The saidwitness deposed that he knew the accused Chandrabhan Sanapand his family members since he was residing in the same areawhere the witness was residing.When the CCTV footage wasshown to him, he identified the person in the footage walkingon the platform with one bottle of cold-drink in his hand.Hefurther deposed to the Court that he identified the said personin another footage as Chandrabhan Sanap who was pulling thetrolley bag.Nandkishore deposed that heknew him as he was staying at Kanjur Marg and they used toplay cards.He deposed that on 4th January 2014, he visitedRajashree who was staying in the chawl and doing the businessof selling liquor, where he consumed liquor till 11.30 p.m. Hestated that at about 11.30 p.m, Chowkya came there and sat forconsuming liquor and till 1.30 a.m, they were sitting there.During the search, one xerox copyof letter was found in his back pocket of jeans pant and onfurther inquiry, it was found that it was a kundli prepared byJyotish Visarath Rajabhau Aher.ShriRajabhau Aher deposed before the Court that he was anAstrologer and used to prepare Horoscope.He deposed thaton 5th January 2014, at about 2.00 p.m, he was approached byChandrabhan Sanap who was accompanied by one elderly lady.The witness deposed that he was under pressure and he toldhim that his stars are not good and therefore, he wants to showhis horoscope.Accordingly, the horoscope was prepared andPW No.17 informed the accused that there are few faults in hishoroscope Kal Sarp Dosh and Ati Gandh dosh and he advisedhim to perform Shanti Puja at Trimbakeshwar.The witnessdeposed that he handed over to the accused the visiting card ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 53 CONF_CASE_3_15.docone Prasad Shukla and asked him to approach him to performthe puja.He accepted an amount ofRs.3,000/- from the accused and performed puja on 6th January2014 at 7.30 a.m which was completed at 11.45 a.m. Thewitness deposed that the accused was accompanied by hismother.The accused further deposed that he asked him aspecific query as to whether a sin committed towards a ladycould be cleared by performing this puja, to which the witnessreplied that there is no relation between one's act and this Puja,but because of this puja, problems are solved.The prosecutionhas relied on the Register maintained by this witness and whodeposed before the Court that he used to maintain the registerand enter the name of the person, date and amount.Theprosecution has relied on the testimony of one Pralhad KumarYadav examined as PW No.23 who happened to be strolling hisdog on the highway near Service road in the morning hours.The said witness deposed before the Court that he was workingin a Salt Office which was located between Kanjur Marg andBhandup and he was staying in the office.He had furtherdeposed that in early morning, he used to take the dogbelonging to his owner for stroll on highway near service road.On 19th January 2014, one constable approached the saidwitness and took him to the police station for making certaininquiries.He revealed to the police that he had seen oneperson starting the bike near service road and when he inquiredfrom the said person whether his bike was not starting.Thewitness deposed that when he saw the said person, he foundmud on his shoulder and he inquired whether he had a fallwhich the person answered in the negative.He furtherinquired whether he should assist him in starting the bike toTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 56 CONF_CASE_3_15.docwhich the person answered that there was no petrol in the tank.The witness further deposed that there was one bag on his backand one bag was kept on the petrol tank.Thereafter, he parkedthe said bike and he started proceeding towards Vikhroli andalso pulled the trolley bag.The said witness has deposed thatthe said person was walking in front of him and was wearing awhite colour t-shirt and blue colour jeans pant and his heightwas 5.5" and complexion was of wheatish colour.The said witness also identified theaccused present on the screen of the video conferencing and heclarified that he is the same person, but at that time, he was nothaving a beard and he was of a strong built.She further deposed that when sheasked the accused why he is giving the same, he informed thathis sister is no more and, therefore, he gives the black colourbag of the wheels.(iii) An old jeans pant of blue colour;(iv) An used ash gray colour half ladies T-Shirt and another black and pink hosiery ladies top.(v) A light blue colour pant and one leggings of green colour.(vi) One used eye pencil of Maybelline company.The said articles came to be seized on executing aseizure panchnama at the instance of the accused from RoomNo.12 in Sai Building where the sister of the accused wasresiding and running a mess.were not answered and she did not reach her hostel located inAndheri.1 An incident of rape and fatal assault that occurredin the National Capital on 16 th December 2012 which involveda 23 year old physiotherapist intern, shocked the conscience ofthe whole nation.There was unrest and public protest in thecapital which was followed in several major cities in its ownway.Social networking sites were put to use to raise a demandof strict law against rape.This resulted into constitution of aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 ::: 3 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthree Member Committee on 23rd December 2012 headed bythe Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice J.S.Verma to recommend amendments to the Criminal Law so as toprovide for speedy trial and enhance punishment for offence ofsexual assault against woman.This was followed by the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairstabling its report recommending amendments to the criminallaw.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 :::Barely could have the law makers given a sigh ofrelief by enacting a drastic law dealing with the offencesagainst women and before the Court seized of the said trial,Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 ::: 4 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccould deliver its verdict, in August 2013, a 22 year old photojournalist who was interning with an English Magazine inMumbai was gang raped by five persons, including a juvenilewhen she had gone to the deserted Shakti Mills Compound inrelation to an assignment.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 :::The series of incidents which came to highlight andseveral other incidents which are not even reported by themedia or not even reported to the police have resulted in theentire womenfolk in the country posing a question of theirsafety and security.The entire womenfolk is heard raising anoutcry and find themselves in a panic striken state of mind andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 5 CONF_CASE_3_15.docexpect the Executive Legislature and the Judiciary to restoretheir faith in the system.They echo the sentiments similar towhat Madeleine Albright has once remarked :-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The body was handedover to the grief-striken father on 17th January 2014 aftercompletion of the necessary formalities for the purpose ofconduct of last ritual and the father carried it to Machilipatnamfor performance of last rites.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The body was forwarded for post mortem to Sir J.J.Hospital and PW No.25 Dr. Gajanan Chavan conducted the postmortem and submitted a report and expressed the probablecause of death as "Blunt injuries over body and genital injuries"::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::His statement came tobe recorded.On the basis of the CCTV footage, an investigationteam proceeded to carry out further investigation and madeinquiries from the persons on the railway station and nearbyspot on the Expressway where the body was found.Based oncertain statements which came to be recorded, the InvestigatingMachinery succeeded in arresting one Chandrabhan Sanap asthe person who was accompanying Esther on 5 th January 2014while coming out of Platform No.4 as seen in the CCTV footage.The accused Shri Chandrabhan Sanap came to be arrested videArrest Panchnama dated 2nd March 2014 and panch SalimMushtaq Shaikh executed the said panchnama.The accusedwas taken into custody at Kanjur Marg Police Station and onphysical search of the accused, one piece of paper was found inhis back pocket of jeans pant and it was a writing of anAstrologer Rajabhau Aher from Nashik, Trimbakeshwar.It wasin the form of a Kundli.Kushal Tayde whoopined that his genital organs are normal and that he wascapable of performing a sexual act.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::On completion of the investigation, chargesheet wasfiled before the Addl.The prosecution alleged that deceased Esther, resident ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 12 CONF_CASE_3_15.docVijaywada, working at TCS in Mumbai had boarded LTTExpress at Vijaywada on 4th January 2014 to reach Mumbai.However, when she reached Mumbai, she was kidnapped byaccused Chandrabhan Sanap who took her to the place ofincident and after committing rape on her, committed hermurder and in order to destroy the evidence, burned the bodyat a secluded place at a close distance on the EasternExpressway.The accused was charged for abducting Esther on5th January 2014 at 5.30 am from Lokmanya Tilak TerminusStation on the pretext of dropping her at the hostel andthereafter he made to sit her on his bike and took her to alonely place behind the bushes on Mumbai-Thane Service Roadand forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.He wascharged with Sections 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376(A), 392 r/wSection 397, 302, and 201 of Indian Penal Code.He was alsocharged with offence punishable under Section 170 of the IPCsince he pretended to hold office of Railway Security RPF andby assuming his character as such, refrained from payingParking charges.He was also charged with Section 147 of theRailways Act, 1989 for committing an offence of trespass.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The accused pleaded not guilty to all the saidcharges and thereafter, the prosecution proceeded to prove thecharges against the accused by adducing evidence.Theprosecution examined 39 witnesses.The statement of theaccused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedurecame to be recorded and the accused examined four witnessesin his defence.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge convicted the accusedfor the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 366,376(2)(m), 376A, 392 r/w Section 397 and 201 of the IPC.Hewas acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 170 ofthe IPC and Section 147 of the Indian Railways Act. Foroffence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and theaccused was ordered to be hanged by neck till he is dead.Onconviction under Section 364, 366 and 376(2)(m), the accusedwas sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 yearsseparately.On conviction under Section 376A, he is sentencedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 14 CONF_CASE_3_15.docto suffer RI for Life, which shall mean the Imprisonment forremainder of his natural life.For offence punishable underSection 392 r/w Section 397, he is sentenced to suffer RI for 7years.Further, for offence punishable under Section 201 of theIPC, he is sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years.All the substantivesentences of the Imprisonment of the accused are directed torun concurrently.The accused is directed to pay compensationof Rs.50,000/- which is directed to be paid to the parents of thedeceased provided they are ready to accept the same.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::While imposing the death sentence, the Addl.learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the accused has actedwith extreme brutality and committed the offence in a pre-planned and a diabolical manner.TheConfirmation Case No.3 of 2015 which has been placed beforethe High Court came to be tagged by order dated 5th January2016 with Criminal Appeal No.1111 of 2015 filed by theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 16 CONF_CASE_3_15.docaccused/appellant.Both thematters were taken up for final hearing on 11th October 2018and accordingly, the accused was directed to be produced.Weconcluded the hearing of the matter on 1st November 2018 afterconducting day to day hearing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::Raja Thakare.In Criminal Appeal No.1111 of2015, Shri Nitin Pradhan appears for the appellant and theState is represented by Special Public Prosecutor Shri Thakare.We have heard both the matters on day-to-day basis and theaccused was present in the Court on all the dates of hearing.7 With the assistance of the learned Special PublicProsecutor Shri Thakare and Shri Pradhan learned counsel forthe accused, we have scrutinized the entire record and theevidence brought on record by the prosecution and also theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 17 CONF_CASE_3_15.docdefence.The learned counsel Shri Pradhan appearing for theappellant would submit that the prosecution has not dischargedits burden in proving the guilt of the accused beyondreasonable doubt when it was duty bound to establish all thepieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinchingevidence and the circumstances so proved must result into achain of events which would lead to no conclusion other thanthe guilt of the accused.Shri Pradhan would submit that thecircumstances cannot lead to other hypothesis and meresuspicion, however, grave it may be, cannot be a substitute fora proof and in the case based on circumstantial evidence, theCourt must be extra cautious in relying on the evidence broughton record by the prosecution.Shri Pradhan would submit thatin the present case, several links are missing and there is noproof of any motive, much less a strong motive attributed to theaccused and in absence of such proof, the most vitalrequirement of law to prove a case of circumstantial evidence isnon-existence.Shri Pradhan submits that body of the deceasedwhich was discovered, was in an advanced stage ofdecomposition and was beyond recognition and in thisTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 18 CONF_CASE_3_15.docbackground, the prosecution has not made out a case of rapeand in fact, no injuries to that effect could be discerned fromthe post mortem report and Shri Pradhan is very critical aboutthe manner in which the prosecution has brought an improvedversion of its case through the doctor who conducted the postmortem by raising certain queries and in its response, thenproceeded to foist a charge of rape on the accused.Shri Pradhan has also disputed the legality of theevidence brought on record in form of CCTV footage, which isthe only genesis on the basis of which the prosecution isderiving an inference that the deceased was last seen in theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 19 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccompany of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::8 As against this, Special Public Prosecutor ShriThakare submits that the prosecution has successfullyestablished the circumstances which pointed to the accused andthe Special P.P would submit that it has not relied on a solitaryTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 20 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccircumstance but through the evidence brought on record, theprosecution has established a chain of circumstances which isaptly corroborated and led to an irresistible conclusion that itwas only the accused who had committed the crime.His submission isTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 21 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthat the subsequent conduct of the accused after commission ofthe crime has also been brought on record through evidence ofthe witnesses who had deposed about the acts of the accused inthe normal course and Shri Thakare submits that thestatements of these witnesses were recorded even before theInvestigating Agency had zeroed down on the accused to be theperson who was responsible for causing death of the accused.Shri Thakare would submit that the Sessions Court, by takinginto consideration the totality of circumstances and thecumulative effect of the evidence brought on record hasappreciated the same in light of the well settled norms ofcriminal jurisprudence and has arrived at a finding of guiltagainst the accused.As far as the imposition of death penalty isconcerned, we would refer to his submission a while later whenwe come to the point of sentencing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::9 The case of the prosecution is based oncircumstantial evidence and the prosecution has relied on 39witnesses to establish its case apart from several documentaryevidence.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::the prosecution places reliance on the spot panchnama provedby PW-2 Bapu Adsul.The spot panchnama discloses that on the said place a space of5 x 3 feet was in a burned condition and at a distance about 8feet from the said place there is a space of 4 x 3 feet which isblackish in colour where the dead body was lying.The spotpanchnama further reveals that on careful perusal of the spot,at the north of the said place, a Samsung Duos company mobileis lying at a distance of 5 feet.One rubber mobile cover darkblue in colour was also found lying on the spot.On the spotone black gray colour scarf with white spots was also foundwhich came to be seized.On the spot one pink colour T-Shirtin partly burned condition with M-size also came to be seizedfrom the spot.Further, at a distance of 2 feet from where thebody was lying, one Fast track company watch with a black dialwith broken belt was also lying on the spot.The spotTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 23 CONF_CASE_3_15.docpanchnama further reveals that a purple colour doted knickerand white colour pad attached to the said knicker was alsolying on the spot.The chest portionwas found to be completely burned and the black brassiere wasattached to the body and the portion of abdomen was charred.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The body of the deceased was sent for conduct ofpostmortem and Dr.The postmortemTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 24 CONF_CASE_3_15.docreport relied on by the prosecution also refers to black colourbra with avulsed hook-metallic.Rigor mortis was absent in thebody and postmortem report makes mention to the followingeffect:::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::"Variable mix pattern of decomposition seen.Facial skin burnt, blackish adherent to skull bone, Skin absent at some places of extremities and abdomen exposing bones and abdominal viscera at places.Ends of long bones are nibbled and exposed.Natural separations seen at most of the joints without evidence of ante mortem fractures No Maggots".As far as the column of surface wound and injuries thepostmortem notes mention as under :1. Contusion over LT-Left fronto temporal area 4 x 5 cm, blackish red colour."2. Contusion over lower lip right side against canines- blackish red in colour 2 x 2 cm.Both contusion confirmed by cut section.The postmortem makes note of decomposition seenin pericardium and heart.Abdomen is found to be absent.Theopinion as to the probable cause of death has been cited asfollows :-"Blunt injuries over body and genital injuries seen.However, final opinion result, pending for CA of samples".The cause of death in the saidcertificate is described as follows :-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::"Death due to Head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries."11 The prosecution has also relied on the response tothe query raised by the Investigating Officer to the team ofdoctors who conducted the postmortem in regard to the injuryin column No.15 which postmortem was described in thepostmortem notes to the following effect."15. injuries to external genitals.Indication of purging-genitals distorted due to decomposition, vaginal wall shows blackish reddish discoloration at posterior wall, confirmed by cut section"The query that was raised by the Senior Police Officer tothe J.J. Hospital on 28.07.2014 raised the following doubts:-"(i) What can cause the state of the organs mentioned in column(ii) In the state of organs in column no.15 whether can be caused by forcible insertion of anything in the vagina.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 26 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::(ii) Whether the state of organs as mentioned in column 15 is on account of decomposition."The Medical Officer replied to the said query on 12.08.2014 by thefollowing reply:-(i) As to point no.1 the state of the organs can caused due to antemortem injuries to the private part and subsequently due to its decomposition.(ii) As to point no.2 answer state of organs as mentioned in column 15 can caused on account insertion of anything into the vagina.(iii) As to point no.3 answer to point no.1 to be perused.12 On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidencethe prosecution has established that the deceased whose bodywas found on the Service Road of the Eastern Expressway on16.01.2014 was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse andthereafter was done to death by causing Head injury coupledwith smothering.It is also the case of the prosecution that thedeath had occurred on account of the said Head injury withsmothering associated with genital injuries and the prosecutionattributed it to the accused and it is alleged that she wasassaulted on her head resulting into the injury mentioned incolumn no.17 which was confirmed by cut section.It is alsoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 27 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthe case of the prosecution that the contusion over lower lipright side against the canines, which is reflected as blackish redin colour depicts the force applied.Further the prosecutionalso relies on the response to the query report to sustain thecharge that the injuries to the genitals are ante-mortem andsubsequently decomposed.The postmortem report hadmentioned the same to be distorted due to decomposition.13 The prosecution relies on oral testimony of witnessesto support its case based on circumstantial evidence.Thereafter, PW No.26 lodged a missing complaint with theRailway Police Station at Vijaywada and landed in Mumbai andapproached the Kurla Police Station.He further deposed thathe undertook search of his daughter and the police found thelast signal of the location of her mobile at Bhandup and onfurther search on Express Highway, on 16th January 2014, thebody of his daughter was found near Express Highway in thebushes.He recognised the body to be of his daughter from aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 29 CONF_CASE_3_15.docfinger ring in her finger.He has deposed that the condition ofthe body was very bad and beyond recognition.He lodged anFIR and took possession of the body for performance of lastrites.He has further deposed that the Investigating team atKanjur Marg contacted him and they inquired about the articleswhich his daughter was carrying, which he informed to be atrolley bag, laptop bag, one sack, one or two handbags andsome other articles.He was also shown the CCTV footage onpen-drive when he recognized his daughter entering theplatform along with the trolley and a bag and sack on her back.In one footage, he recognized his daughter who was holding amobile and one man was drawing her trolley.This witness hasdeposed that his daughter was wearing one wrist watch of FastTrack company when she left the house.PW No.26 alsorecognized a Yellow metal ring on her finger which was seizedand marked as Article 27 and also the Fast Track wrist watch aswell as her other belongings i.e. scarf, trolley bag, identity card,spectacles etc. The identity of the body found lying nearBhandup on the Express Highway was established by PW No.26as to be of his daughter.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::Through this witness, the prosecution has thereforeestablished that the body found on the Expressway on 16 thJanuary 2014 was of the daughter of PW no.26 and the articleswhich were seized during the course of investigation andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 32 CONF_CASE_3_15.docclaimed by the prosecution to be belonging to the deceasedwere proved to be matching with the DNA extracted from thebone of the deceased.For security purposes, the 36 CCTVcameras were installed on the railway station with its displaybeing monitored in the CCTV control room.On requisiteTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 33 CONF_CASE_3_15.docpermission from the RPF, the Personnel from the Company whowas maintaining CCTV cameras was instructed to provide theCCTV footage.The CCTV footage came to be transmitted to thepen drive and it was collected for the period from 4.00 a.m to7.00 a.m on the date of incident i.e. 5 th January 2014 whenEsther de-boarded the train at LTT which she had boarded atVisakhapatam.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The said witness has deposed before the Court thatthere are cameras installed on all the platforms of LTT and alsoin the rooms and there were two monitors, the first monitoring20 cameras and another monitoring 16 cameras.He alsodeposed before the Court that the servers are kept in thecontrol room and there is an automatic recording system incamera.He further deposed that there is Hard disk in theserver and recording gets saved in the server.He furtherTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 34 CONF_CASE_3_15.docdeposed that in one server, there is recording of 12 days and inanother server, there is recording of one month and after theexpiry of the said period, recordings are automatically deletedfrom the said servers.He also deposed that since there wassome fault in the server, he visited the control room in themonth of January and at that time, the Police Officers fromKanjur Marg Police Station sought for a footage and heinformed that it could be done only with the permission of theRPF.He deposed that after obtaining the necessary permission,he had transmitted the footage of 5 th January 2014 which wasavailable on CCTV camera to the pen drive.The footage wasplayed and verified and thereafter, the pen drives were sealedin presence of two panch witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::PW no.29Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 35 CONF_CASE_3_15.docdeposed before the Court that when he visited Machilipatnamand showed the CCTV footage to the complainant, he identifiedhis daughter while going with the trolley and while she wastalking on mobile and one person was pulling her trolley.Hefurther deposed that PW No.26 identified the trolley bag asbelonging to his daughter and he also informed that he wasaware of the articles in the said bag since he was present at thetime when his daughter packed her bag.This version iscorroborated by PW no.26 who deposed before the Court whenhe was shown the CCTV footage on pen-drive and he saw hisdaughter entering the platform along with the trolley and a bagand sack on her back.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The prosecution, therefore, established through theevidence of these witnesses that Esther had reached Mumbai byLTT Express and deboarded the train since the CCTV clippingsrecorded the images of Esther walking on the Railway Platformat 04.59.30 when she was seen pulling a trolley bag.However,the next footage of 05.06.45 is an image of one person wearingwhite t-shirt and blue jeans pulling the trolley bag and womanseen in the earlier footage following him talking on mobileTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 36 CONF_CASE_3_15.docphone.The CCTV footage which was recorded from 4.00 amto 7.00 am on 5th January 2014 is in form of different clips.16 The prosecution has also examined the panchwitness Girish Mishra who is examined as PW No.1 and whohas proved the panchnama prepared while transmitting thedata from the Control room to the pen drive.PW No.1 hasdeposed before the Court that an attempt was made to searchthe footage of 1 ½ hour as there were too many cameras.Hefurther deposed that two pen drives of 64 GB were to be usedto retrieve the data of 5th January 2014 from 4.00 am to 7.00a.m.He further deposed that the pen drive was inserted inDigital Video Recorder (DVR) which was connected to 16cameras on the said railway station and before the data wastransmitted, it was ensured that the pen drive was blank.Hethen deposed that pen drive was removed from DVR andconnected to the computer thereby properties of the pen driveof 425 files were copied in another pen drive and he signed thepanchnama which was prepared by which pen drives wereseized, sealed and stamped.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The CCTV footage obtained by the InvestigatingAgency during the course of investigation and which was putbefore the trial Court through Prosecution Witness No.31 is theaxis of the whole chain of circumstances relied upon by theprosecution.We requested the learned Special PublicProsecutor Shri Raja Thakare to play the CCTV footage beforeus so that we can appreciate the case of the prosecution.Accordingly, the pen drive which carried the CCTV footage wasconnected to the laptop during the course of hearing and wehad an opportunity to examine the entire footage and thelearned Special Public Prosecutor also supplied the stillphotographs of the relevant clippings on which the prosecutionrelies.A copy of pen drive was also supplied to Shri Pradhan,learned counsel for the accused.17 On examination of the various clippings, bothrunning and in form of still photographs, reveal the followingdetails.1 The first clip beginning time is 04:48:20 a.m, which is recorded in the camera installed on platform no.5 towards Kalyan side.In this clip, itTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 38 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc is seen that one person is getting down from a stationary train wearing white t-shirt and blue jeans and having a bottle of cold-drink in the hand.The clip is upto 04:49:06 a.m. This clipping will have to be appreciated in light of evidence of PW 18 who has identified the accused as the person who had purchased the bottle of Thums-Up from his stall.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::Here, a person in white t-shirt gets down from a railway boggie and sits near the pillar of the railway shade.The clipping starts at 04:59:30 which shows one lady going inside the waiting area pulling a trolley bag and having other bag on the shoulder (Although the features of the person are not identifiable).4 This footage is from the camera installed in the hall and relevant time is 05:00:57 wherein a girl is seen pulling a trolley bag having other shoulder bag and wearing a scarf.5 There is one more clipping captured in the CCTV camera installed on platform no.5 towards CST showing same lady walking while pulling a trolley bag and having one more bag and purse on the shoulder.Both these clippings (4 and 5) make is clear that it is one and the same woman.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::wearing white t-shirt and blue jeans is alighting from one of the boggies and walks on the platform.The screenshot is taken at 05:07:02 where the face is clear and the person is the same as in the earlier clippings.This is on platform no.5 towards CST.The relevant time is 05:10:52 when it is seen that the same man with the white t-shirt and blue jeans is pulling the trolley bag and the same woman which was seen in the earlier footages is walking along talking on mobile phone.Screenshot is taken at 05:11:13 when the face of the person pulling the trolley bag can be clearly seen.Also the pink t-shirt worn by the woman is seen.18 Relying on the CCTV footage, the prosecution hasestablished that Esther reached Mumbai at approximately4.59.30 a.m when she approached the waiting area pulling herown trolley bag and having another bag on her shoulder.Inanother clipping, she is walking while pulling her trolley bagand one more bag and purse on her shoulder.The earlierclippings recorded at 4.48.20 am discloses one person gettingdown from a stationary train wearing white t-shirt and bluejeans and having a bottle of cold-drink.The screen shots of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 40 CONF_CASE_3_15.docsaid clipping clearly reveal that it is the accused who is presentbefore us.Another clipping captures the person in white t-shirtwalking on the railway platform and we had noticed that hewas walking in a shaky condition.A screen shot taken at4.58.48 clearly focuses on the face and the said person in thesaid screen shot in the accused who is present before us.In thelast footage recorded at 05.10.52, the accused in white t-shirtand blue jeans is seen pulling the trolley bag and Esther who isseen in the earlier footage is following him and she is talking onher mobile phone.The pink t-shirt worn by the woman isclearly seen.Thus, the prosecution with the help of CCTVfootage has established its case to the extent that Estherreached the LTT and she exited the railway station along withthe accused.Shri Pradhan has alleged that the said evidenceled by the prosecution do not withstand the test of 'evidence' interms of the Evidence Act and we would be dealing with thesaid submission a later.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::19 In order to further corroborate the presence ofaccused at LTT and to establish that the deceased accompaniedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 41 CONF_CASE_3_15.dochim while leaving the Terminus, the prosecution has relied onthree witnesses.He stated beforethe Court that it was not possible for him to exactly state if it isso, since thousands of people come to him.However, hefurther deposed that on 5th January 2014, one person hadapproached him after opening the stall and purchased aThumbs-up for Rs.34/- and gave him currency note of Rs.100/-and when he requested him to give change of Rs.4 and herefused to hand over the change, in turn, this witness gave hima chocolate.Then, the accused started abusing him and arguedwith him for approximately 10 to 15 minutes and that is howhe remembered him.He also deposed that he was his firstcustomer and he had a mustache and his forehead was broadand he was wearing white t-shirt and blue colour pant and onekey was hanging from his pocket.He also deposed that hisheight was 5.5" and he was having a well built body and was ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 42 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc28 to 29 years of age.He further deposed that he can identifythe said person if shown to him.He also stated before theCourt that he was asked to attend the Arthur Road Jail forIdentification Parade of the accused and in the said Parade, heidentified the person who came to his shop on 5 th January2014 and purchased cold-drink and abused him.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::Another witness examined by the prosecution isShri Surendra Nair PW No.19, working as an A.C. Mechanic inCentral Railway who deposed that on 4 th January 2014, he wason duty at Kurla Terminus and on the relevant date, he was onstand-by duty.He further deposed that on that date, there wasno A.C. mechanic in Tulsi Express and was sent as A.C.Mechanic in the said train which was to arrive at KurlaTerminus at 4.30 a.m. He deposed that the said train arrived at4.30 a.m and he was standing near the train for boarding italong with two attendants since he was to enter the A.C.Compartment before one hour of departure and switch on theA.C. At that time, he was approached by one person informingthat he is from railway staff and he wanted to go by the train.Healso deposed that he was wearing white color t-shirt and jeanspant and he was well built and not having hair from the frontside.PW No.19 alsoidentified the accused during Identification Parade held on 25 thJanuary 2014 at Arthur Road Jail.This witness also identifiedthe accused on the screen of the Video Conference.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The third witness whom the prosecution has examined toestablish the presence of the accused on LTT platform alongwith the deceased in the early hours of 5th January 2014 is PWno.20 Ramesh Rathod.The said witness was engaged in thejob of Supervisor in the pre-paid taxi booth at Kurla TerminusTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 44 CONF_CASE_3_15.docrailway station and the nature of his work is to look after theworkers and go to RTO for the said purpose.He further deposed that on 5th January 2014,Visakhapatnam train came on platform at 5.00 am to 5.15 amand he saw one lady going with one man who was havingtrolley bag in his hand.PW 20 - Ramesh Rathod inquired fromhim whether he required a taxi and he answered that he washaving vehicle.The witness gave the description of the saidperson as having broad mustache and bald from front side andwearing t-shirt and blue jeans pant and was of approximately35 years.He deposed before the Court that the police weremaking inquiries about the said incident regularly in regards toone girl missing from the said railway station and when hecame to know about such an inquiry, he on his own went toCrime Branch Ghatkopar on 20th March 2014 and he gave hisstatement to the police that he saw the girl going with oneperson.The said witness also identified theaccused person on the Video Conferencing screen.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::20 Thus, the prosecution with the assistance of theaforesaid witnesses has established the presence of the accusedon the platform where the deceased terminated her journeyfrom Visakhapatam and the prosecution has established its caseTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 46 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthat the accused convinced the deceased to follow him orassured her of reaching the destination at Andheri and as such,the deceased handed over her trolley bag to the accused andboth of them were seen walking out of the railway stationbetween 5.10.52 a.m and 5.11.15.a.m.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::21 Chandrabhan came to be arrested on 2nd March2014 after his identity was established during the course ofinvestigation on the basis of the CCTV footage and thestatements recorded.The arrestpanchnama was prepared after physical search of the accusedand on inquiry, the accused gave his address of Nashik and alsosupplied another address of Building No.2, Door No.108, KarveMarg, Kanjur Marg (West).On inquiry, in relation to theaccused person at his given address, the prosecution was ableto collect further evidence in relation to the past and postincident conduct of the accused and which was brought beforethe Court.PW No.12 is one Rajashree Shetty who was residingTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 47 CONF_CASE_3_15.docin MHADA building, Karve Nagar, Kanjur Marg and who wasknowing the accused Chandrabhan Sanap.The said witnessdeposed before the Court that she knows one NandkishoreSahu (PW No.9) who is staying adjacent to her house and whoused to visit her for consuming liquor and on occasions,accused who was also known as Choukya, also used to visit herhouse.She deposed before the Court that on 4 th January 2014,at about 10.30 p.m, Nandkishore Sahu came to her house withliquor and when they were consuming liquor, ChandrabhanSanap also came there with a bottle of liquor and asked forsome snacks.However, since there was no food in her house,he asked for a key of motorcycle of Nandkishore and took hisbike and Nandkishore waited for the accused to return with hisbike.The prosecution also relies heavily onthe said witness, as according to it, it is to this witness, theaccused had given an extra judicial confession about thecommission of crime.Nandkishore Sahu is the owner ofmotorcycle bearing No.In his depositionbefore the Court, he recognized the accused produced by VideoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 48 CONF_CASE_3_15.docconferencing as Chandrabhan Sanap @ Choukya who wasresiding behind his building.PWNo.9 further deposed that the accused told that he was hungryand asked for some eatables.However, there was nothing thereto eat and therefore, he asked for key of his motorcycle and theaccused took his bike and went away at 1.30 a.m. It is furtherdeposed by PW No.9 that he waited for 40 - 45 minutes, but hedid not return back and thereafter, he went to his house andwent to sleep.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::PW no.9 further deposed that at 7.30 a.m, hereceived a phone call from the accused and PW no.9 visited hishouse where is mother and sister were present.He noticed onehand bag and one trolley bag there and there was also onewhite colour t-shirt stained with mud lying there.Thereafter,Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 49 CONF_CASE_3_15.doche came after wearing the clothes and when this witness askedfor the key of his motorcycle, the accused told him that as therewas no petrol and he had parked the vehicle at highway and heasked him to accompany by taking some other vehicle.PW 9Nandkishore further deposed that he asked for a motor bikefrom Kadir Murgiwalla and on his splendor, the accused satbehind him and told him that he would take him to the placewhere the motorcycle was parked.On reaching the Serviceroad at Bhandup where the motorcycle was parked, but whenhe attempted to start the motorcycle, he did not succeed asthere was no petrol.PW 9 deposed that thereafter the accusedwent 100 ft away inside the bushes and he followed him.Heasked the accused what he was searching for.At that time, hesaw one girl was lying there and she was not alive and hedeposed that she was 23 - 24 years old.On seeing the body,PW 9 was scared and he came back and the accused followedhim running.At this point of time, as per the version of PWNo.9, he has deposed to him that he had gone to KurlaTerminus by taking his bike and one girl got down from thetrain.He asked the girl where she wanted to go and when sheTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 50 CONF_CASE_3_15.docinformed him that she wanted to go to Andheri, he told that heis also going to Andheri and he had taken her on themotorcycle and brought her on the spot.He further told thathe had taken her in the bushes and thereafter he raped her andwhen she started shouting, he pressed her mouth andstrangulated her by scarf and killed her.PW 9 further deposedthat he put petrol in the said motorcycle from anothermotorcycle and reached home.PW 9 further deposed that hewas threatened by the accused not to report this incident toanybody.As per the said witness, on 6th January 2014 and 7thJanuary 2014, the accused called him and threatened him, buthe refused to receive his calls as he was aware that the accusedis of quarrelsome nature and two more crimes were registeredagainst him.The witness deposed that on 15 th January 2014,he did not receive the call of the accused and thereafter, heproceeded to Nashik since his mother's health was not good.The prosecution has heavily relied on theextra-judicial confession and which is clearly criticized by ShriTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 51 CONF_CASE_3_15.docPradhan and the reliability of the prosecution on the said extra-judicial confession would be dealt by us at a later point of time.22 In order to further establish the link of the accusedto the crime in question, the prosecution has placed reliance ontestimony of witnesses who throws light on the subsequentconduct of the accused after commission of the crime.He further deposed that the accused was married forthree times and his first wife had expired and his second wifehad left him and he was residing with his third wife in the saidhouse.He deposed that on 5th January 2014 at 9.00 a.m, hesaw the accused going with his mother and at that time, theaccused was having one bag on his back and one trolley bag.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::arrest panchnama on 2nd March 2014, the accused wassubjected to physical search.The witness has categorically deposed that afterdiscussing the horoscope, the accused asked him if any sin hasbeen committed by him against woman, whether the Puja couldrectify him.The said witness also identified the xerox copy ofthe horoscope prepared by him and since the original of thehoroscope was with the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::In order to complete the chain of the conduct of theaccused, the prosecution has examined another witness whohas performed the Kal Sarp Puja as per advise of PW no.17.The said witness is Prasad Sharadchandra Shukla and examinedas PW no.16 by the prosecution.The said witness deposedbefore the Court that he was working as a Priest inTrimbakeshwar temple and was performing the puja of KalSarp Yog.He deposed that one Rajabhau Aher, an Astrologistsends people to him for performance of puja.He furtherdeposed that on 5th January 2014, Chandrabhan Sanap visitedhim on recommendation of Rajabhau Aher for performing pujaof Kal Sarp Yog and Ati Gandh Yog.The arrangements of stayof the accused were made by PW no.16 at his home and he hadTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 54 CONF_CASE_3_15.docalso brought his horoscope.The said extract of the register was seized inpresence of panch witness Ashok Kumar Pandey who isexamined as PW no.15 by the prosecution.The aforesaidwitnesses have thus been relied upon by the prosecution toestablish the conduct of the accused post-commission of theoffence.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::The prosecutionhas relied upon this witness who happens to be a chancewitness and who deposed about the presence of the accused onthe service road on the Expressway at morning hours on 5 thJanuary 2014 i.e. the date on which Esther landed at LokmanyaTilak Terminus but was untraceable.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::form of the seizure of the belongings of the deceased which shehad carried at the time when she left her hometown to proceedto her work place.The prosecution has examined PW-4 andPW-5 who are the panch witness to the disclosure panchnama.The accused made a statement that heis ready to produce the bag which Esther was carrying and theaccused has taken the said bag to Nashik and handover to oneelderly lady.A memorandum statement of the accused wasrecorded under a panchnama exhibited at Exhibit-44 and 44Aand PW-4 Abdul Satar Sayad Ali Shaikh has acted as a panchwitness on the said panchnama.The said disclosurememorandum laid to recovery of one trolley bag of black colourwith words "Skybag" endorsed on it.The said witness corroborated the disclosure statementleading to the discovery of the bag and depose before the Courtthat she was doing labour work and on one day when she wassitting near the public toilet, accused person, whom sheidentified on the V.C. Screen came there and asked her if shecan accept the said bag.She deposed there were clothes inside thebag and she sold it and kept the bag at Misrawada in a room.She handed over the bag to police when she was approached bythe police and identified the said bag of black colour whenshown to her at the time of deposition.Another circumstancerelied on by the prosecution is the recovery of the bag whichthe deceased was carrying and the bag and its contents wereseized at the instance of the accused on a disclosure statementbeing made by him and were seized from the sister's room ofthe accused.PW-5 Pradeep Shirodkar acted as a panch witnessto the said disclosure panchnamma at Exhibit- 81 and 81ATilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 59 CONF_CASE_3_15.docwhich led to seizer of certain articles belonging to deceasednamely:-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::(i) An identification card of University College of Engineering (JNEU, Kakinada) bearing the deceased name;(ii) An used black and blue framed spectacles with a broken glass;All the said articles were placedin a plastic bag in the house belonging to the sister of theaccused and the articles came to be seized and marked asArticles.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::deceased Esther was forwarded for DNA Analysis in sealedparcels.Prosecution witness No.28 Shrikant Hanumant Lade,the Assistant Director in FSL Kalina Generated the DNA profilefrom the sweat detected on one Exhibit-L on the I-card andExhibit-L-2 spectacles he compared the same with the bonesamples of the deceased.The prosecution has thus establishedthat the said articles which were seized at the instance of theaccused belonged to the deceased Esther and these articles i.e.the identity card and the spectacles were identified by thefather of the deceased as belonging to Esther.The prosecution has also examined PW-14 SatyawanGawade who has acted as a panch to the panchnama executedfor seizure of the brassiere which was found on the body of thedeceased at the time of the conduct of postmortem.The saidbrassier came to be seized and the panchnama executed on17.01.2014 records that belt and hook of the brassiere wasbroken and it was having holes on it.The deceased was last seen in the company of theaccused in the CCTV footage drawn from the cameras fitted onthe LTT terminus station and she has been identified by theprosecution witness No.26 her father.The person whom shewas accompanying in the CCTV footage is identified byprosecution witness No.27 Hemant Dharma Koli who wasstaying in the area where the accused were residing.The prosecutionhas also relied on the Test Identification Parade where all theaforesaid witness have identified the accused as the person whowas present on the platform and whom the deceased hadaccompanied when she exited the LTT terminus.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::These aforesaid circumstances are relied upon bythe prosecution and which it has brought on record throughvarious witness.The investigating officers have been examinedin form of prosecution witness No.29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 andThe investigating officer has deposed before the Courtabout the details of the investigation including the recording ofthe various witnesses and forwarding of the material seized forChemical Analysis and also has thrown light on the seizertraced to the disclosure statement of the accused.PW-39 is theexecutive Magistrate who has conducted the postmortemreport and since the postmortem report in form ofmemorandum panchnama of Identification Parade was alsoaccepted through PW-56 at Exhibit-163, this witness was madeavailable for cross-examination at the instance of the accusedand was extensively cross-examined.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::record by the prosecution which we have carefully scrutinized,we would proceed to deal with the arguments of the learnedcounsel for the accused which came to be advanced byAdvocate Shri Pradhan.Learned counsel Shri Pradhan makes asubmission that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt ofthe accused beyond reasonable doubt by bringing on recordcogent and reliable evidence.He submits that the prosecutioncase was based on circumstantial evidence, but according tohim, the events brought on record are bereft of any materialconnecting the accused to the crime.Referring to the evidencebrought by the prosecution on record, Shri Pradhan vehementlydisputes the case of the prosecution that deceased wassubjected to sexual harassment and that she was raped.By inviting our attention to the statein which the body was found and which, according to ShriPradhan, was completely in a decomposed state and wasTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 64 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccharred beyond recognition.Shri Pradhan would submit thatinjury to the private part which has been described to be thecause of death in the final opinion submitted by the Doctor isnot an inference based on any material.Shri Pradhan wouldplace heavy reliance on the testimony of PW 6, the panchwitness to the Inquest Panchnama who had categorically statedthat the body was half burnt and that the chest portion wascompletely burnt.According to him, the credibility of the saidwitness is doubtful since she states that she did not rememberthe material particulars.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::Further, he also makes a reference to the testimonyof the Medical Officer of the J.J. Hospital who conducted thepost-mortem i.e. Dr. Gajanan Chavan.He submitsthat in terms of Section 273 of the Code, all the evidence takenin the course of the trial or other proceedings shall be taken inthe presence of the accused or when his personal attendance isdispensed with in the presence of his pleader except asotherwise expressly provided.The submission of Shri Pradhanis that the said principle enumerated in the said section is tosafeguard the right of an accused to have a fair trial and hewould place reliance on the Report of 41st Law Commission ofIndia as regards Section 353 which is a reproduction of Section::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::The said judgment itself provides an answer to theobjection raised by the learned counsel Shri Pradhan.In light of aforesaiddevelopments, we do not find any flaw when the evidence inthe present trial was recorded through video conferencing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::The submission of the Special P.P is to theeffect that the said certificate as contemplated under clause (4)of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not a pre-requisite forconsidering it as an admissible evidence.35 We have considered the arguments of both thecounsel on the said point and we delved into the issue.Navjot Sandhu9 which had an occasion to consider an issue onproduction of electronic record as evidence in form of print outsof the computer records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, the three Judges Bench made following observations:::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,--(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 80 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::The Hon'ble Apex Court was called upon to deal withan apprehension expressed on the question of applicability ofconditions under sub-section (4) of section 65B of the EvidenceAct to the effect that if a statement was given in evidence, acertificate was required in terms of the said provision from aperson occupying a responsible position in relation to operationof the device or management of the relevant activities.In thisbackdrop, the Apex Court made the following observations.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::The Hon'ble Apex Court has, therefore, clarified the legalposition on the subject of admissibility of electronic evidence inabsence of the certificate contemplated under Section 65B(4) ofthe Evidence Act being produced and has clarified that a partywho is not in possession of device from where the document isproduced, such party cannot be required to produce theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 83 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccertificate under Section 65B(4) and the applicability of therequirement of certificate being merely procedural can berelaxed.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::We are unable to accede to theargument of Shri Pradhan to declare that the law laid down inShafhi Ahmed is per incuriam for, in our opinion, it is not uponfor us to access whether it is so since we are bound by the ratioof the said judgment which gets clearly attracted in the facts ofthe present case.37 The witness examined by the prosecution on thesaid point i.e. Prosecution Witness No.31 who was working inthe CCTV department of the Central Railway has deposedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 84 CONF_CASE_3_15.docbefore the Court about the operation and the mechanism ofautomatic recording system on the LTT Railway Station.He hasclearly deposed that there are two monitors covering 20 and 16cameras respectively which are fixed on all the platforms andinside the rooms.He had categoricallydeposed that the footage was collected in January 2014 withthe permission of the RPF and which was transmitted to thepolice officials from Kanjur Marg Police station in a pen drive.The said evidence is corroborated by the testimony of PW no.33who was on duty in RPF who was responsible for the security ofthe Lokmanya Tilak Terminus and for ensuring the security, hedeposed before the Court that 36 CCTV cameras were installedon railway station.The said witness also corroborated that thedisplay of the said cameras is in the CCTV control room and themaintenance of CCTV cameras was given to a private company.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::This witness has given the date on which the police hadapproached the RPF and the said date is disclosed as '18 thJanuary 2014'.After obtaining the permission from the RPF,instructions were given to Shri Pandey who was responsible formaintenance of the CCTV cameras to give the footage to theInvestigating Officer.A specific question was put to this witnessas to whether there was any fault in the CCTV server during thesaid period and he deposed that on 18th January 2014 therewas the fault and the server was not working on account offluctuation in electricity and therefore, Shri Pandey was calledfor maintenance.Perusal ofthe panchnama would disclose the detailed procedure that wasfollowed for transmitting the data in the pen drive, and it wasensured that the said pen drive was blank, and thereafter, itTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 86 CONF_CASE_3_15.docalso describe the folders that were retrieved from two DVRs i.e.DVR1 and DVR2 and how it was downloaded and transmitted.The entire procedure being enumerated in the panchnama, wedo not have any hesitation to hold that it was not susceptiblefor any intervention as the cameras affixed on the LTT wererecording the events and storing it as a part of its regularactivity and it was being fed into the hard disk in the ordinarycourse of the said activities.We have perused the cross-examination of the said witnesses, which, in any way, do notshake the credibility of the witnesses as far as the technicalprocedure described by the said witnesses and the witnesseshad categorically admitted that the hard disk was never seizedby the police, but what was transmitted was the data from thetwo DVRs.In such circumstances, we do not find merit in thesubmission of Shri Pradhan that the electronic evidence reliedon by the prosecution do not stand the scrutiny of Section 65Bof the Evidence Act.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::38 Shri Pradhan also makes a serious complaint thatthe learned Sessions Judge has completely thrown to air theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 87 CONF_CASE_3_15.docprocedure for conduct of a criminal trial.Shri Pradhan hasinvited our attention to certain dates and specifically theroznama dated 20th November 2014 when the accused was notproduced in person and when he was called on videoconferencing, it was informed by the jail authority that he wassuffering from Tuberculosis and is hospitalized and grievance isthat in his absence the trial was conducted.We have carefullyperused the roznama and we have noted that on occasions, theaccused was produced from Judicial Custody and whenever thiswas not done, he was produced through video conferencing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::We have carefully perused the roznama of theproceedings which forms part of the paper book.From theperusal of the proceedings dated 13th November 2014, we havenoted that an application was filed by the Advocate for theaccused for adjourning the case till the accused gets propermedical treatment.The learned Sessions Judge in thisbackdrop observed that direction was already given foradministering proper medical treatment to the accused and hewas taken to Sir J.J. Hospital and therefore, there was no needto adjourn the case.On an application filed for giving properTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 88 CONF_CASE_3_15.docmedical treatment, since the accused was suffering from fever,cold, cough and body pain, directions were issued by the Court,and he was taken to Sir J.J. Hospital and his blood sample wasalso collected and it was suspected that he was suffering fromTuberculosis.The Court therefore, gave directions to theconcerned Medical Officer to get him properly examined andthereafter, he be treated further for the ailment.On thesubsequent date i.e. 14th November 2014, the accused wasproduced from the jail and he complained about ill-health.On20th November 2014, accused was not produced from JudicialCustody but the witnesses were present.Application foradjournment was filed on behalf of the accused.When he wascalled on video conferencing, it was informed that he wassuffering from Tuberculosis and he was hospitalized.Thelearned Addl.Sessions Judge record that the counsel for theaccused came at 12 noon and sought an adjournment andsubsequently moved an application for adjournment and hestated before the Court that he would proceed with him only inpresence of the accused and he was not ready to proceed in hisabsence.The witness also stated before the Court thatTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 89 CONF_CASE_3_15.docsomebody had approached him yesterday and even it wasinformed by the police officials that the accused is trying toapproach the witnesses to tamper with the evidence.TheCourt, therefore, issued directions after recording the statementof witnesses that somebody had tried to approach him.It appears that on 24 thNovember 2014, the accused was not present from JudicialCustody since he was undergoing treatment and hospitalized,but on the said date, when two witnesses i.e. PW No.8 and PWNo.9 were examined, the Advocate for the accused was presentand he cross-examined both the witnesses on the said date.However, thereafter, on 3rd December 2014, the accused wasproduced on video conferencing.The Court hasclearly noted in its next order dated 12th December 2014 passedbelow Exhibit 94 on an application for meeting his father whoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 90 CONF_CASE_3_15.docwas on death-bed.When we have carefully gone through the record, wehave noted that barring two dates, i.e. 20th November 2014 and24th November 2014, the accused was produced either fromvideo conferencing or from Judicial Custody and in his absencesince he was hospitalized, his counsel was present and hadwillingly cross-examined the witnesses.In the backdrop of theaforesaid facts, we do not find any merit in the submission ofShri Pradhan that the proceedings against the accused arevitiated on account of his non-production on certain dates.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::Shri Pradhan also took an objection to the relianceon the evidence of PW No.9 in form of extra-judicial confession.He submits that it cannot form the basis of conviction and itsreliance is unsustainable.It is no doubt true that evidence inform of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidenceand the Court must ensure that it inspires confidence and itnecessarily needs a corroboration by other prosecutionTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 91 CONF_CASE_3_15.docevidence.The extra-judicial confession withstand the scrutiny,must be voluntary and inspiring confidence.The admissibilityand evidentiary value of such a confession is by this time well-settled and the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sahadevan andAnother v. State of Tamil Nadu10, observed thus :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::(iii) A partly burnt decomposed body was found on 16 th January2014 near the service road of Eastern Express Highway nearKanjur Marg which came to be identified by PW no.26 as to be ofhis missing daughter Esther.(iv) The post mortem report establish that the death of thedeceased was homicidal and there was injury to her private parts,thereby establishing that she was raped.(v) The Inquest Panchnama and Post Mortem report establishthe the body was partly burnt and attempt was made to destroythe evidence by burning the body.(vii) The CCTV footage collected from the LTT Railway stationdisclosed that the accused was loitering on the platform at 4:50am(viii) In the CCTV footage it is seen that the deceased hadaccompanied the accused while leaving LTT and she was last seenin the company of the accused in the footage.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::(viii) The accused was seen near the spot on the Eastern ExpressHighway with the trolley bag and a bag pack belonging to thedeceased.(ix) The circumstance of the accused seen along with thetrolley bag in the morning on the date of incident by PW 13leaving the building.(x) The subsequent conduct of the accused i.e. going tothe Astrologer and performing a puja in order to wash off the sincommitted on a woman and the entry in the register of PW 17establishing that he has paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- forperforming the said puja.(xi) Articles 22, 23 and 24 belonging to the deceased wereidentified by PW No.26 came to be recovered at the instance of theaccused along with her articles i.e. identity card, spectacles, hereye-liner, pencil and the DNA Test confirm that it belonged to thedeceased.(xii) The accused in his extra-judicial confession to PW 9had disclosed that he had poured petrol on the dead body ofEsther and set it on fire after committing rape and on killing her.(xiii) The medical examination of the accused about hispotency test and mental health.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::which has been brought by the prosecution on record has beenestablished by cogent and reliable evidence in form of oral anddocumentary evidence.The above circumstances and the chainof events is complete with regard to the commission of crime inquestion leading to death of Esther.The cumulative effect ofthe entire prosecution points unmistakable towards the guilt ofthe accused.42 The prosecution has also proved the circumstance ofthe deceased last seen in the company of the accused.Theprosecution witness no.26 - father of the deceased hasidentified the deceased in the CCTV footage whereas PW 27Hemant, a person staying in the area where the accused wasresiding has identified the accused in the CCTV footage of theplatform to be the accused.The prosecution has relied on theevidence of PW No.21 Ganesh Shetty working as Pay and ParkTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 100 CONF_CASE_3_15.docSupervisor at Kurla Terminus who had seen the accused anddeceased leaving together on motorcycle on 5 th January 2014.The said witness has also identified the accused during the TestIdentification Parade conducted in Arthur Road jail.Throughthe said witness, the prosecution has established that thedeceased alighted at LTT in the morning hours on 5 th January2014 and she left the railway station along with the accused onhis motorcycle.The prosecution has thus pressed into servicethe last seen theory which comes into play where the deceasedis seen lastly in the company of the accused and where the timegap between the point of time when the accused and thedeceased was last seen alive and when the deceased is founddead, is so small that the possibility of any person other thanthe accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.By invoking the said doctrine of last seen together, the burdenof proof then shifts to the accused requiring him to explain as tohow a live person became a deceased and at what point of timedid he part with the company of the deceased since they werelast seen together.In case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 101 CONF_CASE_3_15.docState of Maharashtra12, the Hon'ble Apex Court observedthus :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::12 (2006) 10 SCC 681Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 102 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc Illustrations::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket.The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on himThe accused has failed to discharge the said burden.In State of Maharashtra Vs.Suresh14, the ApexCourt has observed thus :"when his attention was drawn to the aforesaid circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him.In a situation like this such a false13 (2012) 11 SCC 20514 (2000) 1 SCC 471Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 103 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc answer can also be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::When the prosecution has proved its case beyondreasonable doubt and the accused has expected to furnish someexplanation to the incriminating circumstances which havecome in evidence and put to him.A false explanation may becounted as providing a missing link for completing the chain ofcircumstances and a non-explanation would also be taken as alink for completing the chain of circumstances.44 In Munish Mubar Vs.State of Haryana15, wherethe Act was dealing with a case where the dead body of thedeceased, an NRI was found lying in a plot of land havingmultiple injuries and the boarding card issued by the JetAirways and one blood stained hammer and a knife was foundnear her body.The appellant who claimed to be arrested whiletravelling in a Santro car and the Investigating Officer collectedthe records related to parking of the said Santro car at therelevant time from car parking stand of New Delhi Airport.Theappellant upon his arrest made a disclosure statement to the15 (2012) 10 SCC 464Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 104 CONF_CASE_3_15.docpolice to show the place where he had disposed of the deadbody of "A" and recovered the articles belonging to and theblood stained clothes of the deceased.The call record of theappellant's telephone were also pressed into service to establishthat he was present in the vicinity of the place of occurrence.The appellant failed to offer any explanation in respect of theincriminating circumstance associated with him.The Apexcourt then held that it was the duty of the appellant to furnishsome explanation in his statement under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure and under what circumstances, hiscar had been parked at Delhi Airport and it remained there forthree hours on the date of occurrence during exactly the timeperiod in which the deceased was to arrive and was thenallegedly done to death by the appellant.Appreciating the caseof the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, when thecircumstances were fully established and found to be consistentwith the hypothesis regarding guilt of the accused, the Hon'bleApex Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant on theground that the prosecution had proved its case beyondreasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::service several circumstances, each being independent andconclusive.Each of the circumstances relied on by theprosecution being taken together form a chain of events leadingto the accused being the perpetrator of the crime and each andevery circumstance was put to the accused while beingexamined under Section 313 of the Code.The accused hasanswered every question put to him by asserting that he did notknow or that the circumstance put to him was false.On askedas to why the witnesses are deposing against him, he respondedto Question no.378 by saying that on say of the police, thewitnesses had deposed against him.The accused had relied on three witnesses asdefence witnesses.The first witness relied on by theprosecution is one Abhijit Dattatraya Sathaye working as SeniorAssistant Editor with Mumbai Mirror.The said witness haddeposed that he had covered Esther Anuhya murder case fromthe time of registration of the offence till the filing of thecharge-sheet.The extract of Mumbai Mirror has been exhibitedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 106 CONF_CASE_3_15.docas Article 40 which had published the photographs of theaccused along with a kundli.He deposed that he had obtainedthe photograph of kundli from his friends and it came to bepublished in the newspaper.The said Article 40 alsohighlighted the criminal antecedents of the accused and whichdescribed him as history-sheeter, being indulged into activity ofbag lifting in railway.The said witness being subjected tocross-examination by the prosecutor admitted that the accusedwas history sheeter and bag lifter in the railway and many caseswere registered against him in Gowandi, Nasik, Manmad andMadhya Pradesh.Another witness which the accused hasexamined is Defence Witness No.2 and is the senior crimereporter in Mid Day Newspaper who had published thephotographs of the accused, victim and the witnesses.Article41 which carried a news about the incident was also placed onrecord during the said witness.Another reporter of Mid-DaySagar Rajput came to be examined as D W no.3 who hadpublished the photograph of the accused, parents and wife inthe newspaper dated 8th March 2014 and the name of theaccused was disclosed as Chandrabhan Sanap.He deposed that the CallDetails Record (CDR) of Phone No. 9833841248 in the name ofNandkishore Sahu was given by him to the police and he hasgiven a certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. The saidwitness has been cross-examined by the learned Prosecutor whohad deposed that from 12th February 2014 to 2nd March 2014,there was no phone call or SMS delivered from the said mobileand since the mobile was not active, it cannot be said whetherits location was Mumbai or out of Mumbai.However, it isadmitted by the witness that on 6th January 2014, Sahureceived phone call from Mobile No.7775853547 and two callswere received on 8th December 2014 from the same number.The cross examination of the defence witness only lead to theconclusion that the said witnesses examined by the accused inno way come to his rescue nor have they been able to demolishthe prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence.Theonly attempt on the part of the accused was to establishthrough the DW No.1 to DW No.3 is that the face of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 108 CONF_CASE_3_15.docaccused was known to the general public and it was all overpublished in the newspaper and that is how Shri Pradhanmakes a feeble attempt to argue before us that the TestIdentification Parade conducted is faulty and cannot be reliedon by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::46 The specific submission advanced by Shri Pradhanis that the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.39 and the cross-examination of this witness who conducted the TestIdentification Parade exposes the case of the prosecution.Thesaid witness who conducted the Test Identification Parade wassubjected to exhaustive cross-examination.He deposed beforethe Court that he was conversant with the guidelines whileconducting the Test Identification Parade and accordingly, hehas mentioned the procedure followed by him in theMemorandum.He had admitted that there was a lapse on hispart to mention in the panchnama that unauthorized personswere not present at the time of Test Identification Parade.Theextensive cross-examination of the said witness do not yield anybenefit to the accused.Though certain procedural lacunae haveTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 109 CONF_CASE_3_15.docbeen attempted to be drawn from the said witness, it does notshatter the testimony of the said witness.In any contingency,the law as regards the Test Identification Parade and thereliance on such evidence is settled by now.Test IdentificationParade has been considered as merely a corroborative piece ofevidence and not substantive evidence.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::Above-mentioned decisions would indicate that while the evidence of identification of an accused at a trial is admissible as substantive piece of evidence, would depend on the facts of a given case as to whether or not such a piece of evidence can be relied upon as the sole basis of conviction of an accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::Further, such conduct of Test Identification Parade may lose itsworth if the witnesses either know the accused or if they havebeen shown his photographs or if he has been exposed by themedia to the public.Holding a Test Identification Parade onlyassist the Investigating Agency to ascertain whether theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 111 CONF_CASE_3_15.docinvestigation is being conducted in a proper manner and in aproper direction.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::48 The evidence brought on record by the prosecutionthus establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt.Though Mr.Pradhan has invited our attention to the extensive cross-examination to which the prosecution witnesses were subjectedto, he was not able to pinpoint from their cross-examinationthat the credibility of these witnesses is doubtful and that theyare not trustworthy.The evidence adduced during the courseof trial needs to be appreciated cumulatively and in its correctand true perspective.It is the duty of the Court to unravel thetruth and while appreciating the evidence its primary attemptshould be to sift the chaff from grain and to ascertain from theevidence brought on record as to whether there is a ring oftruth in their testimony.Where the evidence brought on recordis consistent and corroborated by other piece of evidence, then,there is no reason as to why version of prosecution case, asunfolded, be not believed.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::appearing on both sides, our attention was painstakingly drawnto the extensive and exhaustive cross-examination of all thewitnesses.We must note with great responsibility thatthough burden of proof to prove the guilt of the accused lies onthe prosecution and in a case based on circumstantial evidence,the prosecution is duty bound to prove the existence of eachfact independently and taken together which would lead tochain of circumstances, through the prosecution witnesses whowould prove a particular fact and these prosecution witnessescan be subjected to cross-examination.Section 137 of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the cross-examination of awitness by the adverse party who has been called and who hasdeposed before the Court.However, the purpose of cross-examination being to attack the credibility of witness who isdeposing before the Court and though at times its object is toascertain the truthfulness of these witnesses, it is also rule ofprudence and also contemplated under Section 149 of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872 that witness should not be subjectedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 114 CONF_CASE_3_15.docto such questions unless the person asking it has reasonablegrounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys iswell founded.The purpose of questions which may be lawfullypermitted in cross-examination and which are set out in section146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are any questions whichtend to test his veracity, to discover who he is and what is hisposition in life or to shake his credit by injuring his character.In respect of some of thewitnesses, like PW-16 and PW-17, namely, the Astrologer andPriest, learned Sessions Judge has noted that the evidence ofthese witnesses does not create any incriminating fact inTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 115 CONF_CASE_3_15.docconnection with the offence with which the accused is chargedand there is no reason for the police to fabricate such a piece ofevidence after going to such a far-off place to the scene ofoffence and its occurrence.Panch-witnesses whose credibilitywas attempted to be destroyed by subjecting them to seriouscross-examination, also did not result into any shadow beingcast on their credibility.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::"In each and every case it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime.If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be corroborative piece of evidence.But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case.Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution.In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the Court to circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence"Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 117 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc Once we have concluded that prosecution on thebasis of the medical evidence brought on record has proved thatthe deceased was subjected to rape and the accused was triedfor the offence punishable with rape, we do not think that themotive of the accused in committing the crime needs to beexclusively spelt out.It is obvious that the accused who afterdrinking liqour was wandering the whole night and spotted onthe railway platform in the early hours and on seeing a younglonely helpless woman, who easily fell prey to his concoctedstory of offering to drive her to destination and who took her tothe secluded spot from where the body was recovered in ahighly decomposed state, we need not to find motive forcommitting the crime with which the accused was charged.52 Mr Pradhan was severally critical about the mannerin which the test identification memorandum was exhibitedduring the course of trial.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::In anycontingency, Mr. V.J. Kanekar, the Resident Deputy Collectorwho had conducted the test identification parade was broughtinto witness box and since the document in the form ofmemorandum panchanama was already exhibited, he was notexamined by the prosecution; but at the same time opportunitywas afforded to the accused to cross-examine him.In the cross-examination, the witness has re-iterated the fact that he hadfollowed the procedure stated by him in the memorandum.Hehas withstood the scrutiny on the manner in which the cross-examination has been conducted and Mr. Pradhan has failed topoint out any legal infirmity in conducting of the testidentification parade which would nullify its effect.54 It is not now strange to note that the crimes andspecially the crimes against the society are duly reported by theprint media as well as the electronic media.When such crimesare reported, all the details of the investigation even when inTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 121 CONF_CASE_3_15.docprogress is frequently reported including the photographs of thesuspect or the accused.Whenever a person is arrested as asuspect and before he is converted to an accused, the media isall out with the details of investigation and some times, at thecost of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::55 On being satisfied with the case of the prosecutionwhich has established the factum of commission of the crime bythe accused, which involved extreme depravity and reflective ofunrestrained selfishness, which conserves the individual interestand the ultimate tendency of the accused, we come to the issueof imposition of death penalty on the accused.The learnedAddl.The learned Judge has taken intoconsideration the mitigating circumstances put forth i.e. theabsence of direct evidence, accused being of young age,absence of criminal antecedents, his diagnosis for Tuberculosisand he being the sole earning member in the family on whomhis wife, children and old mother are dependent on.Anothermitigating circumstance in form of the subsequent conduct ofthe accused while undergoing the sentence was also pressedinto service and it was attempted to canvass that there was nocomplaint against him from the jail authorities during the19 AIR 1980 SC 989Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 123 CONF_CASE_3_15.docperiod of under trial detention.The learned Judge has givendue consideration to the said mitigating circumstance as againstthe aggravating circumstances which were noted to be asfollows:-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::(a) Offence committed in a pre-planned and diabolical manner with exceptional brutality and depravity.(c) the incident has caused a stir in the society and shocked its collective conscious.HareshTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 124 CONF_CASE_3_15.docMohandas Rajput Criminal Appeal No.1020 of 2001 decidedon 11th January 2008 wherein the following observations weremade :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience.It has been rightly said that whereas a murderer destroys the physical frame of a victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female.The courts are, therefore, expected to try and decide cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity.(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:30 :::35 It can hardly be even imagined that what torture and brutality the minor child must have faced during the course of commission of this crime.All her private parts were swollen and bleeding.She was bleeding through her nose and mouth.The injuries, as described in EX.P17 (the post mortem report) shows the extent of brutal sexual urge of the accused, which targeted a minor child, who still had to see the world.He went to the extent of giving bites on her chest.Appeal No.1563-1564/18::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:31 :::"It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts.(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT V. MORE, J)Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:31 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is living with her twochildren and also with an age old mother-in-law.The husband of thepetitioner was the sole bread winner of the family and after the demise ofher husband, they left with no other income, now she has to take care of herage old mother in law and her minor children.Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint beforethe Inspector of Police, Melur Police station and a case was registered inCrime No.1039 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and302 IPC., and now the investigation is going on.Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.Under Section 357 (A) (3) of the Cr.P.C., the victim is entitledfor compensation, pending trial and the interim relief also can be granted bythe District Legal Services Authority under Section 357 (A) (6).Apart fromthat as per Section 357 (A) (4) of the Cr.P.C., where the offender is nottraced, but the victim is identified, and no trial takes place, the victim orhis dependants can make an application to the State or the District LegalServices Authorities for awarding compensation.In the instant case, thepetitioner's husband was murdered and a criminal case was also registered bythe fifth respectively in Crime No.1039 of 2016 for the offences pubishableunder Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC., Now the investigation is going on inthe above matter and the petitioner also submitted an application within aperiod of six months before the District Legal Services Authorities.Hence,according to the senior counsel, the petitioner is entitled for compensationunder such scheme.7.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondentssubmitted that even though the petitioner filed an application under theprovisions of the said Scheme, she has not filed the legal heir certificatewith the aforesaid application.But, on perusal of the records, it could beseen that the petitioner had obtained the death certificate and the legalheir certificate and had enclosed the same in the typed set of papers filedin support of this Writ Petition.8.In the above circumstances, since the application is already pendingwith the third respondent from 08.05.2017, the third respondent is directedto consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with lawwithin a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.The petitioner is also directed to approach the District LegalServices Authority and produce the required records for the purpose ofgranting compensation to the petitioner.9.This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.There shall be noorder as to costs.

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

Heard on admission.The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 15.4.2019 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge to Additional Sessions Judge, District Katni in Criminal Appeal No.61/2017 convicting the appellant- accused under Section 279 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 1 month along with fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 337 (3 count) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months (3 counts) along with fine of Rs. 500/- (3 count), under Section 338 (2 count) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months (2 count) along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.Hence the application filed on behalf of applicant be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.List this case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.(J.P. GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2019.05.06 04:30:59 -07'00'

['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']

To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 3 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, out of whom, P.Ws 2 and 3 turned hostile.P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.I while P.w.3 is a local village leader.Her evidence would show that she, along with her husband, was inside the house on the day of occurrence, at that time, both the deceased were sleeping inside the house in the verandah while P.Ws 1 and 2 were sleeping inside the house on the southern portion.During the occurrence time, she heard the murmuring noise of her father and mother and when she and her husband woke up, they saw the accused attacking D-l first on his head, neck, shoulder and other parts and the body.On seeing D-l being attacked, D-2 stepped in and she was also not spared by the accused, who cut her indiscriminately.The witnesses shouted and on hearing their shout, P.W.3 also came there.The accused ran away with the weapon of offence in his hand.Thereafter, P.W.1, along with others, went to the Police Station, where she gave an oral complaint before P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who reduced the same into writing.The said complaint is Ex.P.W.10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who speaks about P.W.1 appearing before him at 4 a.m. on 6.10.94 and giving a complaint, which he registered as Ex.Pl in his Police Station Crime No. 132/94 for an offence under Section 302, IPC.Ex-P13 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him and he sent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.P.W.12 is the police constable, who carried the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.The material records were handed over by him in Court at 5.15 a.m. on the same day.P.W.15 is the Investigating Officer, who, on receipt of information over wireless at 4.30 a.m. on 6.10.94 from P.W.10, directed him to bring the material records to the scheme of occurrence, where he reached by 6 a.m. On collecting the material records, he commenced the investigation.In the presence of P.W.4 and another, he prepared Ex.P2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P20, the rough sketch.Between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-l in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses.During inquest, he examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and recorded their statements.Then, he sent the dead body of D-l for.From 10 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. on the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-2 in the presence of the same panchayatars and prepared Ex.-P22, the Inquest Report in regard thereto.During the said inquest, he read out the statements recorded from the aforesaid witnesses.Through police constable P.W.14, he sent the dead body of D-2 for postmortem.He gave one requisition for each postmortem.After postmortem, P.W.13 removed M.O.9 - lungi from the dead body of D-l and handed over the same under Form 95 - Ex.P19 to the Investigating Officer.P.W.8 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the body of D-1 on receipt of Ex-P9 requisition.He commenced postmortem at l0.am.on 7.10.94 and found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P10, the postmortem report.Form the place where the dead body of D-l was lying, he recovered a bloodstained mat, a bloodstained towel, a bloodstained brick and a sample brick at 12.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 under a valid mahazar.At 12.45 p.m., from the place where the dead body of D-2 was lying, he recovered a bloodstained mat and three bloodstained bricks in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar.He arrested the accused at 4 a.m. on 9.10.94 in the presence of P.W.6 and another.For the former offence, he stands sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and for the latter offence, on each count, he was sentenced to undergo 14 years Rl.The sentence imposed on each count of murder was directed to run consecutively.Finding that the sentence of 14 years RI imposed for the offence of murder, on each count is illegal, we caused notice to be issued to the appellant as to why, if the Court ultimately agrees with the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge on that offence, the sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court should not be enhanced to fit in with the sentence prescribed by law.Notice was served on the accused in prison and he sent a written response stating that the offence complained of could not be under Section 302, IPC but only under Section 304(III) ,IPC (probably, an error for 304(II), IPC) and therefore, he must be taken out of the rigour of Section 302, IPC.A set of material papers was handed over to the learned counsel in Court itself and the learned counsel submitted that if the appeal is taken up for hearing today, he would be in a position to argue the appeal.Accordingly, the appeal is heard by hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The case of the prosecution is that annoyed over the illicit intimacy of his wife with one Shanmuganathan, the accused, on 6.10.1994, at 01.00 hrs, trespassed into the house of the said Shanmuganathan and committed his murder and in the course of the same transaction, when Leelavathi, wife of Shanmuganathan attempted to intervene, she was also stabbed to death.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died about 32-36 hours prior to autopsy due to injury to vital organs (spinal cord) and due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained.P.W.9 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the body of D-2 on receipt of Ex-P11 requisition.She commenced postmortem at 12.15 p.m. on 7.10.94 and found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex-P12, the postmortem certificate.P.W.I5 continued the investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements.Pursuant to Ex-P8, M.Os 7 and 8 came to be recovered under Ex-P7 attested by witnesses.P.W.5 is the photographer, who took photographs of the scene of occurrence on the direction of the Police Officer.M.O.5 series and M.O.6 series are the photographs and the negatives.P.W.15 sent the case properties to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.Exs-Pl6 and P17 are the Chemical Examiner's Report and Serologist's Report respectively.After completing the investigation, P.W.15 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 13.10.94 for offences under Section 302, IPC (2 counts) and Section 449, IPC.Neither documentary nor oral evidence was brought before Court at his instance.Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, relying upon the history of the case attached to Ex.The learned counsel, by taking us through the oral evidence of P.W.I, requested us to disbelieve it.We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points.All the charges namely, charge No. l for the offence under Section 449, IPC, charge No. 2 for the offence under Section 302, IPC had been read over to the accused and he pleaded guilty to all the charges.It is not as though the accused went back on his plea of guilt referred to above and we find, in fact, that the had admitted his involvement in the crime when he was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Question No. 2 put to him at the time of his questioning under Section 313 of the Code is based on the oral evidence of P.W.1 as an eye-witness to the occurrence and the accused had admitted her evidence before Court as true.In his answer to question No. 4 relating to the oral evidence of P.W.3, the accused had admitted that the house of D-l is next to his and that after cutting, he ran away.Question No. 19 put to the accused is the oral evidence of P.W.6 regarding the arrest of the accused; recording his confession statement and recovery of M.O.s 7 and 8 under Ex-P7 and the accused had affirmed it as true.Therefore, there are enough materials on record to show that the accused had not disputed his involvement in the crime.Her oral evidence is crisp and clear about the involvement of the accused tin perpetrating the crime on her parents resulting in their death.No material worth mentioning is available in her evidence, which would discredit her evidence in chief examination regarding the occurrence proper.The cause of death of both the deceased is shown to be due to homicidal violence and the medical evidence in regard to the same is that of P.W.8, who did postmortem on the body of D-l and P.W.9, who did postmortem on the body of D-2 coupled with Exs-P10 and P12, the respective postmortem certificates.Therefore, the above referred to materials, leave no room at all to doubt the case of the prosecution holding the accused responsible for causing the death of Shanmuganathan and Leelavathi in this case.It may be true that the history of the case attached to Ex-P9 would show that the accused was annoyed over his wife having an illicit intimacy with D-l.But, we find from the other materials on record that the accused had not taken any stand based on such illicit intimacy of his wife with D-l.Therefore, looking from any angle, the conviction of the accused/appellant for committing the murder of D-2 cannot be set aside.As already referred to above, except the history of the case attached to Ex-P9, there is no other material to show that D-l was having an illicit affair with the wife of the accused, which constituted the source for his sustained provocation due to which he had acted in the manner as brought to the notice of the Court.Let us now apply our mind to the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence of murder on 2 counts.But, we find that the learned Sessions Judge, while finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC on both the counts, was inclined to sentence him to 14 years, RI on each count and also gave a further direction that the said sentences would run consecutively.We also though very carefully as to whether we would be committing any illegality in taking up the appeal ourselves after having issued notice for enhancement of punishment.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant.H. J. Umrigar and B. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J.-This appeal is by special leave.The appellant was convicted under s. 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to, imprisonment for life.He appealed to the Bombay High Court.According to the judgment of the High Court the appeal was admitted only on the point of sentence.The High Court reduced the sentence from imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court could not, in law, admit an appeal only on the point of sentence and the appellant was entitled to have his appeal heard on the merits of his conviction as well.The evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was unsatisfactory and he was entitled to be acquitted.Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant had caused the death of Zina Hira on April 6, 1957, when the deceased was returning from an adjoining village to the village of his residence.The appellant met him on the way and accused him of having committed theft in the appellant's house which the deceased denied.Upon this the appellant attacked him with a stick which had iron rings round it.A number of blows were given by the appellant with this stick in consequence of which Zina Hira fell down.In our opinion, the form of the order admitting the appeal in the present case was invalid and the appellant could have insisted that since the appeal had not been summarily dismissed, the High Court should have heard his appeal on the merits as well.As the appeal was not heard on the merits, we considered whether the appeal should be sent back to the High Court for rehearing on the merits.We have, however, thought it fit to hear the appeal on the merits for ourselves.We, accordingly, heard the learned Advocate for the appellant on the evidence.It is clear to us from a perusal of the evidence that the case has been amply proved against the appellant.There was an eye-witness who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a stick.Bogha Jiwa also corroborated Keshav in this respect.None of these witnesses have any real motive to depose against the appellant.In addition to this evidence there was the dying declaration of the deceased as to who his assailant was.The other circumstantial evidence need not be referred to.It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the reason for the appellant assaulting the deceased could not be true as no reference was made to it in the First Information lodged by Keshav.Reference also was made to the evidence of the Police Officer Priyakant that no information of the theft had been lodged by the appellant at the thana.The appellant in his statement denied that the deceased had committed any theft in his house and the witness Karsan brother of the appellant had stated in cross examination that there had been no theft in their house.This witness was examined by the prosecution but was declared hostile and permission was granted by the Court to cross-examine him.It seems to us, however, that even if the story about the accusation of theft against the deceased made by the appellant was not stated in the First Information the omission is of little consequence because even 137 Keshav stated in the First Information that he ha( enquired from Bava Tapu as to how the quarrel ha( started.Merely because there was no information lodged about the theft at the police station, it doe not necessarily follow that the appellant could no have been suspecting the deceased.The denial of the appellant and of his brother cannot assume much.importance as it would be natural for them to den, any such thing.Apart from this even if the read cause for the assault may be obscure, if the evidenc is clear that the appellant assaulted the deceased, matters very little if the Court has not before it a verclear motive for the assault.As we have already said apart from Bava Tapu hesitating to admit that he was somewhat related to the deceased, there was no apparent motive for him to depose against the appellant in such a serious case as this.His conduct would show that he had, in fact, witnessed the assault because, immediately after the assault he went to the Police Patel Keshav and informed him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a stick.There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the dying declaration.There is no good reason for supposing that the deceased would have accused the appellant falsely a there was no previous enemity established.It is also unlikely that he would let go his real assailant and accuse the appellant falsely.The dying declaration in corroborated by the evidence of the eye- witness Bava Tapu.It further receives corroboration from the recovery of the stick stained with human blood at the instance of the appellant which had been identified by Bava Tapu as belonging to the appellant.It is clear, therefore, that the evidence in the case which we have carefully examined and see no good reason to distrust, established beyond doubt that the appellant had struck the deceased several blows with a stick and thus caused his death.He was, therefore, guilty at least under s. 304 of the Indian Penal Code as found by the trial court.The reduced sentence imposed by the High -Court does not appear to be unduly severe' The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on admission.This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Cr.A. No.54/06, whereby judgment dated 12/10/06 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harda in Criminal Case No.640/95 acquitting respondent Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, of the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"), was affirmed.Upon the aforesaid information given by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khirkiya on 25/5/91, First Information Report (Ex.P/12) was registered and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

Inherent powers of this Court are invoked by filing this petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the FIR bearing Crime No.32/2016 dated 08/02/2016 (Annexure A-1) registered at Police Station Noorabad, District-Morena alleging offence punishable u/S.406, 420, 34 of IPC against the petitioners.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on admission.Consequently, the present M.Cr.

['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']

Looking to facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that applicant is a young boy and has no criminal past, charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in custody since 13.04.2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/05/2019 10:25:46 2 MCRC-17577-2019 following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/05/2019 10:25:46

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

When a voice of protest was raised, filthy language was hurled at the petitioner and his lady friend.P.C. was received by the petitioner and in fact an attempt was also made to meet the I.O. but due to non-availability of the I.O. the petitioner could not comply with Section 41A notice.Charge sheet has already been submitted.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3

['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

In default of payment of fine he has to further undergo additional six months rigorous imprisonment.(2) In the instant appeal, the case of the prosecution may be summarized as under :-That on 30.1.1995 at 5.15 P.M. a first information report was lodged at Police Station Rajapur District Banda regarding an incident which is said to have taken place on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M.(3) The prosecution case, in brief, is that about 20 days before the incident the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh forcibly wanted to cut the Neem tree situated in the field of the informant's grand father.However, Mahaveer (deceased) and did not permit him to cut the tree.On that day the accused-appellant left the place.However, on 30.1.1995 he again came at the tube-well of the first informant at about 4 P.M. armed with his licensed double barrel gun.The informant's grand father looking to his agitated mood permitted him to cut the tree, but it was strongly opposed by his father Mahaveer (deceased).Upon it, the accused started hurling abuses and fired on the deceased which hit on his near the neck due to which he fell down.Then the accused-appellant again fired which hit on the left side of chest.The informant and other family members who are present there had witnessed to the incident.Immediately after the incident he went to his village and scribed the first information report in his own handwriting.(12) Budhraj P.W.2 is also an eye-witness of the incident.He is the nephew of deceased-Mahaveer and has stated that on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M. he along with grand father Shiv Balak and other family members were present near the tube well when the appellant made two fires on the deceased, who died on the spot.The defence has also given him a suggestion that the deceased was murdered at an unknown place by some unknown miscreants and no such incident as alleged by prosecution had taken place at the time and place as alleged which was specifically denied by the said witness.(13) P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Prasuram Verma is the Investigating Officer of this case.The first information was registered in his presence.Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.( Delivered by Justice Rajul Bhargava ) (1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2006 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act) District Banda in Special Sessions Trial No.90 of 2005 (State of U.P. Vs.Mahendra Singh), under Sections 302/504 IPC and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Banda, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/-.Then the first informant Bachcha scribed first information report in the village and got it registered as Case Crime No.12 of 1995, under Sections 302/504 IPC and 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, police station Rajapur District Banda.(4) After the registration of first information report, the investigation was taken over by P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Prasuram Verma posted as Station Officer at police station Rajapur, District Banda.After thorough investigation he submitted charge sheet against the sole accused-appellant Mahendra Singh under Section 302/504 IPC and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act. After committal of the case to the Court of Session the same was tried by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Banda, who vide impugned judgment and order found the appellant guilty of the charges and sentenced him as noted above.(5) In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all.Out of which P.W.1 Bachcha is the first informant as an eye-witness, P.W.2 Budhraj eye-witness of the incident and remaining four witnesses are formal witnesses.P.W.6 Swatantra Kumar Clerk, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda proved the statement of witness Shiv Balak recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate Sri Ram Narayan Maurya.(6) Thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has categorically denied the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses about the recovery of his D.B.B.L. Gun.He has stated that he had no knowledge about it and the recovery shown by the prosecution is false.He has stated that he has been implicated on account of enmity.It may be noted that on being questioned as to whether he wants to be lead any defence evidence he stated in the affirmative.However, the fact remains that the appellant did not examine any witness in defence.(7) Learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments of both the sides and after appreciating and discussing the evidence on record held the appellant guilty of murdering the deceased and convicted and sentenced him accordingly by the aforesaid judgment and order which is impugned in this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and carefully perused the record.(8) Briefly summarized the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has assailed the reliability and truthfulness of the prosecution case mainly on the following grounds:-(iii) The presence of witnesses at the spot is highly doubtful.(iv) The deceased was done to death at some other place and the first informant in collusion with the Investigating Officer has changed the place of incident.(v) There are material contradiction between the statements of eye-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony.(vi) Lastly it is contended that the Trial Judge has erroneously believed and has placed reliance on eye-witnesses account and the incident was not fairly investigated.(9) On behalf of the State-respondent learned AGA submitted that the first information report in the present case has been lodged promptly.The presence of eye-witnesses is very natural and probable as the incident had taken place at the tube well of the deceased and the same finds corroboration from the recovery of the blood, the pellets found embedded on the wall of the room near the tube well where the deceased was shot twice by the appellant and also the recovery of two empty cartridges, pellets and tickly recovered from the spot.The findings recorded in the impugned judgment are well substantiated from the record.After scribing the first information report he went to police station Rajapur and got the first information report registered.He has also proved that in his presence the Investigating Officer had recovered two empty cartridges lying at the place of incident.P.W.1 in his statement has given graphic description of the manner in which the incident had taken place and has also proved the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of his father.It was also suggested that on account of village party faction between the Pandits and Thakurs, the appellant has been falsely implicated.He has proved the handwriting of Constable Chandra Prakash, who had prepared the chick report exhibit Ka-2 and also the General Diary of the case of 30.1.1995 vide G.D. No.24 at 5.15 P.M. He has stated that he recorded the statement of first informant at the police station and proceeded at the place of incident along with him.Thereafter he inspected the spot and conducted inquest proceedings on 30.1.1995 at 7.15 P.M. and concluded the same at 8.15 P.M. and despatched the dead body for post-mortem along with relevant papers.He also recovered two empty cartridges, two tickli and pellets from the spot also took in possession the blood stained and plain earth from the Chabutra where the dead body of the deceased was found lying.On the same day he recorded the statement of eye-witness Shiv Balak, Smt. Maini and other witnesses.In his cross-examination he has categorically stated that after the registration of first information report he left the police station at about 6 P.M. on 30.1.1995 and reached at the spot within 15 minutes.(14) P.W.4 Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kathoriya conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 31.1.1995 at 3.30 P.M. and he has noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Mahaveer, which are as under:-i) A gun shot wound of entry on left side of chest in lower part anteriorly 7 cm.below left nipple in mammary line 2.5x2.5 cm.Circular, margins of wound inverted blackening around the margins of wound present.This wound is through and through with injury no.2 piercing stomach, diaphragm left lung and anterior chest wall on right side.ii) A gun shot wound of exit on right side of chest, 4.0 cm.X4.0 cm.circular, margins of wound back everted, 2 cm.below right clerical 8 cm.iii) Multiple 12 small wounds of exit 0.5 cm.to 1.5 cm.over right shoulder anteriorly.iv) 5 pellets withdrawn from back and axillary region on the right side.In his opinion, the cause of death due to shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries noted above.In the post-mortem, Doctor noted that the stomach and small intestine contains partiall y digested food and gases.(15) So far as P.W.5 CP Hariom is a witness of recovery of gun from the appellant along with cartridges and has also admitted his signature on the recovery memo.(16) P.W.6 is the clerk of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.He has simply proved the handwriting of Sri Ram Narayan Maurya, Judicial Officer, who had recorded the statement of the grand father of the informant namely Shiv Balak recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we find that the evidence of P.W.6 is of no relevance as the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and who has not been examined during trial does not have any evidentiary value as the same is not a substantive piece of evidence.(17) Now, we will examine the submissions of learned defence counsel assailing the prosecution version.One of the main argument of defence counsel is that the first information report though stated to have been lodged promptly but in fact it is ante timed which would make the entire prosecution case suspicious and the implication of the appellant doubtful.It has been submitted that according to prosecution the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M. and the alleged registration of the first information report on the same day at 5.15 P.M. by the informant after covering a distance of 10 kilometres is unbelievable as the lodging of the first information report is too prompt and the only inference which can be drawn is that it was registered much later.Thus, the prosecution in order to show the promptitude in lodging the first information report after manipulation has shown its registration at 5.15 P.M. In this behalf, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the first informant P.W.1, who in his cross-examination has stated that after the incident he remained present at the spot for about 15 minutes and during this period he did not even touch his father.Thereafter, he went to his village and scribed the first information report in which he took about 15 minutes and then it took twenty minutes to reach the police station by bus.Based on this fact, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was not possible for the first informant to have scribed the first information report within such a short time and lodge the same within one hour 15 minutes of the incident after covering the distance of 10 kilometres as noted in the chick report.(18) First of all, we deal with the first limb of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the time taken in lodging of the first information report, we may observe that it is not expected of rustic villager before whose eyes brutal murder of his father has taken place in broad day light would narrate or describe the time consumed by him in scribing the first information report or the time taken by him to reach the police station with precision.The statement of such a witness is his own estimation of time in which they may be some variation.(19) The Hon'ble Apex Court in reference to rustic witness has made a very illuminating observation in the case of Dimple Gupta Vs.According to it villagers are prone to misjudge time and distance and they are not skilled in narrating chain of evidence with precision.It may be noted that the statement of P.W.1 was recorded almost after 4 and half years from the date of incident and on account of which certain discrepancy with regard to timing, distance, manner and mode of assault was bound to occur which unless are too major and go to the root of the prosecution not much importance can be attached to such insignificant and minor discrepancies.We find that the Trial Court had dealt with the aforesaid arguments of the defence about the timing of registration of the first information report within one hour and 15 minutes of the incident in extenso on page 61 and 62 of the paper book.It is recorded that the timing given by his informant are based on his estimation and the same cannot be considered independently but the entire statement of the first informant has to be taken into account.(20) Learned defence counsel also argued that according to statement of P.W.1, the Investigating Officer arrived at the spot at 7 P.M. and after staying there for about one hour took the dead body along with him to the police station where it was kept for the whole night and next day the dead body was sent from the police station Karvi for post-mortem.From this statement the defence has tried to draw an inference that since the first information report was not in existence and the accused was not known therefore, the dead body was taken to the police station and the first information report was thereafter made ante timed.We do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned defence counsel inasmuch as after the registration of the first information report it was read over to him by the concerned clerk and he was given a copy of the same.P.W.1 has denied the suggestion of the defence that the first information report was scribed by him on the dictation of Daroghaji at the police station in the night.We also find from the evidence of P.W.3, the Investigating officer on being cross-examined and suggested by the defence that he had taken the dead body to the police station and the same was kept throughout the night has been specifically denied by him.He has stated that before despatching the dead body for the post-mortem he had already inspected the place of incident recovered the pellets found embedded on the wall of the room near the tube well.The defence has not been able to elicit anything very material from the said witnesses about the alleged ante timing of the first information report.(21) However, we may record that in the inquest report the crime number, sections and other requisite particulars on other spot papers namely site plan, recovery memos etc. have been mentioned which only indicate that the first information report had already been registered.There is no interpolation, cutting or manipulation in the inquest report exhibit Ka-6 to suggest that the first information report was not in existence when the inquest report was prepared.(22) One of the other main argument of defence counsel is that the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses is completely belied by medical evidence and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it.He has argued that according to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are son and nephew of the deceased have specifically stated that the accused Mahendra Singh had made two fires from his gun.The first one had hit near the neck of the deceased and when he fell down he made second fire which caused injury on the left side of chest.It is submitted that according to post-mortem report, only one gun shot injury of entry was found and the other two injuries, injury nos. 2 and 3 are wounds of exit.Therefore, on this very material point the ocular version of the eye-witnesses is wholly unreliable and indicates that they have not witnessed the incident and in consultation with the Police the case was concocted and the appellant was falsely implicated.(23) We find agreement with the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the prosecution case of two fires made by the accused-appellant cannot be out-rightly rejected as it appears that the first informant on the basis of wrong judgment or description has given a description of two fires being hit on the deceased.However, the fact remains that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that the appellant-accused had fired at the deceased after hurling abuses from a very close range.This fact also finds corroboration from the post-mortem report in which the first gun shot injury contained blackening around it indicating thereby that the firing was resorted from a very close range.We may also record that it is not necessary that every fire made by the accused-appellant would certainly hit the deceased or injured.As a normal reaction any human being in his instinct of self preservation would try to move and save himself and there is every possibility that only one fire out of the two fires made by the appellant-accused, only one had hit him from a very close range which had caused extensive damage to vital parts of the body.(24) The next argument about the alleged medical conflict raised by the defence counsel is that P.W.1 has stated that his father (deceased) had eaten food about half an hour before the incident.However, according to post-mortem report partially digested food was found in small intestine and according to P.W.4 Dr. Kothariya the food must have been consumed within 8 hours of the death.Submission of defence counsel is that if the deceased had eaten food half an hour before the incident then in his stomach and intestine undigested food should have been found present.We may record that according to Modis' Medical Jurisprudence, the digestion process continues even after the somatic death whereby the heart stops functioning whereas, molecular death takes place after about two hours of somatic death, therefore, till the dead body reaches the stage of molecular death, the digestion process continues to take place.Besides it, according to medical treaties the estimation of duration of death based on the digestion process is not very authentic and it only gives a rough estimation about the duration inasmuch as the time taken by individual for digestion of food differs from person to person depending on his age, general physical condition and climate etc. (25) Here we would recall the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Jitender Kumar Vs."In view of the above medical references, the view expressed in Modi's book (supra) and the principles stated in the judgments of this Court, it can safely be predicated that determination of the time of death solely with reference to the stomach contents is not a very certain and determinative factor.It is one of the relevant considerations.The Court should examine the collective or cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence along with the medical evidence to arrive at the correct conclusion."(26) We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned defence counsel about any such medical ocular conflict in order to discard the testimony of eye-witnesses.(27) Submission of defence counsel is that the alleged incident had taken place at the tube well of the deceased and had taken place elsewhere.We may record that from the bare perusal of the site plan, we find that the Investigating Officer has shown that the pellets were found embedded on the walls of the room near the tube well.The two empty cartridges, pellets and tiklis were also recovered from the place of incident and from the Chabutara itself.The Investigating Officer recovered blood stained earth which has clearly fixed the place of incident.(28) During cross-examination, same normal discrepancies have occurred in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which are quite natural.We could not find any of them to be major contradiction between the statements on oath and the version contained in the first information report, therefore, the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 even after long cross-examination remained unshaken.There is no material on record to discard the eye-witness account of these witnesses.It was a broad day light incident in which the first information report was lodged promptly and the appellant Mahendra Singh is sole accused to whom the main role of firing has been attributed which finds corroboration by the medical evidence.The said weapon used by the appellant was recovered from his possession and, thus, we may record that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.The defence has not cross-examined the prosecution witnesses on motive and thus the same remained unchallenged.(29) There is one more ground that investigation was not fairly conducted.In support of his ground learned counsel for the appellant could not indicate a single fact from the record.

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

According to the suicide note the deceased has given Rs.9,60,000/- to the applicant, however, he has not executed the sale-deed of the house and denied for receiving the amount.This petition preferred u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') being aggrieved by order dated 11/01/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in S.T. No. 35/2017, whereby charge for offence u/s. 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.The facts of the case are in brief that the deceased- Mahesh Kumar Soni was running a clinic at Sadar Bazar, Bhatakhedi.On 31/01/2017, at about 17:00 p.m., he committed suicide by hanging.On receiving the information regarding the incident the Merg No. 05/2017 was registered was registered by Police Station-Manasa, District-Neemuchg under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. During enquiry it was found that the deceased left a suicide note, in which the present applicant was blamed for his suicide.Reliance in this regard has been placed on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's matrimonial house is situated at Village - Barati, P.O Baidyapur, P.S Madhabdihi, District - Purba Bardhaman, the petitioner's husband is the owner of the same.The private respondents who are residing in the same village had, since long, been attempting to disturb the petitioner's peaceful possession and are threatening the petitioner of dire consequences.Such fact was brought to the notice of the police authorities but no steps were taken.Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the police authorities treated the petitioner's complaint as FIR and registered Madhabdihi Police Station Case No.28/18 dated 16th March, 2018 under Section 341/323/325/354B/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In connection with the said case the respondent no.10 and respondent no.12 were 2 arrested and the other accused persons surrendered before the learned Magistrate and upon completion of investigation a charge sheet has also been filed and as such, there is no inaction on the part of the police authorities.Let the written instruction, as produced, be kept on record.The learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.10 denies the allegation as levelled in the writ petition and submits that the said respondents have not in any manner prevented the petitioner from residing in her matrimonial house.There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

['Section 325 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']

He is also directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 09/03/2016 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, M.Cr.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi, in Case No. 1514 of 2013, Santosh Verma Vs.Prem Bada Singh and others, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected.Learned counsel has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 entered into an agreement to sell with co-accused Ram Singh alias Pintoo Singh and paid him Rs. Three Lakhs.Neither any agreement to sell was executed by the revisionist nor any amount was received by her.On the aforesaid grounds it is prayed by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 8.5.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the court below be directed to release the applicant on bail, if possible on the same day, and the trial proceedings be also directed to be expedited and to be concluded within a stipulated period.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application and submits that there was an scuffle between the parties admittedly wherein the injuries were caused to the complainant and as such the accused-applicant could not be absolved simply for the reason that both the parties were involved in scuffle.

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

Item No. 71And In the matter of: Ranjit Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Tilak Mitra For the Petitioner Mrs. Debjani Sahu Banerjee For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 332 of 2013 dated 04.05.2013 under sections 498A/406/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the husband of the Complainant.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

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

This is an application challenging an order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrat, Kalyani, Nadia in connection with G.R. case no. 591 of 2016, thereby discharging the accused from the charges under sections 420/467/468/471/120B read with 34 of the Penal Code.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.The present opposite party no. 2 had claimed herself to be the wife of the present petitioner.An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Jay Sengupta, J.)

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

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the complainant Farmida Begum (PW7) lost her husband about four years prior to the occurrence.The appellant Banne Khan had been pestering her to marry him, but she refused his offer.On 09.04.92 at about 7.00 AM in the morning, appellant Banne Khan is stated to have visited the house of the complainant and repeated his proposal of marriage to her.She, however, declined the offer and refused to marry him.Son of the Crl.A.179/95 Page 1 of 7 complainant, Salim (PW6) also told the appellant to leave.After some time the complainant went to fetch water from the house of a neighbour.When she was coming back after fetching water, at about 7.30 AM, appellant Banne Khan is stated to have attacked her with a knife and inflicted knife injuries on her chest, head, nose, left shoulder, left buttock and right side of the stomach.The incident is stated to have been witnesses by PW5 Vinod Kumar, a neighbour and PW6 Salim, son of the complainant.Because of the injuries, the complainant became unconscious.She was shifted to GTB Hospital by her son.The information about her admission in GTB Hospital was conveyed to the Police Station, which was recorded in the daily diary register as DD No.6A at the Police Station, Seelampur and investigation of the case was entrusted to ASI Kadam Singh.ASI Kadam Singh visited the hospital and obtained the MLC of the complainant who was declared unfit for statement.Thus, he appended his endorsement on the copy of DD No.6A and sent it to the Police Station for registration of the case under Section 307 IPC.A.179/95 Page 1 of 7After registration of the formal FIR, investigation was entrusted to ASI Kadam Singh.He recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the formalities of investigation submitted the challan against the appellant.Appellant was charged under Section 307 IPC, to which he claimed to be not guilty and claimed to be tried.A.179/95 Page 2 of 7A.179/95 Page 2 of 7On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge relying on the testimony of the witnesses PW5 Vinod Kumar, PW6 Salim and PW7 Farmida Begum, convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him vide impugned judgment and order on sentence.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted though the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the appellant for assault and inflicting injuries on the person of Farmida Begum(PW7) with a knife, he erred in convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC.He has submitted that the trial Judge failed to appreciate that there was neither any motive nor any intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of complainant Farmida Begum.He has further submitted that the Trial Court also failed to take note of the fact that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the nature of the injuries caused to the complainant which could give rise to an inference that those injuries were caused with an intention to commit murder.He has urged us to set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and convert it into the conviction under Section 324 IPC.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, defended the conviction under Section 307 IPC.In our view, the aforesaid refusal ordinarily would not push a reasonable person to take such an extreme step to assault the lady with the intention to take away her life.However, the fact remains that different people react to a situation in different manner.Therefore, in order to infer whether or not the appellant had intention to commit murder of the complainant Farmida Begum, it is essential to advert to the medical evidence with a view to find out the place of injuries as well as the nature of injuries.In absence of the medical evidence, we find ourselves handicapped in coming to a conclusion about the place and the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant Farmida Begum which could help in coming to the conclusion about the intention of the appellant Crl.A.179/95 Page 5 of 7 behind the assault on the complainant.Since the prosecution has failed to produce the best evidence pertaining to the injuries suffered by the complainant and the nature of the injuries, the benefit of the lapse must go to the appellant.A.179/95 Page 6 of 7Therefore, there is no need to direct his arrest for undergoing the sentence.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

25.09.13 Item No. 71 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 71And In the matter of: Sk.Karam Hossain Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sardar Sahin Imam For the Petitioner Mr. Amanul Islam For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case No. 316 of 2013 dated 15.08.2013 under Sections 417/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The Petitioner is a deed writer.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']