Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

Item no. 12 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6585 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.08.2018 in connection with Coochbehar Police Station Case No. 127/2018 dated 01.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Akhilesh Dutta & anr.... Petitioners Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Coochbehar Police Station Case No. 127/2018 dated 01.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners are the parents-in-law of the victim.The husband has already been granted anticipatory bail subject to the husband paying a monthly amount of Rs.6,000/- on account of maintenance to the wife.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER N.K. Bhattacharyya, J.In Criminal Revision No. 1971 the accused petitioner Sri Dilip Kumar Roy prayed for quashing of the proceeding in GR Case No. 134 of 1985 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia arising out of Santaldih P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27th January, 1985 under Sections 420/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code.In Criminal Case No. 2139 the said petitioner prayed for setting aside order dated 12-8-88 passed in the said case as aforementioned by the S.D.J.M., Purulia.Accordingly, both the cases are taken up together and disposed of by this judgment.In both the cases the facts are the same and it involves the same question of law.The accused petitioner was the General Superintendent and Chief Engineer of Santaldih Thermal Power Station during the relevant time.The Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Board, Calcutta, filed a complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal, Bhabani Bhaban, Alipore, for irregularity in purchase/works of contract at Santaldih Thermal Power Station and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge, Santaldih Police Station for registering a case.On that First Information Report Santaldih P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27th January, 1985 was started against the petitioner and others under section 420/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was entrusted to the officer on duty of the said Police Station.In that F.I.R. the present petitioner figured as accused No. 2 along with 7 other accused persons.AGR Case was registered, being GR Case No. 134 of 1985, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.The allegation, inter alia, made against the petitioner was that he initiated certain orders and placed them on some firm without observing the formalities for tender or without taking any sanction from higher authorities and the order was placed at a rate much higher than the ordinary rate.It has further been alleged that the materials supplied are inferior in quality and in that process along with others the petitioner misappropriated the public fund.After completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted report in the final form wherein he opined that the allegations are in the nature of departmental irregularities and does not invite criminal prosecution.The petitioner was on anticipatory bail all along.The final report was submitted on 10-6-88 before the S.D.J.M., Purulia and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered issuance of notice upon the defacto complainant and also called for the case diary.On 19-7-88 the record was put up before the S.D.J.M., Purulia upon an application by the defacto complainant expressing dissatisfaction with the investigation.On 12-8-88 the learned S.D.J.M. upon perusal of the CD.In passing such order the learned S.D.J.M. observed as follows :-It further appears from the petition of the defacto complainant represented by Account Officer (Vigilance) Santaldih Thermal Power Project that valuable documents which are lying in their custody have not been seized and vericied (sic) (verified - supplied) by the I.O. and those documents are very much relevant for the purpose of investigation.Thereafter the petitioner moved the revisional application being Criminal Revision No. 1971 of 1991 for quashing of.the entire proceeding in QR Case No. 134 of 1985 arising out of Santaldih P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27th January, 1985 under section 420/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code.It will be apposite at this stage to poim out that till 7-3-1991 no report has been submitted by the LO.Mr. Bose learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that Article 21 of the Constitution envisages speedy disposal of the cases and the case being started in 1988 before the learned S.D.J.M. and the investigation has been started since 1985 and as the police report has not been submitted till March 7th, 1991, the proceeding should be quashed on the ground of delay.In the next place the learned counsel contended that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has no power to direct the investigating agency for further investigation and he has no power to choose an agency.Payment was made belated but prior to prosecution.

['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :(i) That Mahendra Mehta, then aged about 30 years, was residing with his parents, wife Surabhi and a year old son Amit in Flat No.309, Ravi Kiran Building, Carter Road No.3, Borivali (E), Mumbai.He was one of the partners in Riddhi Jewellers situated at 285/305, Krishna Niwas, Office No.22/A, URS 4 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 5 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Zaveri Bazar.PW 3 Rakesh Jain, his brother Manojkumar Jain and Vimal Mehta, brother of Mahendra Mehta, were the other partners of Riddhi Jewellers.PW 1 Mukesh Mehta, brother of Mahendra Mehta, was residing intervening 6-7 buildings from Ravi Kiran building, Borivali (E), Mumbai where Mahendra Mehta was residing with his family and parents.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::(ii) On 21/03/2007 morning, Mahendra Mehta was to travel to Gujarat.At about 4.30 a.m., PW 3 Rakesh Jain returned to Bombay from Baroda.He went to the house of Mahendra Mehta in Ravi Kiran building.PW 3 Rakesh delivered two samples of gold to Mahendra.Those samples were to be taken to Gujarat by Mahendra.That time, Rakesh also handed over a mobile phone to Mahendra which was being used by them in Gujarat.At 5.30 a.m., PW 3 Rakesh went to Ganesh temple which was situated in the compound of the same building.Rakesh was one of the partners of Riddhi Jewellers.According to him on 21/03/2007 at around 4.30 a.m., he returned to Bombay from Baroda and straight way went to the house of Mahendra Mehta as Mahendra was to go to Gujarat at around 6.30 a.m. on the same day.Rakesh URS 16 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 17 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc handed over two samples of gold to Mahendra and a cell phone which was being used for transaction in Gujarat.After handing over gold samples, Rakesh left the house of Mahendra at around 5.30 a.m. and went to Ganesh temple situated in the compound of Ravi Kiran building.On his way to temple, PW 3 Rakesh saw a lady and a man at the gate of the building.He proceeded ahead.He then saw two motorbikes near Saibaba temple.Two persons were sitting on each motor bike.Thereafter PW 3 Rakesh reached his residence.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::At 6.30 a.m., Rakesh received phone call from Vimal Mehta informing him that some persons attempted to snatch away the bag and assaulted Mahendra.He was also informed that Mahendra was being carried to Bhagwati Hospital by PW 1 Mukesh and his father Devichand.On receiving information, PW 3 Rakesh went to Bhagwati Hospital.Medical Officer declared Mahendra as dead.SEO Ismail Khan conducted the identification parade.During identification parade, PW 3 Rakesh identified accused no.1 James and accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat.ig PW 3 Rakesh misidentified accused no.4 Shabbir who was not in the TIP.(iii) It is further stated by PW 3 Rakesh that on the same day i.e. on 08/05/2007, he was taken to Byculla prison.During TIP conducted in Byculla prison, he identified accused no.6 Swapnali as the same lady to whom he saw at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.Thereafter on 05/06/2007, TIP was held at Arthur Road jail.In that TIP, PW 3 Rakesh identified accused no.7 Vishal as the person sitting on motorbike.He stated that victim did not leave the bag.Thus, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence on incident.(xi) So far as TIP is concerned, it is a matter of record that the eye witnesses have mis-identified some of the accused as discussed above.PW 4 Mahesh identified accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya on 05/06/2007 during the TIP.(xii) The star witness on TIP is PW 17 SEO Ismail Khan.He stated that PI Darekar called him at Crime Branch office, Dahisar, and requested to hold identification parade in Crime No.11/2007 of Crime Branch.Accordingly letter was issued to him.It is stated by PW 17 SEO Khan that in the TIP held on 08/05/2007, Sukhdeo Shinde and Nagesh Jangam were the two panch witnesses.ASI Deshmane introduced PW 17 SEO Khan to Jailor.The identifying witnesses i.e. PW 3 Rakesh Jain, PW 4 Mahesh Vyas and PW 6 Mitesh Shah were made to sit in a separate room.This TIP was in respect to accused no.1 John, accused no.2 Vishal and accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat.PW 17 SEO Khan selected 18 dummies.Out of 18, he asked 12 dummies to stand in a line.He took care to see that place of identification parade was not visible to outsiders and particularly to the identifying witnesses.Initially accused no.1 James and accused no.2 Vishal were called.They were given idea of conducting identification parade.Accused were given a choice to select their own place, change the clothes if they desired and take the position in the line as per their wish.Accused declined to URS 23 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 24 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc change the clothes.Thereafter panch witness Sukhdeo was sent to bring identifying witness PW 3 Rakesh Jain.PW 3 Rakesh identified accused James and Vishal by touching them with finger.(xiii) Another panch was sent to call PW 6 Mitesh Shah.He was asked to identify the culprits.PW 6 Mitesh identified accused James and Vishal by touching their bodies.The proceedings were accordingly recorded by PW 17 SEO Khan.The same procedure was followed in respect to the third identifying witness PW 4 Mahesh Vyas.He too identified accused James and Vishal.Memorandum of TIP was drawn.(xiv) In the process of identification, PW 17 SEO Khan selected six dummies.Accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat was then called.He was identified by PW 3 Rakesh Jain during TIP.Memorandum of identification was drawn by SEO URS 24 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 25 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Khan.Witness identified article 9 - Jeans Pant, article 10 - Banyan and article 11 - Mobile hand set.He could not identify accused Jambo before the URS 34 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 35 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Court.PW-23 - P.I. Darekar identified him in the dock.It is pertinent to note that accused No.1 Jambo was acquainted with accused No.6 Swapnali.PW-14 - Radheshyam Amrutlal Bind was running a Mechanic Shop of repairing motor bikes.He stated that motor bike bearing No. MH-02/HA-1715 was sold by him to accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan for Rs. 20,000/-.He identified accused No. 2 - Vishal Chauhan in the dock.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::JUDGMENT (PER SMT.I. K. JAIN, J,) :-By the said Judgment and Order, the trial Court convicted the Appellants/original accused nos.1 to 7 under Section 396 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only); in default R.I. for two years.For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the Respondents as accused as they were referred before the trial Court.(iii) At around 6.00 a.m., Mahendra left the house and walked down to catch train for Surat which was scheduled at URS 5 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 6 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc 6.30 a.m. On the way, at some distance from his house in front of Jain Milk Dairy, four persons came on two motorcycles and snatched the bag which was being carried by Mahendra.Mahendra resisted the same, so those persons assaulted Mahendra by means of choppers over the head and wrist.That time, one male and one female were loitering at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.After assault, assailants ran away on the motorcycles.Mahendra was severely injured and lying in a pool of blood.PW 3 Mukesh, elder brother of Mahendra, was informed about the incident.He rushed to the spot.Devichand, father of Mahendra, also came to know and he too came to the spot.They shifted Mahendra to Bhagwati Hospital.Medical Officer at Bhagwati Hospital declared Mahendra dead at around 7.45 a.m. Matter was reported to Kasturba Marg Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::He received a telephonic message at around 7.05 a.m. on 21/03/2007 that Mahendra was admitted to hospital as MLC URS 6 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 7 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc case.He communicated information to PI Dalvi and proceeded to hospital.Mahendra was admitted in ICU.He was not in a condition to give statement.On the death of Mahendra at 7.45 a.m., PSI Mandavkar recorded report of Mukesh.He returned to police station and registered C.R.No.55 of 2007 under Sections 393, 397 and 302 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::It appears that ADR entry no.22/2007 was also registered on the basis of report lodged by Mukesh.Investigation was set into motion.During investigation, it was revealed that accused no.7 Vishal Jain was serving in Sejal Jewellers.He was knowing Mahendra Mehta.This information was passed on by accused no.7 Vishal to accused no.5 Rakesh who, with the help of accused nos.1 to 4 and 6, executed the plan to rob Mahendra.It was also revealed that on 21/03/2007 when Mahendra was on the way, accused nos.1 to 4 snatched away the bag which was being carried by Mahendra and URS 7 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 8 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc when Mahendra resisted, they assaulted him and caused his death.Then accused were arrested.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::In due course, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Appellants/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of total denial and false implication.On going through the evidence of 26 witnesses examined in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellants as stated in para 1 above.Hence these Appeals.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Appellants and the learned APP for State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the Judgment delivered by the learned Additional URS 8 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 9 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that on facts prosecution succeeded but for want of proper compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, trial vitiates and judgment and order of conviction and sentence needs to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::The fact of homicidal death is seriously in dispute.As such, exclusive burden lies on the prosecution to not only overrule the possibility of natural, accidental or suicidal death but also to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt by reliable and convincing evidence.To establish the factum of homicidal death, prosecution has relied upon -(i) Inquest panchanama,(ii) Medical evidence and(iii) Circumstantial evidence.(i) Inquest panchanama -Accused have not disputed genuineness of inquest URS 9 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 10 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc panchanama (Exh.52).It was drawn on 21/03/2007 between 8.40 to 9.30 hours at Bhagwati Hospital dead house, Borivali (West).It can be seen from the panchanama that several injuries were noticed on the head, forehead, right hand, right wrist and right arm.These injuries clearly indicate that the death in question was unnatural.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::(ii) Medical evidence -After inquest panchanama was drawn, dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.PW 13 Dr.On 21/03/2007, Dr.Sanap received the dead body of Mahendra Devichand Mehta through Kasturba Marg Police Station for post-mortem.On the same day he conducted post-mortem between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. He noticed the following external injuries on the dead body -i) Incised wounds over left hand, index finger 1 st phalgnx posteriorly, size 4cm X 2 cm X bone URS 10 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 11 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc deep, over ring finger, size 2cm X 2cm X 1cm, over wrist, size 4cm X 3cm X bone deep and over thumb, size 3cm X 1cm X bone deep.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::ii) Incised wound over left arm size 7cm X 6cm X muscle deep.iii) Incised wound over scalp, forehead 3cm X 1cm X 1cm and 5.3cm X 1cm X bone deep and over occipital area 3cm X 1cm X bone deep.iv) Incised wound over right shoulder 3cm X 1cm X muscle deep, over right arm 6cm X 2cm X muscle deep, over right wrist 7cm X 3cm X muscle deep and 6cm X 3cm X bone deep, over right dorsam of hand, thumb cut completely of SBC, size 6.3cm X 5cm X bone deep.On internal examination, Dr.Sanap noticed the following injuries -::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::According to PW 13 Dr.Sanap, all the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp and hard cutting object like chopper, sword, etc. The probable cause of death opined by PW 13 Dr.Sanap was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.PW 13 Dr.Sanap opined that it was an unnatural death.Post-mortem report was proved at Exh.59A.Sanap stated that such injuries could be possible by assault with weapon like chopper and spear (Arts.1 and 2).In this connection, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Chitnis, learned Senior Advocate for Appellants, that deceased met with an accidental death.Referring to the nature of injuries stated by PW 13 Dr.Mr. Chitnis pointed that ADR entry was deliberately suppressed as the death was due to accident.He submitted that had ADR entry been produced, the truth would have come to the light.In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants, relevant ADR entry No.22/2007 was called by URS 12 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 13 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc us and verified.The learned APP has produced its true copy on record which shows the history of homicidal death and not an accidental death, as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for Appellants.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::On ADR, evidence of PW 19 PSI Chandrakant Mandavkar is important.On 21/03/2007, he received a telephonic message at around 7.05 a.m. that Mahendra was admitted to the hospital for treatment and it was a MLC case.He communicated the information to PW 22 PI Dalvi and proceeded to the hospital.He found Mahendra in ICU undergoing treatment.He stated that Mahendra was not in a condition to make statement and expired at 7.45 a.m. His brother PW 1 Mukesh was in the hospital.PSI Mandavkar inquired from Mukesh.On inquiry, he recorded the report (Exh.47) as per the say of Mukesh.In view of the evidence of PW 19 PSI Mandavkar and true copy of ADR entry No.22/2007 which came to be URS 13 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 14 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc verified from the original register, we do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants that the death in question was an accidental death.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::Further it is significant to note that before the trial Court, factum of homicidal death was not seriously in dispute.The defence set up in cross-examination of PW-13 Dr.Sanap was that injuries which were found during post-mortem could be caused by fall from any height on hard and blunt object.It indicates that there is no consistency in the defence raised by the accused.On the other hand, we find overwhelming evidence in the form of inquest panchanama, post-mortem report supported by testimony of PW 13 Dr.Sanap which exclusively tilts in favour of homicidal death overruling the complete possibility of natural, accidental or suicidal death.We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a view different then taken by the trial Court on the mode and cause of death of Mahendra Mehta.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::(iii) Circumstantial evidence -In addition to uncontroverted inquest panchanama (Exh.52), post-mortem report (Exh.59A) and Cause of Death Certificate (Exh.83), prosecution has placed strong reliance on the following circumstances -Oral dying declaration to PW 1 Mukesh.(D) Discovery of the incriminating articles.circumstances would be necessary at an appropriate stage.Suffice it to state that prosecution could establish the above circumstances through the evidence of PW1 Mukesh Mehta, PW3 Rakesh Jain, PW4 Mahesh Vyas, PW6 Mitesh Shah, PW8, Kishor Nikam, PW11 Manoj Shah, PW-14 Radheshyam Bind, PW15 Sultan Siddhiqui, PW16 Sandeep Jain, PW17 Ismail Khan, PW18 Sanjay Jain, PW20 Ankush Chavan, PW22 PI URS 15 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 16 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Raghunath Dalvi, PW23 PI Sunil Darekar and PW26 PI Ramakant Pimple.These circumstances too indicate that the death in question was a homicidal death.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::To prove the authorship of the accused and to attribute the specific role to each of them in commission of act also prosecution relied upon the aforesaid circumstances.After two days, PW 3 Rakesh had been to Dahisar Police Station and informed police that he saw a lady and a man at the gate of Ravi Kiran building and also two persons each on two URS 17 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 18 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc motor bikes.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::(ii) On 08/05/2007, PW 3 Rakesh was called at Thane prison for identification parade.(iv) On 25/06/2007, TIP was held in Arthur Road prison in respect to accused no.4 Shabbir.PW 3 Rakesh could not URS 18 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 19 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc identify accused no.4 Shabbir in TIP and mis-identified accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya during the parade.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::(v) From the entire evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, it is apparent that he had seen accused nos.5 and 6 at the gate of Ravi Kiran building and accused no.1 sitting on the motorbike.(vi) The next eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW 4 Mahesh Vyas.He used to go to Jain Milk Dairy early in the morning for bringing milk.He stated that on 21/03/2007 at about 6.00 a.m., he was returning home after purchasing milk.Near Maru General Store, he heard shouts.He looked to the direction of shouts and saw four persons snatching away a bag from the hands of one person.He stated that the person holding the bag was resisting.According to PW 4 Mahesh, out of four persons, two assaulted the person with sharp edged weapons and remaining two caught hold the victim.He saw two motorbikes parked to the left side of place of incident.He URS 19 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 20 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc stated that after assault, assailants ran away with their motorbikes in the Southern direction.However in the Court, he identified accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat holding the victim and accused no.2 Vishal assaulting the victim.So far as accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya is concerned, PW 4 Mahesh identified him in the TIP as well as in Court.However in the TIP conducted on 25/06/2007, PW 4 Mahesh identified accused no.4 Shabbir, he could not name the accused in Court.In respect to accused no.2 Vishal and accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya, his evidence is consistent.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::(vii) Another eye witness is PW6 Mitesh Shah, who was going to National Park for morning walk.When he reached the main road, he heard shouts "Bachao, Bachao".PW 6 Mitesh turned back and saw two persons holding the victim and two snatching bag from the victim.The assailants assaulted the URS 20 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 ::: 21 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc victim with sharp edged weapons.After assault, all four went away on two motorbikes parked near the place of incident.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:42 :::Thereafter PW 6 Mitesh went near the victim lying in pool of blood.After two days, he informed Dahisar police about the incident.(viii) In the TIP held on 08/05/2007, PW 6 Mitesh identified accused no.1 James, on 25/06/2007 he identified accused no.4 Shabbir during TIP.(ix) The evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh is assailed by the defence on several grounds.Those are -(i) Vimal Mehta who informed PW 3 Rakesh, not examined.(ii) PW 4 Mahesh Vyas introduced a new story that injured person went to Jain Milk Dairy and made phone call to his house.(iii) Delay in recording statements of these witnesses not explained.In support, reliance is placed on Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another V/s.State of Maharashtra1(iv) Their evidence on identification of the accused is confusing, concocted and forged.1 (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 417 URS 21 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 22 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::(v) The testimonies of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh are not consistent and cannot be relied.(x) On going through the entire evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh, it can be seen that their evidence in respect to manner of occurrence of incident is cogent and consistent.Except a minor contradiction in the evidence of PW 6 Mitesh, nothing substantial could be elicited in the piercing cross-examination of the eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::The proceedings were noted by PW 17 SEO Khan.Then PW 3 Rakesh was sent to different room.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::Then dummies, accused and panchanama of TIP were handed over to the Investigating Officer.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::(xv) On the same day, PW 17 SEO Khan conducted identification parade in Arthur Road prison.In the parade, PW 3 Rakesh Jain identified accused no.6 Swapnali as the lady standing at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.Its separate memorandum was drawn by PW 17 SEO Khan.(xvi) At the time of second parade held on 05/06/2007, accused Raju @ Dheknya Thakre was subjected to identification parade.Shaku Qureshi and Ramsagar were the panch witnesses.PW 17 SEO Khan stated that 3 identifying witnesses Rakesh Jain, Mahesh Vyas and Mitesh Shah were called at Arthur Road prison.He selected six dummies.Accused no.3 Raju stood in between dummy nos.3 and 4 as per his wish.Then identifying witnesses were called one by one.They identified accused no.3 Raju in the identification parade.Memorandum of identification parade (Exh.90) was accordingly drawn.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::same procedure as followed in the earlier parades, this identification parade was held.Identifying witnesses PW 3 Rakesh Jain, PW 4 Mahesh Vyas and PW 6 Mitesh Shah identified accused no.4 Shabbir @ Khadda in the TIP.There is no reason to disbelieve the same.There was no animosity between identifying witnesses, SEO who conducted TIPs on one hand and the accused on the other.In our view, the evidence of eye witnesses and PW 17 SEO Khan inspires confidence and clearly establishes the manner of incident of assault on Mahendra and the role played by each of the accused in occurrence of incident.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::(C) Oral dying declaration to PW 1 Mukesh -To prove oral dying declaration, prosecution examined PW-1 Mukesh Mehta.He is the real brother of deceased Mahendra.It is stated by Mukesh that on 21.3.2007, in the morning at around 6.30 a.m. when he was sleeping in the house, his wife Mamta received a phone call of Veena Mehta, wife of his real brother Vimal Mehta asking her to send Mukesh immediately as Mahendra met with an accident.Therefore, his wife woke him up and informed the message of Veena.Immediately, Mukesh rushed to the house of Mahendra.On the way,he saw Mahendra lying in URS 27 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 28 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc injured condition on the road near his house.At the same time, his father arrived there.Mukesh inquired from Mahendra what had happened.On that, Mahendra told him that four persons arrived on two motor bikes.They were snatching his bag and he resisted the same.Those persons then assaulted him.When Mukesh asked him about identity of those four persons Mahendra told that they were unknown to him.Thereafter, Mahendra fell semi-unconscious and he was taken to Bhagwati Hospital in a rickshaw.He was declared as dead by Medical Officer.Mukesh proved Exh. 47 report lodged by him after Mahendra was declared dead.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::On going through the evidence of Mukesh, it is apparent that Mahendra did not name accused persons.From the evidence of Mukesh, at the most it can be said that Mahendra met with homicidal death.So far as authorship of the accused to cause death of Mahendra is concerned, evidence of Mukesh is not helpful to the prosecution as deceased had not implicated the appellants/accused in the commission of alleged act.(D) Discovery of incriminating articles -::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::On discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 relied upon Prabhoo V/s.State of Uttar Pradesh2 in which it has been held that -The main difficulty in the case is that the evidence regarding the recovery of blood stained axe and blood stained shirt and dhoti is not very satisfactory and the courts below were wrong in admitting certain statements alleged to have been made by the appellant in connection with that recovery.According to the recovery memo the two witnesses who were present when the aforesaid articles were produced by the appellant were Lal Bahadur Singh and Wali Mohammad.He did give evidence about the production of blood stained articles from his house by the appellant.The witness said that the appellant produced the articles from a tub on the eastern side of the house.The witness did not, however, say that the appellant made any statements relating to the recovery.Wali Mohammad was not examined at all.This witness said that a little before the recovery the Sub- Inspector of Police took the appellant into custody and interrogated him; then the appellant gave out that the axe with which the murder had been committed and his blood stained shirt and dhoti were in the house and the appellant was prepared to produce them.These statements to which Dobi Baksh (PW 3) deposed were not admissible in evidence.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::Section 27 provides that when any fact is deposed to and discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovery may be URS 30 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 31 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc proved.In Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor the Privy Council considered the true interpretation of Section 27 and said :::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::On going through the evidence of PW-8 Kishor Nikam, it can be seen that he was called by Police Officer Darekar to act as a Panch.Accused No.4 Shabbir was in police custody that time.It is stated by PW-8 Kishor that accused Shabbir made a statement to discover chopper and pant, which was thrown by him near Naigaon.The statement of Shabbir was accordingly recorded.It is further stated by PW-8 Kishor that after memorandum was drawn, Shabbir led them to Naigaon.He discovered a pant and chopper which were lying between the trees.He proved memorandum and recovery panchanama accordingly.Nothing substantial could be elicited in the cross-23, Investigating Officer - Sunil Darekar.On 12.6.2007, he voluntarily gave a memorandum URS 32 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 33 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc in the presence of Panch witnesses to discover chopper and pant.He stated that chopper and pant were recovered at the instance of Shabbir near a field at Naigaon.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::Memorandum and Panchanama exhibits 69 and 70 are duly proved by the Investigating Officer and Panch Witnesses.There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies.Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on discovery and there is no reason for us to interfere with the same.So far as accused No.3 Raju @ Dheknya is concerned, evidence of PW-18 will have to be looked into.One Police Officer requested him to act as Panch.So he accompanied the Officer to Police Station.Accused Raju gave memorandum in his presence to discover a chopper and a pant.It is stated by PW-18 Sanjay that after memorandum, accused Raju discovered chopper and clothes in their presence.None of the accused persons except accused No.3 cross-examined this witness.Nothing otherwise could be brought by accused No.3 in the cross-examination to discard the URS 33 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 34 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc testimony of Panch Witness Sanjay.His evidence is fully corroborated by PW-23 PI Darekar.We are, therefore, not inclined to take a view different than one taken by the trial court in this regard.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::(E) Recovery of clothes at the instance of accused no.1 from the flat of accused no.6 -On 28.4.2007, he was called at Unit No XII of DCB, CID.Accordingly, he went there.He stated that one person in custody of police gave his name as Jambo.He made a statement to discover his Shirt, Banyan, Pant and a Mobile.According to PW-11 Manoj, after memorandum, Jambo led them in a jeep to a flat in Udisha Apartment, Room No. 501, owned by accused No.6 - Swapnali.A person by name Sharad Mahadik was present there.Jambo made discovery of Jeans Pant, Banyan and a Mobile Phone of Nokia Company.These articles were seized and Seizure Panchanama Exhibit 78 was drawn.No plausible explanation was given by accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.6 Swapnali in respect of recovery of clothes from the house of accused No.6 - Swapnali.This is the most clinching circumstance against accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.6 Swapnali.We find no reason to disbelieve the same.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::(F) Recovery of motor bikes -This motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan.In this connection, PW-20 ASI Ankush Chavan stated that on 24.4.2007, the abovesaid motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused Vishal Chauhan.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::Another motor bike bearing No. MH-01/HA-802 was sold by PW-15 Sultan Siddiqui, who runs a Shop "City Motors".PW-15 deals in sales and purchases of old motor bikes.He identified accused No.1 Jambo in the dock.This motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused by PW-22 P.I.Raghunath Dalvi.Memorandum Exhibit 108 given by accused No.1 to discover the said motor bike and discovery panchanama of the motor bike Exhibit 109 are proved by PW-22 - P.I. Raghunath Dalvi.Accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan could not elicit anything adverse in the cross-examination of these witnesses.According to prosecution, deceased Mahendra Mehta was known to accused No. 7 - Vishal Jain.On 19.3.2007, PW-16 - Sandip Jain alongwith Mahendra Mehta had been to Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai for purchasing gold chain.At around 4.00 p.m. when they were proceeding to Zaveri URS 36 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 37 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Bazar, accused No.7 Vishal Jain met them near the shop where he was working.It is alleged that accused No.7 - Vishal Jain passed on this information to accused No.5 Rakesh Bacchawat, who then, with the help of other accused planned to rob Mahendra and accordingly, the plan was executed on 21.3.2007 when Mahendra was proceeding towards railway-station to catch the train.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::The trial court has relied upon the confessional statement of Vishal Jain recorded by learned Magistrate Mr. Agrawal.It is apparent from confessional statement Exhibit 106 that the same is exculpatory.Accused Vishal Jain does not implicate him in the entire confession made before URS 37 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 38 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc PW-21 Mr. Agrawal.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::There is no evidence to show that he passed on the information to accused No.5 Rakesh Bacchawat.In the absence of such link, we find that evidence against accused No.7 is not sufficient to convict him.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::Even so, there must be material to show that the overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused or in prosecution of the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly.In this case, such evidence is lacking and hence the appellants cannot be held liable for the individual act of A-16."4 (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 605 URS 39 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 40 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::In the light of the above, on facts, in fact, URS 45 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 46 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 6 was required to be maintained.We could notice that 66 identical questions were put to each of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge though entirely different incriminating circumstances against each of them were brought on record.It is pertinent to note that role played by accused Nos. 5,6 and 7 even according to prosecution was limited, as accused Nos. 5 and 6 were guarding at the gate of the building and accused No.7 passed on the information to accused No.5, who, executed the plan.The statements under Section 313 of the Code URS 58 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 59 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc were recorded just by cut-copy-paste.Most of the questions put to each of the accused were irrelevant and misleading.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::The accused have demonstrated from the questions put to them that serious prejudice has occasioned to them as statements were recorded in the total disregard of the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In this premise we are not inclined to order retrial from the stage at which provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were not complied with.In the result, appeals succeed.Accordingly, we pass the following order :-[a] The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 642 of 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, is hereby quashed and set aside ;[b] The accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 396 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.[c] Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 who are in jail shall be released forthwith, if not otherwise required in any URS 59 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: 60 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc other case.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::[e] Registry to communicate this order to the accused in jail through the concerned jail authorities.[f] We quantify fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Mr. A.V. Bedekar at Rs. 5000/-.[SMT.I.K. JAIN, J] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J] grt/-::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:43 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Trial Court furtherconvicted the appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act, 2012, [for brevity, ?the POCSO Act?] and sentenced himto undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Thesentences have been ordered to run concurrently.As against the saidconviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.They were residing at Kombuthurai inKayalpattinam.PW-2 was hardly fifteen years old at the time of occurrence.She was studying 11th standard in the Government Girls Higher SecondarySchool, Kayalpattinam.The accused became acquainted with her during the saidperiod.During the month of December 2013, on account of her ill-health, PW-2stopped her studies.On 15.02.2014, during night hours, PW-2 had gone to achurch situated in the village.The accused met her near the church andexpressed his desire to marry her.He also requested her to come on the nextday at 06.00 AM to Mudiyappar Temple in the same village.Accordingly, PW-2went to Mudiyappar Temple.The accused came there and took her in a bus fromKayalpattinam to Tuticorin, from where he took her to Chennai.On 17.12.2014,early in the morning, they reached Chennai.The accused took PW-2 to a rentedhouse, which was in his occupation.He gave promise to her that he wouldmarry her.On that day, the accused attempted to have sexual intercourse withher.But, PW-2 declined to give consent.With a view to get consent from her,the accused told her that since he was surely going to marry her, there wasnothing wrong in having sexual intercourse with him.By giving suchassurance, the accused had repeated sexual intercourse with her.2.1. PW-1, on 16.02.2014, on coming to know that PW-2 had not returnedfrom Mudiyappar Temple, went in search of her to so many places.He examined PW-1, her husband and few morewitnesses from the said locality and recorded their statements.PW-9 was thethen Headmaster of the school and she issued EX-P5, certificate.On 19.02.2014, at about 04.00 PM, onan information received by him, he proceeded to the Kayalpattinam Bus Stand,where he found PW-2 along with the accused.He arrested the accused and tookPW-2 into his custody.He recorded her statement, from and out of which, hecame to know that the accused had repeated sexual intercourse with her, bypromising to marry her.Therefore, he altered the case into one under Section366(A), 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. EX-P9 isthe alteration report.Annal Manjula examined PW-2 on 22.02.2014 at 10.30 AM.PW-2 told her thatlastly, she experienced menstrual cycle on 21.02.2014 and therefore, vaginalsmear could not be taken.On examination, PW-6 found that the hymen was notintact.She further found that her female genitalia was capable of allowingtwo fingers to move freely.Continuing the investigation, PW-10 examined few more witnessesand recorded their statements.Then, he gave a request to the learnedJudicial Magistrate to forward the accused for medical examination.Accordingly, the accused was taken to PW-7 for medical examination.C.Manoharn, examined him, on 06.03.2014 and found that all his sexualorgans had developed fully.He further found that the accused was capable ofperforming penile sexual intercourse with a woman.EX-P4 is the certificateissued by him.PW-10 collected the medical records pertaining to PW-2 and theaccused, examined the doctors and recorded their statements.PW-4 is the fisherman byprofession and he also belongs to the same village.He has stated that on16.02.2014, at about 06.00 AM, he found the accused and PW-2 near the templetogether.PW-5 is the native of the same village, but during the relevantperiod, he was staying in Chennai at Otteri.The accused is his cousin. On17.02.2014, according to him, the accused and PW-2 came to his house andstayed in his house for one day.************* The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.11 of 2014, on the file ofthe learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, [Fast Track Court], Tuticorin.Hestood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of the IndianPenal Code and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) of the Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act, 2012, [for brevity, ?the POCSO Act?].The Trial Court,by Judgment dated 13.03.2015, has convicted the appellant under Section366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorousimprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Since shecould not locate her, she proceeded to the Arumuganeri Police Station to makea complaint.PW-9, Mr.Subramaniam, received the said complaint from PW-1 at02.00 PM, on 17.02.2014 and registered a case under the caption "girlmissing".EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P8 is the First Information Report.He forwarded both these documents to the Court and handed over the case diaryto the Inspector of Police for investigation.PW-10, the then Inspector of Police tookup the case for investigation.On 19.02.2014, he forwarded the accused to the Courtfor judicial remand.Then, he forwarded PW-2 for medical examination.On 03.06.2014, he collected the school transfercertificate, EX-P6 and her Higher Secondary Mark Sheet, under EX-P7, to proveher date of birth.Finally, he laid charge sheet on 22.05.2014 alleging thatthe accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 366 of theIndian Penal Code and 4 of the POCSO Act.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed chargesagainst the accused under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section6 r/w Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded innocence.In orderto prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 10 witnesseswere examined and 11 documents were marked.PW-3, a resident of the same village, had spoken about the fact thatshe had seen the accused and PW-2 together on few occasions prior to16.02.2014, involving themselves in a chat.The next day, since he came to know thatArumuganeri Police was in search of the accused and PW-2, he sent them backto their native place.PW-6 Dr.Annal Manjula has spoken about the examinationconducted on PW-2 and her opinion.PW-7, Dr.C.Manoharan has spoken about theexamination conducted by the accused and his opinion.PW-9, the then Inspector of Police hasspoken about the registration of the case.PW-10, the then Inspector ofPolice has spoken about the investigation done by him.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against him, he denied the same as false.However, he did notchoose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.Having consideredall the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant underSection 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act andpunished him accordingly.That is how, the appellant is now before this Courtwith this Criminal Appeal.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and alsoperused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW-2, at thetime of occurrence, was not a child, as defined in Section 2(d) of the POCSOAct.According to him, she was aged more than 18 years and thus, she was nota child.In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel wouldrely on the evidence of PW-6, who has stated that she was not asked to giveany opinion regarding the age of PW-2, by conducting any medical examination.Further, according to him, the competent expert would only be a Radiologist.The learned counsel would further submit that so far as the schoolcertificate is concerned, the person, who furnished the date of birth of PW-2, at the time when she was admitted in the school for the first time has notbeen examined.The learned counsel would further submit that thebirth certificate of PW-2 has not been produced.At any rate, according tothe learned counsel, since PW-2 was at the verge of attaining majority, shewas capable of giving consent for sexual intercourse.The learned counsel would further submit that the sexual intercoursebetween the appellant and PW-2, even if it is found to be true, would notmake out any offence, as it is contended by the prosecution.The learnedcounsel would further submit that PW-2 had not raised any resistance, whenshe was taken from her native place to Chennai and also while returning allthe way from Chennai to her native place.Thus, according to the learnedcounsel, PW-2 was a consenting party.The learned counsel would furthersubmit that PW-5 has stated that PW-2 and the accused stayed at Chennai onlyone day.Even on that day, PW-2 was sleeping inside the house along with thewife of PW-5, whereas the accused was sleeping outside the house along withPW-5 in the veranda.Thus, there would have been no occasion for the accusedto have sexual intercourse with PW-2, it is contended.Now, turning to the conviction, the learned counsel would submitthat charge framed was under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, whereasthe conviction was recorded under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.He would further submit thatsimilarly, though the other charge was under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act,he was convicted under Section 4 of the POSCO Act, which is also notsustainable.I have considered the above submissions.Admittedly, PW-1, in her evidence, stated that prior to 15.02.2014,PW-2 was closely moving with the accused.When this came to light, herparents stopped her from going to school.She was also reprimanded by herparents.It is her further evidence that on 15.02.2014, the accused met PW-2in the temple and told her that she would marry her.As agreed upon, she wentto Mudiyappar Temple, on 16.02.2014, early in the morning at 06.00 'O' Clock,without informing her family members.Then, on meeting the accused at thesaid temple, she went along with him to Tuticorin by bus from where she wentto Chennai, without any hesitation.When they were at Chennai also, she didnot make any resistance, except saying that she was not agreeable for sexualintercourse.When they came back to Kayalpattinam from Chennai, she did notraise any alarm.All these facts would clearly go to show that PW-2 wentalong with the accused on her own volition and with consent.Similarly, in order to attract any offence under the provisions ofthe POCSO Act, it should be proved by the prosecution that as on the date ofthe commission of the crime, she was a child.The term ?child" has beendefined in Section 2(d) of the Act, which states that child means, any personbelow the age of 18 years.Thus, for the purpose of the offence of kidnappingas well as for any offence under the POCSO Act, the age of PW-2 should beproved to be below 18 years as on the crucial date.But, during thecross-examination, the same has not been disputed at all.Thus, the evidenceof PW-1 in respect of the age of PW-2 remains unchallenged.Assuming that these documents do not have substantive value for wantof examination of the person, who gave the information regarding the date ofbirth to the school at the time when PW-2 was admitted, even then, thesedocuments will not lose their value at least as corroborative piece ofevidence and they would duly corroborate the evidence of PW-2 to prove herdate of birth.Apart from the above, PW-1 is the one, who gave theinformation to the school authorities about the date of birth of PW-2, whenshe was admitted in the school.PW-1 has stated that the birth of PW-2 wasduly recorded by the local panchayat authority.Only on producing the birthcertificate, PW-1 claims that she admitted PW-2 in the school.Thus, the argument of the learned counselfor the appellant that the person, who gave the information to the schoolauthorities, at the time when PW-2 was admitted, has not been examined, isfactually incorrect.It is PW-1, who gave such information to the schoolauthorities.She had also denied the suggestion made to her that she admittedPW-2 at the age of seven.15. PW-2, in her evidence, has stated that it was only this accused,who took her from the village to Chennai and then brought her back toKayalpattinam.The evidences of PW-3 to PW-5 also corroborate the same.But,the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW-5 has stated thaton 17.02.2014, the accused and PW-2 came to his house at Chennai and stayedthere for one day.During night hours, according to him, PW-2 along with thewife of PW-5 slept inside the house, whereas the accused slept along with PW-5 outside the house in the verandah.Apart from the above, the medical evidenceclearly shows that PW-2 had been subjected to sexual intercourse, which isevident from the absence of hymen.Thus, I said that the prosecution hasproved that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW-2, repeatedly.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.5197/2019, first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant-Karan.Appellant-Karan has been convicted and sentenced by judgment dated 08/02/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bheekangaon, District-Mandleshwar (West Nimar) in S.T. No. 300404/2016 as under:-Under Section 5(L)/6 of 10 Years RI Rs.5,000/ 1 years RI the Protection of -Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 08/02/2016 and he has already completed four years custodial sentence.It is also submitted that although at the time of alleged incident the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 15 years, however, there is no berth certificate available on record to substantiate the aforesaid fact.On the basis of entry made in the school certificate, the trial Court concluded that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was below 18 years.In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix accepted that she is the 11 th child of her parents and her five sisters and four brothers have already been married and looking to 3 the difference between the age of her brothers and sisters, it appears that she was above 18 years at the time of alleged incident.The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the appellant has been convicted for the aforesaid offence.It is further submitted that there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if the remaining sentence of the appellant is not suspended, then appeal filed by him may turn infructuous.The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Karan.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the application by contending that the prosecutrix categorically stated in her cross-examination that at the time of alleged incident, she was minor aged about 15 years and this fact is also found support with the entry made in her school certificate, therefore, the trial Court has rightly concluded that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was minor.The prosecutrix made specific allegations against the appellant in her court statement that he forcefully took her and committed rape upon her and this statement could not be controverted in her cross-examination, hence, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence.Accordingly, IA No. 5197/2019 is dismissed.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 4 of 14In the said complaint, which forms basis of registration of FIR No.623/2014, PS Hari Nagar, the complainant reported that on 11th June, 2014 at about 8.00 am pursuant to the stay order passed by the High Court, she went to the school to join her duty.She was waiting for the Principal but as she had not reached, she talked to the CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 5 of 14 Chairman at 11.00 am and handed over the copy of the stay order to the Chairman.She requested the Chairman with folded hands but he said that he was not bound by the order of High Court, she could go wherever she wanted.He mentally tortured her staring at her and abused her.He also called the Peon and directed him to push her out and himself also started speaking in abusive language.She told him that she was an employee and at the work place why he was abusing and misbehaving with her but he did not listen to her.He continued speaking and she was sent outside the school gate.She called the PCR and when Ct.Harjiwan responded to the call, she apprised him about the incident and also played the recording by her of the incident about the abusive misbehavior.Harjiwan advised her to meet the SHO and play the recording in his presence and lodged the FIR.Thereafter she visited the police station and got the FIR registered.She also made request that legal action be taken against the person who has abused her (Maa Bahen Ki Galiyan Di).Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application is disposed of.The petitioner, who is complainant in case FIR No.623/2014 initially registered under Section 509 IPC at PS Hari Nagar, has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 498 CrPC with the following prayer:-'To set aside the judgment order to the extent of discharging the respondent No.2/accused with respect to S.354 passed by the learned ASJ-03, Tis Hazari (West), Delhi in Criminal Revision No.54592/2016 & Criminal CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 1 of 14 Revision No.56393/2016 dated 07.09.2017 and frame charge under S.354 IPC and direct the respondent No.2 to face the trial under Section 354 and Section 509 IPC.'CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 1 of 14Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State accepts notice.3. Heard.When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner not only read the FIR but also other documents considered relevant and annexed with the petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment but instead of adjourning the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file brief written submissions and the matter was directed to be taken up at 2.15 pm.At 2.15 pm again arguments were heard and the written submissions filed by the counsel for the petitioner were also read by him in the Court.The written submissions filed by the petitioner are extracted hereunder:-FIR also mentions pushing the prosecutrix.CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 5 of 14Copy of the chargesheet annexed with the petition reveals that on 20th June, 2014 the complainant was produced for getting her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded and on the basis of allegations made therein i.e. touching of breast, Section 354 IPC was also added in the FIR.On 27th September, 2016 after hearing the parties including the complainant who was present with counsel, learned Trial Court, after extracting the provisions of Section 354 IPC and 509 IPC, discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354/509 IPC for the following reasons:-CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 6 of 14'Therefore, both under section 354 IPC and section 509 IPC, the act of the accused should be with the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or with the knowledge that by his act, the modesty of a woman will be outraged.I have heard the conversation as took placed between complainant and accused at the time of the incident.The said conversation recorded by the complainant on her mobile phone and has been placed on record in the form of CD.The recorded conversation reflects that complainant started recording the conversation, the moment she entered in the room of the accused and the recording continued even after she left the room of the accused.The live conversation reflects that accused refused to accept the court order and asked the complainant to leave his room.When the complainant refused to do so, he started shouting on the complainant and he kept on asking her as to how she entered into his room without his permission.The entire conversation reflects that the accused used abusive language only once and that to, in the context of the court and not the complainant.The accused used the abusive language for court, however, no abusive words have been used for the complainant in the entire conversation.The conversation also reflects that accused did not push the complainant.He called his peon to move the complainant out of his room.The peon also kept on requesting the complainant to leave the room and it is clear from the conversation that she, herself left the room and she was not pushed either by the accused or by the peon.In the conversation, the complainant kept on asking the accused to accept the court order and not to use the abusive language, but at no point of time, she has requested or asked the accused not to misbehave with her by touching her breast or by touching her private part or by twisting her hand.It is highly inconceivable that the complainant did not utter anything or protested against the above alleged act of the CRL.M.C. 3931/2017 Page 7 of 14 accused, when she was otherwise regularly quarreling with the accused and asking him to accept the court order and not to use the abusive words and she was conscious of the fact the entire conversation is getting recorded on her mobile phone.The fact that the accused refused to accept the court order is not subject matter of present case.The fact that accused shouted on the complainant and asked her to leave the room does not constitute any offence, in the absence of any word act or gesture on the part of the accused intending to outrage the modesty of the complainant.Aggrieved by the order on discharge, the complainant preferred criminal appeal which was treated as revision petition by the learned ASJ.State had also preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.12/1/2017 challenging the order on discharge passed by the learned MM.Both the revision petitions i.e. Crl.No.121/2017 (preferred by the State) and Crl.No.32/2/2016 (preferred by the complainant) were disposed of by the learned ASJ vide common order dated 7th September, 2017 and allowed to the extent that accused was sent to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.The prayer to direct the accused to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC has been rejected by the learned ASJ for the following reasons:-(i) There was not an iota of allegations towards the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.(iii) The recorded conversation reflected that the accused refused to comply with the Court order and asked her to leave the room.(iv) On her refusal to do so, the accused started shouting at her and kept on asking her that how she entered his room without his permission.(v) In the entire conversation, the accused has used the abusive language only at one time that too in the context of a Court order.(vi) There is initial statement of the complainant lodged by the complainant whereby the FIR was registered.(vii) There is CD regarding conversation and its transcript, recorded by the complainant regarding the incident.(viii) There is a delay of nine days in getting the statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded.(ix) There was not an iota of allegations regarding offence under Section 354 IPC in the initial complaint or in the CD recording.M.A.No.15867/2017 Dismissed as infructuous.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

During the pendency of the Criminal Appeal in the High Court, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 3.12.1993 solely on the ground of his conviction without holding any disciplinary enquiry regarding his conduct whatsoever.Finally, petitioner's criminal appeal was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2003 and his conviction was set aside.On his acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner vide application dated 19.5.2003 applied for his reinstatement in service.The petitioner has further prayed that he may be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.The petitioner cannot get limitation to challenge the said order merely on the basis of the subsequent order dated 3.6.2003 by which his application for reinstatement has been rejected.The petitioner's application for reinstatement has rightly been rejected as the order dismissing him from service was final and has not been set aside or cancelled by any competent Court or authority.The right to claim reinstatement in service had accrued to the petitioner for the first time when his criminal appeal was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2003 and the order of his conviction was set aside.The petitioner had immediately applied for his reinstatement vide application dated 19.5.2003 as soon as the cause of his dismissal from service stood vanished.The facts of the present case are still better as here the petitioner was dismissed from service without any disciplinary inquiry on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case, which judgment and order on appeal has admittedly been set aside and the petitioner has been exonerated from all the criminal charges.Therefore, as the order of conviction passed against the petitioner in a criminal case has disappeared altogether, the entire basis of dismissing the petitioner from service also stood vanished.

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Considering the aforesaid material evidence available in the case diary and facts & circumstances of the case and reply filed by the non-applicant / CBI, without commenting anything on merits of the case, subject to the final outcome of the trial, we allow this bail application and it is directed 3 that applicant - Brajesh Kumar Gupta s/o Ram Ashish Gupta be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two local solvent sureties of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his appearance before him or trial Court, subject to the condition that he will appear on each and every date of hearing fixed in this behalf by the trial Court, till the trial is concluded; and shall mark his presence before the concerned Police Station on every Monday of the month till the trial is concluded.It is also directed that the applicant shall abide all the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7155/2015 is allowed.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2005 at about 3:00 pm when the prosecutrix was coming to home after attending her stitching classes, she met accused Sonu, resident of WZ 68, Shadi Pur, Ranjeet Nagar.Sonu took her to her house and made her sit there and left on the pretext of fetching medicine.While going out of the house, Sonu bolted the door from outside.Appellant Feroz was already present in the rear room.He came to the room where the prosecutrix was sitting and closed her mouth.Thereafter, he forcibly committed rape on the prosecutrix.On hearing the alarm of the prosecutrix, her uncle Net Ram reached at the place of occurrence and rescued her.The matter was reported to the police.The police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A, which formed basis for registration of the case.During investigation, prosecutrix as well as the appellant were got medically examined.Clothes of the prosecutrix were seized and subsequently sent to FSL for chemical examination.Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.Her bone ossification test was done for verification of age.Her school leaving certificate was also seized.Both the appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant and his co- accused, prosecution examined 18 witnesses including the prosecutrix.She, in her evidence, has supported the case of prosecution by stating that on 20.12.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., while she was returning from stitching classes, she met Ms.Sonu, co-accused of the appellant, who took her to her house and made her sit there.After some time, she left the house on the pretext of fetching medicine and while leaving, she bolted the door from outside.Two minutes later, the appellant Feroz came from the rear room and tried to molest her.She screamed but Feroz committed rape on her after removing her clothes.She further stated that her `chacha' (uncle) came there on hearing the alarm and rescued her.But, by that time the accused had already raped her.She stated that matter was reported to the police.Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKEWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 04.10.2007 in Sessions Case No.93/2006 FIR No.743/05 P.S. Patel Nagar under Sections 376/342/506/34 IPC as also consequent order on sentence dated 10.10.2007 whereby the appellant Feroz, for the offence under Section 376 IPC, has been sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 07 years, besides fine of `20,000/-, in default to undergo SI for further period of two years and for the offence under Section 342 Crl.A. 82/2008 Page 1 of 12 IPC to undergo RI for the period of one year as also for the offence under Section 506 IPC to undergo RI for the period of one year.It is ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.A. 82/2008 Page 1 of 12On completion of investigation, Crl.A. 82/2008 Page 2 of 12 the appellant as well as his co-accused Sonu were challaned and sent for trial.A. 82/2008 Page 2 of 12The appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 342, 376 and 506 IPC, whereas his co-accused Sonu was charged for the offences under Section 342 and 376 read with Section 109 IPC.Police Crl.A. 82/2008 Page 3 of 12 recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A and also sent her for medical examination.A. 82/2008 Page 3 of 12PW2 Shakuntala is the mother of the prosecutrix.She has stated that on 20.12.2005, she heard a noise in the gali and she was informed by her brother-in-law Net Ram that the prosecutrix had been confined by Pushpa @ Sonu.On this, she rushed to the spot and her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix told her that she was taken by Pushpa to her room where she was raped by the appellant Feroz.Appellant Feroz was also present at the spot at that time.PW3 Netram is the uncle of the prosecutrix.He has also supported the prosecution story by saying that on 20.12.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., he found the crowd outside House No.He was told that some child was confined inside.He peeped inside the window and found the prosecutrix there who was crying and screaming.On this, he opened the door which was bolted from outside and the prosecutrix clinched to him and started crying.Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.He claimed that he has been falsely implicated because of a dispute between his father and Net Ram, uncle of the prosecutrix who used to threaten his father for vacating the house.He denied the prosecution evidence in toto and claimed that he has been falsely implicated after picking him up from his house.A. 82/2008 Page 4 of 12A. 82/2008 Page 4 of 12Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence on record, believing the version of the prosecutrix found the appellant as well as his co-accused Sonu guilty of charges.Learned Sh.Zafar Sadique, Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of Net Ram, uncle of the prosecutrix, who had a property dispute with the father of the appellant.Elaborating on the argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix in her testimony claims that after co- accused of the appellant Sonu left the house, appellant Feroz came from the rear room and tried to put his hand on her mouth.On this, she started screaming but Feroz committed rape on her against her consent after removing her clothes as well as his clothes.This Crl.A. 82/2008 Page 5 of 12 version, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, runs counter to the earlier version of the prosecutrix and makes her testimony unreliable.It is also contended that if at all, the prosecutrix resisted the rape, there should have been some tell tale signs of struggle on the person of the prosecutrix or the appellant but the MLC of the appellant as well as the prosecutrix tells a different story.It was sent during investigation for CFSL examination and as per the report of CFSL, the underwear Crl.A. 82/2008 Page 9 of 12 gave positive test for presence of human semen.This circumstance also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix regarding rape.A. 82/2008 Page 9 of 12He tore her clothes and placed himself upon her despite her resistance.No doubt, in the aforesaid statement, she has not mentioned about penile penetration in so many words but the words used by her convey the meaning that she was actually raped.He has his whole life ahead of him and he deserves at least a chance to correct himself and prove to be a useful member of the society.Section 376 provides that whosoever commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to life or for a term which may extend to ten years.Proviso to this section provides for an exception that court may, for adequate and special reasons in the Crl.A. 82/2008 Page 11 of 12 judgment, impose sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than seven years.A. 82/2008 Page 11 of 12The prosecution has been able to establish that prosecutrix was induced by the co-convict Ms.Sonu to visit her house and thereafter she was confined in the house of Sonu, who bolted the main door of the house from outside while leaving on the pretext of fetching medicine.Thereafter, the appellant came from the rear room and raped the prosecutrix.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicants are discharged.The revision is allowed.ORDER S.C. Pandey, J.This revision is directed against the order dated 20.8.1998 passed by learned Addl.By the impugned order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has framed charges under Section 306, I.P.C. against the applicants.The forts of this case are that applicant No. 1 Bholaram is the father of applicant No. 2 Mahendra Kumar.Smt. Abha, daughter of applicant No. 1 and the younger sister of applicant No. 2, was married to Rajesh Kumar Sen on 20th April, 1996 at Chhapara.It is alleged by the prosecution that on the night following marriage, Smt. Abha who had married Rajesh Kumar Sen, refused to have sexual intercourse with him.The ground of refusal as stated by Abha, was that she was unable to perform sexual intercourse on account of the fact that she had been operated upon due to some chronic disease and she had been advised by her doctors that in case she perform sexual intercourse, she would die.It is further alleged that thereafter the girl went back to her parental home and Rajesh Kumar Sen also went to bring her back to her matrimonial home.When he told the applicants about the fact that Abha is unable to perform sexual intercourse, then it was stated by the applicants that now the marriage has already been performed, he is required to keep his wife as such, and in case he refused to do so, they will get him involved in a criminal case relating to dowry.He left the following suicide : note :"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"Thereafter the investigation was done and after recording the statements of the witnesses a challan under Section 306, I.P.C. was filed.It is apparent that Rajesh Kumar Sen was aggrieved by the fact that he was unable to continue the marriage, and he was mentally disturbed.Under Section 107, I.P.C, it is necessary that a person should instigate another person to commit suicide in the context of Section 306, I.P.C. or enter into a conspiracy so that another person may commit suicide or there must be an intentional aid for commission of suicide.Nothing of the elements are found from which it can be inferred that intention of the applicants was that Rajesh Kumar Sen should commit suicide.All they wanted that whatever be the defect of Abha, deceased Rajesh should treat her as his wife.In this process, if they had given a threat to Rajesh Sen, it cannot be inferred that they instigated him to commit suicide.In view of this matter, the charges framed against the applicants under Section 306, I.P.C. deserve to be quashed.Those are hereby quashed and the impugned order referred above is hereby set aside.

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

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

Heard on admission.Perused the impugned judgment.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the trial Court be called for.Also, heard on I.A.No.8596/2015 filed by the appellants/ accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Bhind in Special case no. 89/2014 vide judgment dated 21.09.2015 convicting the appellants/accused and sentencing them as below:- Name of appellants/ Under Sections Sentence Fine In lieu of fine amount accused Keshav S/o 3(1) (10) of SC/ST Six months Rs.500/- 10 days addl.Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submits that the appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them.The appellants have already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of early disposal of this appeal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on admission.FIR has been filed by the applicant/complainant against respondent No.2 to 5 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 506-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Line, Rewa.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa closed the prosecution evidence on the request of the prosecution on 12.04.2018 and fixed the case for recording of accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 25.04.2018 because prosecution witnesses namely Dr. N.K. Chahal, Shri P.L. Awasthi and Shri Aslam Khan were not present for recording their statements before the Court.It is alleged by him that all the witnesses are material and without recording their evidence his case cannot be proved properly against the respondents.In the opinion of learned JMFC and Sessions Court, to prove prosecution case the evidence of those witnesses is not necessary.Otherwise there is sufficient evidence on record, which relates to the proposed prosecution witnesses.Learned Court below also mentioned about the same 2 MCRC-44037-2018 in the impugned order.Dr. Akhilesh Tiwari has been examined to prove the injuries of the complainant/present applicant.It is further mentioned in the impugned order that so many opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce Dr. N.K. Chahal, and Aslam Khan but prosecution failed to produce both the witnesses.The case is pending since 12 years, therefore, opportunity was not granted in favour of the applicant to examine those witnesses.This Court finds that both the Courts below thoroughly examined the requirement of the evidence of those witnesses.In X-Ray report of the applicant produced by the learned counsel for the applicant for observations, it is clearly mentioned that there is no bone injury.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant was under treatment for five days.Charges have been framed against respondents No.2 to 5 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 506-B of Indian Penal Code.Looking to the expert opinion in X-Ray report, there is no necessity to call the prosecution witnesses Dr. N.K. Chahal, Shri P.L. Awasthi and Shri Aslam Khan.Hence, this petition is dismissed at motion stage.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is alleged that at the time of the incident Machindra and Fulabai were residing in the old house and the appellants in a newly constructed one.It is also stated that about 15 days prior to the incident a quarrel had taken place between Fulabai and her sister in law, acquitted accused Changuna over the supply of well water to agricultural field and Changuna had hurled abuses at Fulabai.And Raja, Dada and Sharad set me on fire due to which I received burns.Tai Tanaji Khade brought the Kerosene Can.This incident occurred at 7.30 O'clock in the night.Question - Whether you have any complaint in this regard?Yes, I have complaint against Changunabai, Dada, Sharad, Tai, Raja, Saminder.The statement which is written and recorded by you is made by me voluntarily and the same is read over to me which is true and correct.I admit and approve of the same.At the time of making the statement Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar was in a fully conscious state.10 past 9 in the night 28-9-95 sd/-."The evidence of P.S.I. Vasant Pawar P. W. 11 of Baramati Police Station shows that at about 9.05 to 9.10 p.m. he reached Silver Jubilee Hospital; met Dr. Swami, asked him before recording the F.I.R. of Fulabai to certify whether Fulabai was fully conscious and was in a position to speak; and on his answering to the affirmative and making an endorsement in the station diary recorded her F.I.R. Since this F.I.R. is also a crucial piece of evidence in deciding this appeal we propose extracting the relevant part of its English translation in entirety."I, Sau.According to them I should not live with my husband.My 'Savat's children are more under the influence of my 'Jaoo' Changuna Gorakh Chaudhar.About 15 days ago a quarrel had taken place between me and my 'Jaoo' over the supply of well-water to agricultural field.Yesterday, on 27-9-1995 at about 5 O'clock in the evening when I was at my house my 'Jaoo' Changuna had hurled abuses at me.Today i.e. 28-9-1995 I woke up on the morning at usual time and did the house-hold work.Today being the market day, my husband had gone to Market at Baramati.He returned to home in the evening.I cooked the food in the house and at about 7.30 p.m. I was having my dinner at my house.My husband had observed fast on account of 'Navratra' therefore, he was sitting on 'Ranjan' (a big earthen water jar) in front of the house.This statement is given on the date as aforesaid.Thumb impression.Left Hand thumb impression of Sau, Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar.Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar was in a fully conscious state at the time of recording her statement.sd/- 28-9-95 at 10p.m.Part 1 to 5 C.R. No. 138/95, sections 307, 143, 323 of I.P.C.Date & time of occurrence of offence - 28-9-95 at about 19.30 hours.Date & time when the offence was registered 28-9-95, 22.05 hrs.P.S.I. Baramati Police Station."On the basis of the F.I.R. the same day (28-9-95) at 10.05 p.m. a case under section 307 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants and others.After lodging of the F.I.R. Fulabai who was in a precarious condition was shifted from Silver Jubilee Hospital to Sassoon Hospital, Pune.On 29-9-95 Special Executive Magistrate Ulhas Dattatraya Koranne P.W. 12, received a requisition from Bund Garden Police Station that he should record Fulabai's dying declaration.ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25-7-1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1996, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 9 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. have come up in appeal before us.Along with the appellants were tried four others viz. Sau.Tai Tanaji Khade, Sau.Changuna Gorakh Chaudhar, Rajendra Gorakh Chaudhar and Samir Gorakh Chaudhar, but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment.The State of Maharashtra has not impugned their acquittal by preferring an appeal.In short the prosecution case runs as under :It is said that she had married Machindra three years prior to the incident and a year after the death of his first wife.Machindra and Fulabai at the time of the incident lived in village Ruighadane, taluka Baramati, within the limits of Police Station Baramaiti Dist.It is alleged that Machindra had three issues from his first wife-the appellants and acquitted accused Tanaji Khade.It is also said that the saidpersons, as also acquitted accused Changuna who was the brother's wife of Machindra and her sons Rajendra and Samiar, were not happy with Machindra's second marriage.On 28-9-1995 at about 7.30 p.m. while Fulabai was having dinner at her house and her husband Machindra was sitting at Ranjan (a big earthen jar) in front of the house, the appellants and the acquitted accused came; broke open the door of the house; and started assaulting Fulabai with their hands.Thereafter on the instigation of Changunabai appellant Dada poured kerosene on Fulabai which was brought in a can by appellant Sharad and appellant Sharad set her on fire.Thereafter the appellants and others ran away.Her husband Machindra extinguished the fire and took her to Silver Jubilee Hospital, Baramati.The evidence of Dr. Mahadeo Swami P.W. 9 of Silver Jubilee Hospital, Baramati, shows that Fulabai was brought by Machindra in the hospital with burns at 8.15 p.m. and had the following burn injuries:, (3) Chest (right upper ext.9%, Left upper ext.8%) (4) Back buttock 16%, (5) right lower ext.16% and left lower ext.6%, total 70%.The said injuries were caused within 6 hours, were attributable to flame; and were grievous in nature.After examining Fulabai Dr. Swami admitted her in the hospital.The evidence of P.S.I. Vasant Gundiba Pawar P.W. 11 of Baramati Police Station shows that at about 8.30 p.m. an information was received from ward-boy Somnath Sonawane of Silver Jubilee Hospital, Baramati, that Fulabai had been brought by her husband Machindra in the said hospital.The evidence of Special Executive Magistrate Jayant Mahaling Nilakhe, P.W. 5 shows that he received a requisition letter Exhibit 35 from Baramati City Police Station at about 8.45 p.m. to record the dying declaration of Fulabai in Silver Jubilee Hospital, Baramati.Consequently on the said requisition he rushed to Silver Jubilee Hospital, Baramati; contacted Dr. Swami P.W. 9 who informed him that Fulabai was fully conscious; and after ascertaining from her whether she was fully conscious and on her replying in the affirmative he recorded her dying declaration between 9 to 9.10 p.m. Since this dying declaration is a crucial piece of evidence in the instant case we propose extracting its English translation verbatim."Before Shri Jayant Nilakhe, Executive Magistrate, Baramati, Special Executive Magistrate, Baramati, Dist.Dying Declaration:Name of the person making the statement: Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar Place where the statement is made: Baramati Government Hospital Date on which the statement is made: 28-9-95 Time : At 9 O'clock in the night Question - Are you in a fully conscious state?Answer - Yes.Question -I stated to you that I am an Executive Magistrate.Whether you understand the same properly?Answer - Yes.Question - How did you get burns or have you consumed any poisonous drug or has anybody assaulted you?Answer - 'My Jaoo' (husband's brother's wife) Changuna Gorakh Chaudhar has a quarrel over well water.My step son Dada Machindra Chaudhar, aged 30 years came with a pistol to kill.At that time Changuna said "Dada you pour Kerosene on Fulabai." Dada and Sharad poured kerosene from the can on the body.Changunabai and Raja also poured kerosene on my person.Before me, sd/-Special Executive Magistrate, Baramati.Left Hand Thumb Impression of Sau.Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar.Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar, aged 30 years, occupation -House-hold work, r/w.Rui, Tai.Baramati, Dist.Pune, while being admitted in the Silver Jubilee Hospital, Baramati, give in writing the complaint statement as follows:- I am residing at the aforesaid place with my husband Machindra Rambhau Chaudhar and I am doing agricultural and household work.My husband had a first marriage with Vaijayanta. 'Savat' (another wife of husband), Vaijayanta has expired about 4 years ago.Hence my husband entered into his second marriage with me 3 years ago.Savat Vaijayanta begot two daughter viz. (1) Pamal (2) Tai, and two sons viz. (3) Dada and (4) Sharad.All of them are residing separately.Since my marriage, children of my 'Savat', my 'Jaoo' (husband's brother's wife) and her children had a grudge against me.Hence both, my husband and I are residing separately.Children of my 'Savat' and 'Jaoo' and her children used to always pick up quarrels with me and my husband on the ground as to why my husband had married me.When I was having my dinner in the house, Dada, Sharad, Changuna, Raja, Tai banged and opened the door of my house and entered the house.And all of them started fisting me.At that time Changuna said, "Dada, you pour kerosene on the person of Fulabai." At that time Sharad took kerosene can in my house and Dada took the said can in his hand and poured kerosene in the can on my person and Sharad took a match-box lying on the fire place in my house and lit a match-stick and touched it to my saree as a result of which my saree caught fire.Hence I raised cries and started going out of the house when all of them fled.I came outside the house.My husband put off the fire and brought me to a hospital at Baramati by rickshaw.Thereupon, on this day the date 28-9-1995 at about 7.30 p.m. when I was having my dinner in my residential house, my Savat's sons (1) Dada Machindra Chaudhar, (2) Sharad Machindra Chaudhar daughter (3) Tai Tanaji Khade, (4) Jaoo - Changuna Gorakh Chaudhar, and her son (5) Raja Gorakh Chaudhar, all residing at Rui Ghadane Vasti, collusively, poured kerosene on my person and set me a fire with an intention to kill me over the second marriage of my husband with me and over the quarrel that had taken place between me and my 'Jaoo' Changuna and thus they attempted to kill me and hence I have a complaint against them.My aforesaid complaint statement is read over to me and the same is correct as stated by me.Before me, sd/-P.S.I. Baramati, City Police Station.Consequently he proceeded to Sassoon Hospital where he recorded her dying declaration in question and answer form wherein she stated thus:"29-9-95 Before Shri Ulhas D. Koranne, B.Sc.B.A.L.L.B., Special Judicial Magistrate, Pune.Dying Declaration.--- --- ------ --- ---Question - How did you receive burns?Answer - Yesterday at about 7 p.m. when I was sitting in my house bolting the door, my Savat's (husband's another wife) son Dada came with the pistol in his hand banging the door along with Sharad, 'Jaoo' (husband's brother's wife) Changuna, Raja, Saminder and Taidi.Changuna, Raja and Saminder said, set her fire." Thereupon Dada poured kerosene on my person and Sharad set me on fire and I received burns.--- --- ------ --- ---We may mention that we have only extracted the relevant part of this dying declaration because for cogent reasons it has been rejected by the learned trial Judge.We may also mention that at Sassoon Hospital, Fulabai made an oral dying declaration to her brother Ram Sopan Thorve, P.W. 13 and in the same she stated that Raju, Samindar, Tai, Changunabai and Sharad had a quarrel with her; Dada poured kerosene oil on her person; Tai caught hold of her legs; and Sharad set her on fire.This oral dying declaration has also been rejected by the learned trial Judge for good reasons.The evidence is that on 30-9-95 Fulabai succumbed to her injuries in Sassoon Hospital, Pune.9. Going backwards the autopsy on the corpse of Fulabai was conducted on 30-9-1995 by Dr. Vijay Haribhau Mate P.W. 10 who found on it the following ante mortem injuries:"a) head, neck, face - 9%, b) Chest, abdomen - 15%, c) back - 18%, d) left upper limb - 9%, e) right upper limb - 9%, f) left lower limb -15%, right lower limb - 15%.Total burns area 90%."In the opinion of Dr. Mate, the deceased died on account of shock and toxemia due to burns and the said burns were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants and others were charged for offences under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. etc. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence was that while Fulabai was cooking food her sari accidentally caught fire and consequently she sustained burns to which she succumbed later on.Appellant Sharad also stated that he tried to rescue Fulabai.During trial Court in all the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.We may straight away mention that Fulabai's husband Machindra Chaudhar P.W. 1, who could have furnished ocular account, turned hostile and the only evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect the appellants and acquitted accused persons with the murder were the four dying declarations made by Fulabai prior to her death.The learned trial Judge believed the first two dying declarations viz. statement of Fulabai recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate Jayant Nilakhe P.W. 5, and her F.I.R. recorded by P.S.I. Vasant Pawar P.W. 11 and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned above.He did not rely upon the other two dying declarations viz. the dying declaration recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate Ulhas Dattatraya Korane P.W. 12, and the oral dying declaration proved by Ram Sopan Thorve, P.W. 13, the brother of Fulabai.The learned trial judge as mentioned in para 1 above acquitted co-accused Sau.Changuna Gorakh Chaudhar, Rajendra Gorakh Chaudhar and Samir Gorakh Chaudhar who were tried along with the appellants.As mentioned above the State of Maharashtra has not impugned their acquittal by preferring an appeal.Hence this appeal.We have heard Mr. D. B. Bhosale for the appellants and Mrs. Usha Kejriwal A.P.P. for the respondent.We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the dying declarations of Fulabai; the statements of the appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgment.It is bearing in mind the norms laid down in the said paragraphs that we have reached the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.We have analyzed the contents of both the dying declarations: we have quoted the former in entirety and the relevant part of the latter, in the earlier part of our judgment.In respect of the main incident in the dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate Jayant Nilakhe P.W. 5 Fulabai stated that her step son Dada came with a pistol to kill her.

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

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

(Delivered on 30th day of October, 2017)This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by Addl.Special Judge, Betul, in Criminal Revision No.125/2010 confirming the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Betul in criminal case no.4041/2006, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed the charge against the applicant for the offence under sections 420 read with section 34 of the I.P.C.Raju Bala, w/o Shivchand, has purchased a tractor bearing registration No.MP05-5769 and a trolly bearing registra- tion No.Due to default in payment of loan amount, the said tractor and trolley was seized and were sold in a auction by the present 2 M.Cr.One Harbhajan, s/o Dhanjal Singh has auction pur- chased the said tractor trolley for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- and a sale certificate was issued.On an application being moved for transferring the vehicle in his name, the R.T.O. informed that the said trolley is in the name of one Krishna Bai Arya.Thus, a com- plaint is made against the present applicant for committing of- fence under section 420 I.P.C. alleging that the applicant has sold the trolley dishonestly and fraudulently to cheat the complainant.On the complaint of the complainant, crime was registered for the offence under section 420/34 I.P.C. and after investigation chal- lan was filed before the trial court.The learned JMFC took cognizance of the offence and framed charge under section 420/34 of the I.P.C. against the ap- plicant.Against the framing of charge, the applicant has preferred a revision before the ASJ Betul.The learned ASJ Betul upheld the order framing charge and dismissed the revision preferred by the applicant.Further, with re- gard to the same facts and material other co-accused persons have been discharged by the separate order passed by the revisional court.But, the revision filed by the applicant was decided by a dif-C.No.175/2011 ferent Judge and thus the same relief has not been extended to the applicant and in this way discrimination has been made against the applicant.6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record in this case it appears that the tractor bear- ing registration No.MP05-5769 was seized along with the trolly bearing registration No.MP05-5770 from the possession of Mrs.Raju Bala being the defaulter in payment of instalment with regard to the loan amount taken for purchasing the vehicle from the District Co-operative Agriculture Rural Development Bank Limited and the applicant as per the norms of the Bank sold both the tractor as well as trolley in public auction which was pur- chased by the complaint and the purchase amount was deposited in the account of the defaulter and other co-accused persons and the applicant issued sale-certificate in the name of the com- plainant.A letter is also written to the R.T.O. for transferring the vehicles in the name of the complainant.The R.T.O. however dis- closed the fact that the trolly bearing registration No.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.R.M. 5132 OF 2013 In Re: Sambhu Bera @ Sambhu Nath Bera. . . .Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8th April, 2013, in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No.230 of 1999 dated 19.12.1999 under Sections 147/148/149/353/337/338/186/332/333/341/427/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of the Explosive Act.Mr. Sabir Ahmed. . .For the petitioner.Mr. Partha Pratim Das ..For the State.The petitioner is evading arrest for over 13 years.Ass submitted by the learned advocate for the State, either he is absconding or there is no real apprehension of arrest.Therefore, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

and as the trial is likely to take time, he be granted the benefit of bail as has been granted to other co-accused as also the other middleman.Mr. J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General, though vehemently opposed the prayer made and urged that it is a serious act committed by the petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail, but could not controvert the fact that the other co-accused and the middleman, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have already been enlarged on bail.After hearing counsel for the parties and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:(1) Petitioner Tarang Sharma shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with one solvent surety or blood relative in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance during the trial in the aforesaid case.The applicant/petitioner shall not leave the Country without prior permission of the High Court.This compliance will be condition precedent for release on bail; and, (4) The Jail Authority is also directed to ensure that the applicant is examined by the Jail Doctor for Covid-19 before his release.In case, the Jail Doctor is of the opinion that the applicant can be released, all precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Government and as well as the State Government during release, travel and residence of the applicant during the period of bail be also strictly adhered to.The bail application stand disposed of accordingly.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16th July, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, South District, Saket Courts in Sessions Case No. 50/2011 arising out of FIR No. 139/2011 registered at Police Station (PS) Vasant Vihar convicting both Appellants Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 1 of 28 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and additionally Appellant Vikas Tokas @ Vicky (Accused No.1: A-1) (Appellant in Crl.A. No. 1534/2013) under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 20 th July, 2013 whereby for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, A-1 and the co-accused Inderjeet (A-2, the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 1197/2013) was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- and for the offence under Section 25-B of the Arms Act, A-1 was additionally sentenced to RI for two years.Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 1 of 28The charge against the two Appellants was that on 8 th May, 2011 at about 8.20 pm at the jungle opposite Baba Gang Nath Mandir, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Vihar, both of them in furtherance of their common intention murdered Lalit Kumar @ Sunil @ Pappal (the deceased) thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.Additionally A-1 was charged with having been found in possession of a country-made pistol which he used in the commission of the above offence, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.Information to the policeDD No. 37A recorded on 8th May, 2011 at PS Vasant Vihar noted that one Hari Singh (PW-3) had come at 8.23 p.m. to the PS and informed that in the jungle on the left side of the road opposite the Baba Gang Nath Mandir a young male was lying in a severely injured condition and was probably shot dead with a fire arm.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 2 of 28This information was passed on to the Station House Officer (SHO) Inspector Vijay Pal (PW-22).Inspector Pawan Kumar along with Constable (Ct.) Naresh and Manoj Dahiya (PW-15) left in a police jeep for the spot.They took the injured person to the Trauma Centre at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).The MLC (Ex.PW-1/A) shows that the deceased was brought there at 8.46 p.m. on 8 th May, 2011 by PW-15 with alleged history of a gunshot injury.The deceased was examined by Dr. Devendra Garg (PW-1).He clarified that although in the original MLC (Ex.PW-1/A), it was not mentioned that the patient had been brought dead, it had been mentioned in the extra copy kept at the centre.PW-1 noticed entry and exit injuries caused by a firearm of the size 1x1 cm at the exit point of the wound.At the scene of crimeInspector Vijay Pal (PW-22) accompanied by Ct.Ashok (PW-21) reached the Trauma Centre.PW-22 took the photographs of the dead body with his mobile phone.Thereafter he returned to the spot and on the way dropped PW-21 at Munirka for getting the photographs developed.Present at the spot already were Inspector Ved Prakash, SHO and the other police staff including Inspector Pawan Kumar, Sub-Inspector (SI) Manoj Kumar (PW-19) and Head Constable (HC) Gulab Singh (PW-23).7. PW-22 called the crime team.He also met PW-3 at the spot.The mobile crime team report (Ex.PW-9/A) shows that the crime team was present from 10.30 pm to 11.30 pm.In the column titled 'details of exhibits lifted' it was Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 3 of 28 noted: "as per seizure memo prepared by IO." SI Naresh Kumar (PW-9), in charge of the mobile crime team, deposed that at some distance from the jungle, just stepping down from the road, some blood was found scattered.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 3 of 28The seizure memos of the exhibits lifted from the spot were marked as Ex.PW-19/A and Ex.PW-19/B. Ex.PW-19/A pertained to the seizure of the blood soaked earth, the control earth, the blood stained stone and the control stone whereas the Ex.At around 8.20 pm after dinner he was walking towards the Coolie Camp on Nelson Mandela Marg, near Vasant Vihar on the footpath.When he reached the opposite side of the Baba Gang Nath Mandir, from his left side he could hear the sound of firing.He heard the cries of a boy Bachalo Bachalo.When PW-3 turned towards the jungle, he noticed two young boys running from that spot.They crossed in front of him and ran towards the Coolie Camp which too was to his rear.One of them was thin, tall and fair wearing Jeans Pant and T-shirt.Ajay (PW-12), who was a beat constable in the area, identified the deceased from the photograph as Lalit, who was known to take smack and lived in Munirka Village.Later PW-22 ascertained the exact address of the deceased and reached his house.There they found his mother Uma Devi (PW-6) present.PW-22 recorded the statement of PW-6 (Ex.PW-6/DA).In this statement PW-6 inter-alia stated that both A-1 and A-2 were friends of the deceased.The three would go out in the evenings for dinner.A-1 and A-2 were frequent visitors to the house of the deceased for the past two years.All three were drug addicts.About two and a half months earlier A-2 had called the deceased to his room and accused him of stealing a mobile phone.A-2 is stated to have physically assaulted the deceased; burnt his hands with the soldering machine and broken his finger.Since she was a poor woman, PW- 6 was not able to muster the courage to give a police complaint.From that time onwards A-2 bore a grudge against the deceased.As a result of his drug addiction the deceased had to quit his job at a CNG Station and was not earning anything. A-2 would often take meals at their place and sometimes would buy food stuff for the kitchen.A-2 then requested PW-6 to let him stay in the house and she also agreed.On 7th May, 2011 A-2 had Crl.When the deceased came to know of this he got angry with A-2 and refused to permit him to stay at their place.A-2 then returned to his place.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 5 of 28However, this call was picked up by the deceased.The deceased then replied that he would freshen up and join him.A-2 then left.At that time PW-6 came outside the house and noticed that A-1 was also standing there and both of them i.e. A-1 and A-2 left.The deceased did not return even late at night.While PW-6 kept waiting, at around 1 am A-2 came and told her that the deceased had met with an accident and that A-2 was going to the hospital to meet him.At this point A-2 left some of his belongings, including clothes, in the room.When PW-6 stated that she wanted to accompany A-2, he refused.He did not give her any information regarding the hospital where the deceased was admitted.PW-6 then called her brother-in-law Ram Prakash (PW-7) and told him about the deceased having met with an accident.PW-7 asked her to go to sleep and that they would take care of it in the morning.Thereafter, in the early hours of 9th May 2011, the police came there and showed her the photograph of the dead body of the deceased.In her statement PW-6 stated that she suspected A-1 and A-2 as being responsible for the murder of her son.After piercing the skin, subcutaneous tissues and muscles, it entered the lateral aspect of right lung and then came out on the medial aspect of right lung and then entered the medial aspect of left lung and then it came out of the lateral aspect of the left lung.The it came out through an exit wound measuring 3xlcm on the posterolateral aspect of left chest, 12cms below the axilla and 15cms lateral to midline.The lungs and soft tissues of the track severely contused and lacerated.The chest cavity contained about 2 litres of blood."The cause of death was given as "respiratory failure due to ante mortem injuries to lungs produced by a projectile fired from a fire arm."Arrests, disclosures, recoveriesThe clothes of the deceased were seized.While PW-22 was returning from AIIMS after the post-mortem examination, and reached near Aggarwal Sweets in Munirka, PW-19 met him and stated that he had got some information that A-1 and A-2 were present in the park of Baba Gang Nath Market.PW-22 organized a raiding party and requested four or five passersby to join.They declined and went away without leaving their names and addresses.PW-22 along with his team went to the spot indicated in the secret information and at the instance of the informer, A-1 and A-2 were apprehended.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 7 of 28PW-22 noticed some burn marks on the hands of A-1 and asked him about it.A-1 is supposed to have inter-alia disclosed that he had used a fire arm and in that process had received the burn injuries.A-1 was then taken to the Safdarjung Hospital.The MLC (Ex.PW-28/B) noted: "patient brought by Constable Ajay for medical examination at the Safdarjung hospital casualty".Importantly it was noted that there was "alleged history of shooting by a desi gun to someone as stated by the police".The notings were by Dr. Mohammad Rakibuddin whose hand writing was identified by Dr. Hari Shankar Niranjan (PW-28).An important observation by Dr. Rakibuddin in the MLC was that he found "pin head size multiple red colour tattooing in the right distal forearm and dorsum of right hand and left hand." He also found a stitch mark on A-1s buttock 7 x 5 cm.He noted that A-1 had told him that this happened at a private hospital (Kapoor Hospital, Munirka).A-1 was advised review in the casualty of Safdarjung hospital.20. A-1 was taken to PW-24 on 9th May, 2011 for examination.PW-24 took a swab from the injured portion of the forearm as well as from the hands.A control swab was also taken from the back.The injuries in the forearm were found to be about one day old.In his noting (Ex.PW-24/B), PW-24 opined that such injuries, as found on A-1, were possible by a firearm.Both A-1 and A-2 were arrested vide memos Ex.PW-19/G & Ex.PW-19/H. Both these memos show that they were apprehended at 2pm from the park behind Baba Gang Nath Mandir and the time of arrest was shown as 4.30 p.m. Disclosure statements Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 8 of 28 of both Appellants were recorded.Pursuant thereto, the clothes which A-1 and A-2 were wearing at the time of incident were got recovered.A-1 further disclosed that he could get recovered the country-made pistol and the treatment papers including OPD slips.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 8 of 28The admissible part of the disclosure by A-1 was that he had fled from the crime scene, gone to the Tikona Park and concealed the country made pistol there.While scaling the grill of the park, he got injured.First he went to a local hospital in Munirka and thereafter to the Safdarjung hospital for treatment.A-1 stated that he intended to get his wound stitched at the Safdarjung Hospital but seeing the presence of the police he left there and went to the Daya Memorial Hospital at Munirka.One was for the recovery of the pistol from the corner of the Tikona Park (Ex.PW- 23/DB) and the other for the scene of crime (Ex.PW-22/C).It must be mentioned at this stage that when A-1 first went to the Safdarjung Hospital for treatment he was given a slip (Ex.PW-12) stating that he had got injured.When they told him that it was a medico legal case he tried saying that he got injured accidentally.It also appears that two treatment slips were issued to him: one by Safdarjung hospital and the other by the Daya Memorial Hospital.These were found in the rear pocket of the pant of A-1 which was seized pursuant to his disclosure.As far as the Daya Memorial exhibits are concerned, this was provided to IO by Dr. R.K. Kapoor (PW-5) in-charge of the Daya Memorial Hospital Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 9 of 28 in Munirka.In response to a letter of the IO dated 25th May, 2011, PW-5 replied by a letter dated 31st May, 2011 enclosing the OPD prescription with diagnosis issued to A-1 and the note of Dr. B.K. Mohanty (PW-4) who treated him.The report dated 2nd September 2011 of the Biology Division of the FSL (Ex.PW-22/J, K) showed that while on the earth control and the pant and shirt of A-2 no blood could be detected, it was detected on all the other exhibits.Human blood was found on all exhibits except Ex.2 (vegetative material along with earth control) and Ex.9 (underwear of the deceased).Human origin blood was found on the piece of stone, the T-shirt and pant of the deceased and the jeans pant of A-1 (Ex.13/A).PW-22/K described all the exhibits sent including the cap (Ex.5) which was shown to have blood of human origin.The Ballistics Division of the FSL gave its report (Ex.It was further found that the hole on the right portion of the back side of the T-shirt (Ex.C-1) could have been caused by bullet discharged through a fire arm.He also claimed that he was made to sign blank papers.We have PW-15 speaking about what happened when they reached the spot.He accompanied Inspector Pawan to the AIIMS Trauma Centre where the deceased was declared brought dead.The MLC also confirmed the presence of PW-15 at the AIIMS Trauma Centre at around 8.46 p.m.Further we have the evidence of PW-1 who confirms that the deceased suffered a gunshot wound on his chest.The post-mortem report prepared by PW-24 also confirms this.With PW-3 not being a reliable witness as to the last seen, we have to fall back on the evidence of PW-6 herself.She states that on her mobile number ending with 5178 she received a call from A-2 whose mobile Crl.Then we have a call from A-1 to A-2 at 6.09 p.m. The cell location details show that all of these calls were made from locations in and around Munirka Village which is the area where all three i.e. A-1, A-2 and the deceased, were.They apparently were in constant touch with each other soon after the incident.Likewise, the CDR of the mobile phone used by A-2 confirms this exchange of calls.In between he also called PW-6 at 8.32 p.m.The CDRs themselves tell a story about the deceased and the two accused being in touch with each other in and around the time of the incident.The CDRs also corroborate the statement of PW-6 that after A-2 had called the deceased on her mobile he came to the house to take the deceased away.The deceased did not immediately leave but after a while.A-2 calling A-1 and both of them then taking the deceased away is a scenario that is certainly supported by the CDRs.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 19 of 28Consequently, although the evidence of PW-3 is not available to the prosecution, the evidence of PW-6 in regard to A-2 having come and called the deceased and then A-1 and A-2 taking the deceased away has been conclusively proved by the prosecution.The FSL reports also support the case of the prosecution about A-1 being in the company of the deceased at the time of the firing.The jeans pant of A-1 contained blood of human origin the group of which was O, which is the blood group of the deceased.Apart from the bare denial, A-1 had no explanation to offer as to how his jeans pant could have the blood group of the deceased.PW-9 photographed the crime scene.PW-19/B pertained to the lifting of a blue coloured cap with the letters DEA written on it and which was blood stained.The Court has been shown photographs taken at the spot which form part of the trial Court record.These show the presence of the blood stained cap at the spot.Statement of PW-3A rukka (Ex.PW-3/A) was prepared on the statement of PW-3 who stated that he was working in a private firm.The other boy was shorter and he too was wearing Jeans Pant and T-shirt.PW-3 then quickly went to the PS and informed the police about the deceased lying in an injured condition.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 4 of 28She identified her son from the photographs (Ex.PW-22/D-1 to D-6).Statement of PW-6Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 6 of 28The post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Raghvendra Bagla (PW-24).In the post mortem report (Ex.PW-24/A), PW-24 noted the following injury:"Gunshot wound measuring 3x2cms over the right lateral aspect of chest 14 cms below the axilla and 18cms right to midline.The payment receipt issued by Daya Memorial Hospital at 11.18 p.m. on 8th May, 2011 to A-1 in the sum of Rs.3,000/- was also furnished to the IO (Ex.PW-5/B).But for the above disclosure by A-1, the IO could not have known of the treatment received by A-1 at the Daya Memorial Hospital; that he received treatment there for the wound on his buttocks as a result of scaling of the wall of Tikona Park.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 9 of 28The country made pistol was test fired successfully "using the cartridge in the laboratory stock and found to be in working order."Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 10 of 28By an order dated 20th August, 2011 the charges were framed against both accused in the manner indicated hereinbefore.On behalf of the prosecution, 30 witnesses were examined.Statements under Section 313 Cr PCIn his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, A-1 denied the incriminating circumstances, including knowing the deceased or even visiting him.A-1 claimed to have been arrested from his house in the night of 8 th May, 2011 and not at the park.He denied the injury marks on his hands or receiving treatment at the Daya Memorial Hospital.He admitted to refusing to participate in the TIP since, according to him, his photographs had already been taken and shown to the witnesses.A-1 denied the CDRs collected by the IO.He claimed to have been falsely implicated and did not wish to lead the defence evidence.As far as A-2 is concerned, he stated that he knew the deceased 'very well' and 'was on visiting terms with him'.He denied all other circumstances Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 11 of 28 including his arrest.He too justified his refusal to participate in the TIP by stating that his photographs had already been shown to the witness.He too claimed to have been falsely implicated and did not wish to lead evidence.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 11 of 28In the impugned judgment the trial Court came to the following conclusions:i) The helplessness of PW-6 in not going to the police immediately after being informed that that the deceased had met with an accident was understandable.ii) The non-compliance, if any, by the police with the procedural rules was not shown to be deliberate and in bad faith or to have caused prejudice to the accused.Therefore, there was no merit in the contention that the entire investigation should be held to be vitiated.iii) As regards the discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the PWs, they did not go to the heart of the matter and shake their basic version.The evidence of the PWs could not, therefore, be rejected in toto.iv) The lapses in the investigation also were not such that the entire prosecution case should fail.v) The conduct of A-2 in coming in the dead of the night; leaving his belongings and misleading PW-6 about what happened to the deceased betrayed his involvement in the crime.viii) The sanction to prosecute A-1 under Section 25 of the Arms Act appeared to have been granted after considering relevant facts.ix) The refusal by the accused to participate in the TIP, A-1 denying that he knew the deceased, A-2's misleading statement to PW-6 that the deceased had met with an accident, the details of the injury of A-1, the blood on the clothes of A-1, the blood stain on his T-shirt, the gunshot injury on both hands of A-1 were all factors that cumulatively pointed to the guilt of the accused.x) The opinion of PW-24 as to the approximate time of death also matched the sequence of events The altercation between the deceased and A-2 as referred to in the statement of PW-6 provided the motive for the offence.For the aforementioned reasons, the trial Court held both the Appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and proceeded to sentence them accordingly.Additionally A-1 was held guilty for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced separately for it.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 13 of 28Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP appeared for the State.The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution.There Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 16 of 28 must be a chain of events so complete as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court.The case of the prosecution as spoken by PW-3 is that while he was returning from dinner and walking along the pavement opposite the Baba Gang Nath Mandir he heard the sound of gun fire and the scream of a young male asking to be saved.He then noticed two boys run from that spot from within the jungle towards his left.They ran past him and then towards the Coolie Colony which was to his rear.PW-3 then went to the PS and it is on his information that the police reached the spot.It was on his statement that the rukka was drawn out and the FIR registered.PW-3 was therefore one of the significant witnesses for the prosecution.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 18 of 28 number ended with 0284 and this call was attended by the deceased.The CDR of the phone of A-2, which was exhibited by Israr Babu (PW-20) of Vodafone confirms that A-2 had indeed called a mobile phone used by PW- 6 at 5.19 pm.PW-6 is consistent that this call was attended by the deceased who himself did not have a mobile phone.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 18 of 28The CDR of A-1 who was using a mobile number ending with 5560 which was again exhibited by PW-20 (with no cross-examination) shows that a call was made from the mobile phone of PW-6 to the number of A-1 at 5.32 pm.The next important circumstance is the conduct of A-1 in running away after the incident and concealing the weapon of offence in the Tikona Park.But for the disclosure of A-1 the police would not have been able to know that the weapon of offence was hidden in one corner of Tikona Park.It was vehemently argued on behalf of A-1 that just next to Tikona park was a residential colony and the park itself was a public park.It should have been possible for the police to try and associate independent witnesses in the recovery.The evidence of PW-22 however points to the reluctance of the public to join in the recovery.Moreover, as pointed out by the learned APP the one person Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 20 of 28 who came forward to support the prosecution i.e. PW-3 ultimately turned hostile.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 20 of 28With the injury being caused by fire arm and the FSL report confirming that the injury was possible from the fire arm recovered at the instance of A-1, which firearm was to be in working condition, the evidence regarding recovery of the fire arm upon the disclosure of A-1 deserves acceptance.Injury to A-1What also probablises the recoveries is the disclosure by A-1 about the injury on his buttocks which he received by scaling the wall and jumping into the Tikona Park.This could not have been discovered but for A-1's disclosure.His further disclosure that he first went to a Doctor in Munirka who asked him to go to Safdarjung Hospital; going to the Safdarjung hospital and then coming back for treatment to the Daya Memorial Hospital all stand established by the evidence gathered by the prosecution.The blank denial of A-1 of all these incriminating circumstances was least helpful to Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 21 of 28 his case.Mr. Soni asked the Court to carefully peruse the date 9th May, 2011 written in this document titled opinion (Ex.PW-24/B).According to him, that date appeared to have been inserted subsequently thus making the entire document of doubtful validity.In the absence of any cross-examination on this aspect, the contention of the learned APP that this could be a genuine mistake of PW-24 writing the wrong date i.e. 10th May, 2011 instead of 9th May, 2011 appears plausible.The fact of the matter is that there was no need for PW-24 to fabricate the evidence in this regard.It was then contended by learned counsel for A-1 that the chain of custody for the swabs to finally reach the FSL has not been satisfactorily Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 22 of 28 explained by the prosecution.In other words, the handing over of the swabs with the seal of the hospital to the IO, his depositing them in the malkhana and then taking it from the malkhana to the FSL has not been proved.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 22 of 28A. No. 138/1999).A. No. 123/2012) in which it was inter alia held that the recovery of a knife from an open place six days after the incident would render such recovery suspicious.Role of A-2Turning now to the role played by A-2, Mr. Javed Alvi, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, sought to urge that there is nothing to show that A-2 was actually involved in the commission of the crime except some exchange of calls with the deceased.As already noticed, PW-6 in her statement to the police (Ex.PW-6/BA) spoke of a quarrel between the deceased and A-2 a few months prior to the incident over A-2 accusing the deceased of stealing his mobile phone.She also in her previous statement to the police spoke of the deceased being unhappy with PW-6 having permitted A-2 to stay with them in their room."I had not stated to the police that Inderjeet had requested me to live in my house for about 10-15 days.I had not allowed accused Inderjeet to stay in my house.I had not stated to the police that Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 24 of 28 Inderjeet and Vikas had come to my house on 08.05.2011 to call my son at about 6.30pm.I had stated to the police in my statement that before that at about 5.30pm, accused Inderjeet had called on my mobile phone and the same call was received by my son Lalit.It is incorrect to suggest that no such call was received on my mobile phone which was being heard by my son Lalit."Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 24 of 28Mr. Alvi also referred to the confrontation of PW-6 with her previous statement and what has been noted in the transcript by the trial Court which reads as under:I had told the IO in my statement that Inderjeet and Vikas were standing outside my house.I had not stated to the IO that I had inquired from Inderjeet as to where Vikas was as I had also seen him in the company of my son and Inderjeet.I had not stated to the IO that Inderjeet had replied to me that Vikas was also injured and sustained injury to his hand and how he could take Lalit to hospital.I had stated to the police that lnderjeet had taken some of his belongings and left my house saying that he was going to hospital (Confronted with statement Ex.I had stated to the IO that police had come to me at my house at about 6.00am on 08.05.2011 (Confronted with statement Ex.A careful perusal of Ex.She further stated that she had allowed him to stay in the house.She also did tell the police that A-1 and A-2 had come to her house at around 6.30 pm.Statements to the contrary were elicited from her in her cross-examination without actually drawing her attention to her previous statement.This shows that she was confused.However, it cannot be said that she was being untruthful.Crl. A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 25 of 28Subsequently, when she was confronted with her previous statement, it turned out that she had in fact stated those very things which counsel was suggesting that she had not.In sum, but for the confusion created in the mind of PW-6 by counsel for the defence, PW-6 actually deposed in Court more or less what she had told the police earlier (Ex.PW-6/DA).PW-6 was, therefore, both a truthful and a reliable witness.It is he who bore a grudge against the deceased both on account of the false accusation against the deceased stealing his mobile phone and over the deceased resenting PW-6 allowing A-2 to stay at their place.At this stage, a reference should also be made to the evidence of Smt. Chanderwati Tokas (PW-8) who was a landlady of the house which A-2 had Crl.A. Nos. 1197/2013 & 1534/2013 Page 26 of 28 taken on rent.This corroborates PW-6 stating that he had come to leave some belongings in her house.The conduct of A-2 also points to his guilt, as correctly concluded by the trial Court.His being constantly in touch with both the deceased and A-1 has been proved by the CDRs.PW-6 calling him at around 1.10 am to enquire about the deceased is also confirmed by the CDR.He is coming to the house of PW-6 at an odd hour and then misleading her by saying that the deceased has met with an accident indeed points to his guilt.With both A-1 and A-2 simply denying all the circumstances, even those which stood conclusively established by the forensic and medical evidence, the guilt of both of them stands proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The deceased in this case is one Balamani, who is the wife of the appellant/accused.The marriage between the deceased and the accused took place ten years before the occurrence and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children aged 11 years and 7 years respectively at the time of occurrence.The deceased was working in Sivasakthi Processing Unit at Erode and the accused is also working in another Processing Unit.Suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused used to beat the deceased frequently.P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.The deceased complained about the quarrel and the behavior of her husband to a Panchayathar, six months prior to the occurrence, there was a mediation between the accused and the deceased by P.W.8 and P.W.8 advised the accused not to quarrel with the deceased.Even thereafter, the accused used to quarrel with the deceased despite the mediation.On the date of occurrence i.e., 01.11.2004, at about 7.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, who is residing 400 meters away from the accused house came and took the children from their house.Thereafter P.W.1, son of P.W.2 and brother of the deceased returned to his house after completing his work at 10.30 p.m. and after finishing his dinner he took P.W.1 went to the house of accused to enquire about the quarrel.At that time, they heard a noise from the house of the accused, and they saw the accused attacking the deceased with a vegetable cutter indiscriminately.After seeing P.W.1 and P.W.2, the accused ran away from the house.They went inside the house and saw the deceased dead.Immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station and filed a complaint.P.W.13, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.830 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. and filed F.I.R and sent copies of F.I.R and the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode and also to higher officials.P.W.16 is the Inspector of Police-Respondent Police, after receipt of F.I.R, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 1.00 p.m. and prepared observation mahazar-D9 and a rough sketch-D11 and took photograph of the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body and inquired the witnesses and after preparing the inquest report-P12 and then he sent the body for postmortem.The sole accused in S.C.No.188 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court cum Fast Tract Court No.1, Erode is the appellant herein.He stood charged for the offence under section 302 IPC.P.W.15 is the inspector of police, who received the dead body and sent for postmortem and also collected the blood stained dress and other materials.P.W.10, the Doctor working in the Government Hospital, Erode conducted the postmortem on the deadbody and found the following injuries:Ext.1.Cut injury centre of neck 10 x 4 x 2 cm extending from Right sternomartoid to left sternomartoid cutting the muscles and major vessels.2.Cut injury centre of mandible 4 x 2 x 2 cm.3.Cut injury centre of left side of mandible 2 x 2 x 1 cm.4.Cut injury below the nose 1 x 1 x 1 cm.Cut injury Right cheek 2 x 2 x 1 cm.Abrasion Left ring finger, left index finger 2 x 1 x 1 cm.Loss of right side teeth (2 in No.), right upper incision.8.Cut injuries over the scalp (6 in No.) and (3 No.) on right parietal bone and (3 No.) on left parietal bone each about 6 x 2 cm bone depth.The Doctor also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and Haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.P.W.17-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer had recorded statement of the Doctor and other witnesses, P.W.11 arrested the accused, on such arrest, the accused gave voluntary confession and based on disclosure statement, he recovered the blood stained vegetable cutter and after completion of the investigation,P.W.17 filed the charge sheet.Based on the above incriminating materials, the Trial Court framed charges as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 17 exhibits and 12 material objects.Out of the witnesses examined, PW.1, is the brother of the deceased.According to him, the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased frequently and quarreled with her.On the date of occurrence at about 10 p.m. after he came back to his house, P.W.2, his mother informed him about the quarrel.Hence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to enquire about the quarrel.At that time, P.W.1 saw the accused indiscriminately cutting the deceased with a vegetable cutter and caused her death.Immediately, he complained to the respondent-Police.P.W.2 is the mother of deceased.She is also an eye witness to the occurrence.She also spoke about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the date of occurrence, before the occurrence she went and took the grandchildren to her house.Thereafter, at 10.30 p.m. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house of the accused to enquire about the quarrel, at that time the accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately with the vegetable cutter on her face and right side of the shoulder.P.W.3 is the person running a petty shop near the house of the accused.He saw the accused running with the vegetable cutter from his house.P.W.3, then went into the house of the accused and found the deceased died.P.W.4 is the daughter of the accused and deceased.She spoke about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and on the date of occurrence, P.W.2 took her and her brother to P.W.2 house.P.W.5 is the Daughter-in-law of P.W.2 and sister-in-law of P.W.1., who came to the scene of occurrence after hearing the news.P.W.6 is the nephew, who also spoke about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased.P.W.7 is a neighbor, who spoke about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased.P.W.8 is the supervisor in the company, where the deceased work.He spoke about the earlier quarrel between the deceased and the accused.P.W.10 is the Doctor conducted the postmortem autopsy on the dead body.P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police, arrested the accused.P.W.12 is the Head Constable, who submitted the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode.P.W.14 is the witness to the observation mahazar and also recovered the material objects.P.W.15 is the Head Constable, who recovered the body from the house and also identified the body for postmortem.P.W.16 is the Inspector of Police, who commenced the investigation, conducted equiries, recorded statement of the witnesses and sent the dead body for postmortem.P.W.17 is the another Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation and filed charge sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put before the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same and did not examine any witnesses or marked any documents.Considering all the above incriminating materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo eight years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Earlier, when the matter came up for hearing on 19.01.2017, Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy, learned Counsel filed a memo for withdrawal of his appearance.In the above circumstances, this Court appointed Mrs.Zeenath Begum as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and argue.Heard Both sides.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2, the mother and brother of the deceased said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, and they are interested witnesses.Even though, admittedly there are other houses near to the place of occurrence, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and it is unsafe to convict the accused based on the testimony of interested witnesses.Apart from that, even as per the evidence of P.W.4, they went to the scene of occurrence only after hearing the news and they could not have seen the occurrence and their evidence cannot be believed.The arrest of the accused and recovery of material object was also not properly proved by the prosecution and hence she sought for allowing the appeal.Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that eventhough P.W.1 and P.W.2 related to the deceased, their evidence is consistent.Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house to enquire about the previous quarrel, at that time, the occurrence took place and their evidence is trustworthy.Thereafter, the motive for murder is also proved by the prosecution.In the above circumstances, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and sought for an appeal.I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials placed before the court.There are two eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.According to her, the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, frequently quarreled with her, earlier, a mediation was also took place in which the accused promised before the Panchayatars that he will not quarrel with her wife.Despite the same, he continued to quarrel with the deceased and fight with her.On the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused.P.W.2, went to her daughter's house and took her grandchildren to her house leaving her daughter in the house of the accused.At about 10.30 p.m., P.W.1, son of P.W.2 and brother of the deceased came back to his house after completion of his duty went alongwith his mother-P.W.2 to the house of the deceased to enquire about the quarrel.At that time, both of them saw the accused attacking the deceased with a vegetable cutter indiscriminately.After seeing both P.W.1 and P.W.2, the accused ran away.P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.His evidence is also consistent that at about 10 p.m., when he came back to his house after his work, his mother informed him about the quarrel between deceased and the accused.Then, P.W.1 and his mother-P.W.2 went to the house of the accused to enquire about the quarrel.At that time, he saw the accused attacking the deceased with a vegetable cutter indiscriminately and after seeing them, the accused ran away from the house of the accused.P.W.3 is the independent witness, who is running a petty shop near the scene of occurrence.He saw the accused running from the house with a vegetable cutter in his hand.Then, he went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying with multiple injuries.Hence, from the consistent testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, it is clear that it is only this accused attacked the deceased with the vegetable cutter and caused as many as eight injuries and caused the death of the deceased.14.Eventhough P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the mother and brother of the deceased, their evidence cannot be simply disbelieved on the ground that they are interested witnesses.If the evidence of the interested witnesses are trust worthy, genuine and consistent can be believed, and the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence is also natural and they are consistent.Apart from that P.W.3, an independent witness saw the accused running with the vegetable cutter in his hands.So far as the motive of the occurrence is concerned, P.W.8 is the mediator/Panchayatar, who mediated between the deceased and accused has spoken about the quarrel between the accused and deceased, suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused used to beat the deceased and he conducted mediation twice.P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased and accused, has also spoken about the quarrel between the accused and deceased at about 7.30 p.m on the day of occurrence.P.W.5 also spoke about the quarrel between the accused and deceased suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused used to beat the deceased.P.W.6 & 7, who are independent witnesses also spoke about the motive.Hence, the motive for the occurrence was also clearly proved by the prosecution.Apart from that, the occurrence took place at about 10.30 p.m. and the complaint was given immediately at 12 p.m., and F.I.R. also registered at 12.30 p.m., and there is no delay in lodging the complaint.Apart from that, the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused, at the time of occurrence only the accused and deceased were alone in the house and minor children were already went to their grandmother's house and as the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused under section 106 of evidence Act, the burden is on the accused to explain it but, no explanation offered by the accused.15.Considering all the above materials, I am of the considered opinion, the prosecution has established that this accused only attacked the deceased and caused her death.16.Now, the question is "what was the offence that was committed by the accused by the said act.According to the testimony of the witnesses, there was quarrel between the accused and deceased and during the quarrel, being provoked by the words, the accused lost his mental balance and attacked the deceased with vegetable cutter, which was lying in the scene of occurrence.Though, the accused did not have any intention to cause death of the deceased, still he had an intention to cause injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause the death of the deceased.The Trial Court considered all the above materials, rightly convicted the appellant u/s.304(ii) I.P.C and there is no reason to interfere with the judgments.So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a poor man and he has no bad antecedent, and he had no intention to cause the death of his wife and only in a quarrel only out of provocation, he lost his mental balance and attacked his wife with a vegetable cutter, which was available in the scene of occurrence.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

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

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

JUDGMENT Charanjeet Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner herein, Ch.Bensi Lal, lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi, on the allegations that two persons had forcibly entered his house to steal certain papers.After investigation the police-officer sought cancellation of the said case.sd/- Brijesh Kumar 30.5.78" Thereafter a complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, was filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi, against the petitioner herein.

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid controversy are set out below:5.1 It is alleged that on 16.12.2018 at about 09:00 pm, information was received through a special messenger at the office of Special Cell, Sector- 7, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi - that one Abdul Rashid (petitioner in Crl.Rev. P. 1220/2019), who is a resident of Bhilwara, Rajasthan and deals in the business of narcotic drugs (Heroin) would arrive near Ambedkar Park, Sector 12, R.K. Puram, Ring Road on that date in a vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 06 UA9729 between 09:00 pm and 12:00 pm.It was informed that he would be carrying heroin for its distribution in Delhi.After obtaining the necessary authorization, a raiding team was constituted.The raiding team so constituted positioned themselves near the spot (Ambedkar Park, Sector 12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi) at about 10:15 pm.It is alleged that at about 11:40 pm, a white coloured Ertiga car was seen approaching the spot.The driver of the said vehicle parked the same approximately ten meters from the spot.It was observed that the registration number plate of the said vehicle bore the same registration number as informed by the messenger.It was observed that there were three persons in the said vehicle including Abdul Rashid, who was driving the car.All the three persons came out of the car and stood outside.At that stage, Abdul Rashid handed over one bag each to two other persons who slung it on their back.At that stage, they were surrounded by the raiding team.The driver of the vehicle (Abdul Rashid) took out one bag from the said vehicle and attempted to flee in the direction of Hyatt Hotel.He CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 4 of 47 was apprehended by one of the members of the raiding team.The bags carried by the said three persons were searched and were found to contain five kgs of light coloured brown powder each.In addition, 15 kgs of the said similar looking substance was also recovered from the vehicle.It was tested on a field-testing kit and the same yielded a positive result for heroin.CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 4 of 47VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe petitioners impugn a common order dated 20.08.2019, whereby their respective applications for grant of bail in default under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the 'Cr.PC') were rejected.The petitioners' claim that they are entitled to bail in default is premised on the assertion that the investigating agency has failed to file a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC within the stipulated period of one-hundred and eighty days.Although, it is not disputed that a report was filed within the stipulated period, the petitioners contend that the said report was incomplete as it was not accompanied by the report of the Chemical Examiner.The petitioners are being prosecuted for committing an offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2012 (hereafter the 'NDPS Act').They claim it cannot be asserted that the substance allegedly recovered from them was a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance without a Chemical Examiner's report indicating the same.The Chemical Examiner's report CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 2 of 47 was furnished before the learned Special Court on the same date when the applications filed by the petitioners were taken up for consideration.Nonetheless, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to bail in default under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC as their respective applications seeking the same were filed prior to the Public Prosecutor placing the FSL Report before the Special Court.CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 2 of 47In view of the above, the following questions fall for consideration of this Court:PC can be considered as such if it is not accompanied by a Chemical Examiner's Report with regard to the substance recovered, and;(ii) Whether an accused would be entitled to bail in default under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC where his application for such bail has been filed prior to the submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC but is taken up for consideration simultaneously with the said report being filed.CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 3 of 475.2 The petitioners were arrested.Thereafter, on 17.12.2018, the FIR in question (FIR No. 150/2018), under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered with PS Special Cell.5.3 On 27.05.2019, a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC was filed with the Special Court.The said report was not accompanied by the Chemical Examiner's report confirming that the substance recovered from the petitioners and their vehicle was heroin.5.4 The statutory period of one hundred and eighty days for completion of the investigation under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act read with Section 167 of the Cr.5.5 On 29.07.2019, the petitioners filed an application seeking bail in default under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC.Further, it CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 47 had neither sought extension of the said period in terms of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act nor any such permission was granted.It is stated that the said application was filed in the Registry at about 10:00 am.CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 475.6 On the same day, the petitioners were produced before the Special Court.And, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the Chemical Examiner's Report and supplied a copy of the same.At that time, the applications were filed by the petitioners at 10:00 am on the same date were not before the Court and therefore, the hearing of the matter was deferred till 02:00 pm on that date.The applications were heard and orders were reserved.5.7 The applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Special Court by a common order dated 20.08.2019, which is impugned in the present petition.The learned Court held that since the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 6 of 47 cease as soon as the FSL Report is filed and the said report had been filed simultaneously to the petitioners being produced in Court, their applications were liable to be dismissed.CRL.REV.P.1219/2019 & Other Connected Matters Page 6 of 47The Public Prosecutor filed an additional complaint on the same date at 4:25 pm.

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

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

O.P.(MD).No.5380 of 2019 harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the police officer.8.In order to circumvent such situations, the following guidelines are issued:a)While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such person through a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation.b) The respondent police is directed to serve summons mentioning the CSR number, date of complaint and the name of the complainantc)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.dThe police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.O.P.(MD).No.5380 of 2019The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the Petitioner in the guise of enquiry without following due process of law.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the petitioner is the employee of the accused, in Crime No.1 of 2019, under Section 376 I.P.C, for the purpose of communication, the respondent police called for enquriy and the petition enquiry is pending on the file of the respondent police3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the respondent police.e)The guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs.Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)] shall be strictly adhered to.http://www.judis.nic.in4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5380 of 20199.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.18.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Ls1.The Superintendent of Police Tuticorin Superintendent Office, Tuticorin.2.All Women Police Station, Sri Vaikundam, Tuticorin District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5380 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., Ls Crl.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.GARG MR.JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT %He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine.The prosecution case was that Police Station Jahangirpuri was informed on 26.07.1992 at 07.25 PM about the discovery of the dead body of a female.The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) reached the spot and during inquiry discovered that the body belonged to one Bindu; it was lying on a cot.A piece of cloth had been tied around her neck.Subsequently, Crl.A.373/1997 Page 1 a case was registered.The prosecution alleged that when the police reached the spot, during search, a cardboard piece with a paper stuck on it was recovered; the same was produced in the trial proceedings as Ex. 3/C. It allegedly was a confessional statement by the present appellant.It is further alleged that on 27.07.1992, the police went to the appellant's village; Munna, his brother produced a diary, Ex. 10/A. At that time, the appellant had been named as an accused; he was arrested on 08.10.1992, allegedly pursuant to secret information received by the police, near Sabzi Mandi, Adarsh Nagar.By his report, Ex. PW-12/A, the opinion given was that the specimen handwritings matched with the handwritings in the other documents and that they were by the same person.After conclusion of investigations, the appellant was charged with committing the offence.He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also relied upon several documents, including Ex. PW-3/C, the handwriting expert report; Ex. 12/A, the postmortem report etc. After considering all these, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment in the manner prescribed earlier.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this was a clear case of false implication and the Crl.He placed great stress on the fact that the independent witnesses, PWs-3 and 17 were hostile and did not support the prosecution.It was argued that the Trial Court fell into error in holding that the appellant had written the alleged confessional statement, Ex.3/C. Learned counsel contended that this mere circumstance was insufficient to conclude his guilt because at best it amounted to an opinion by an expert which could not have been the sole basis for convicting the appellant.Whereas PW-8 stated that the police reached the premises at 07.40 PM, the other witness, PW-18 deposed the police having reached the spot at 08.00 PM.The evidence of latter witness also established that several people were present.Besides, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-17, there were several others; the prosecution did not examine the others.PWs-3 and 17, on the other hand, did not support the prosecution story.Having regard to these facts, the possibility of false implication by the police (of the accused) could not be ruled-out.Learned APP argued that the impugned judgment is based on credible evidence and sound reasoning and that does not call for interference.It was highlighted that several prosecution witnesses deposed that the appellant and the deceased were living together as husband and wife in the tenanted premises.Even though some of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the sub-stratum of the case against the appellant, i.e. living together with the deceased who was his wife; his absence immediately after the incident and Crl.A.373/1997 Page 3 the matching of his specimen handwriting with that in Ex. 3/C as well as other documents were fully established.Therefore, there was no question of false implication or false case.Besides this submission, learned APP urged that the deposition of PW-12 regarding the handwriting match between the specimen handwritings, Ex. S-1 to S-7 on one hand and the writings, Ex. PW-3/C went unchallenged.Learned APP pointed-out, in addition, that PW-3 disclosed the appellant's identity and also was a witness to the seizure memo, Ex. 3/B by which the document, Ex. 3/C had been taken into custody by the police.Having regard to all these facts, the mere circumstance that some of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile did not in any manner affect the case adversely.PW-8, SI Ishwar Singh mentioned having visited the spot and sent the intimation, which resulted in the First Information Report (FIR) being lodged, at about 08.30 PM.PW-3 was apparently present when the police visited the spot and recovered some articles, including the letter, Ex. PW-3/C. In his deposition, this witness supported the prosecution as far as the recovery is concerned.He also Crl.A.373/1997 Page 4 mentioned that the appellant used to live with Bindu as her husband in the premises.Similarly, even though PW-17 was declared hostile and permission to cross-examine him was given by the Trial Court, yet, in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the appellant lived in the same premises, L-23, Mahendra Park with the deceased, his wife, at the relevant time.He also identified the appellant in Court.PW-16, on the other hand, resiled from her previous statement and refused to identify the appellant; she was also unaware about the identity of the deceased and her name.PW-3's deposition further shows that a letter (Ex. PW-3/C) had been kept in a shelf-like place in the wall.PW-3 also confirmed having seen the piece of cloth tied on the deceased's throat.The appellant was employed by PW-4, a building contractor.He deposed that the employment had taken place just a few days prior to the incident.According to the witness, the appellant was regular for 7-8 days and that subsequently, he worked for just 1-2 hours and left without informing him.He recollected having gone to the appellant's house after hearing some news about the murder.This witness too was subsequently declared hostile.However, the fact of the appellant having been employed by him was in fact deposed during the examination-in-chief.PW-11 deposed about the appellant's arrest and more importantly, having taken specimen signatures and writings on Ex. S-1 to S-7, which were taken into possession through Memo, Ex. PW-11/D.From the above analysis, what can be deduced is that PW-3's testimony proved that the appellant lived in the premises and they were Crl.In fact, the appellant admitted to this in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.The question, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved his guilt.Now the previous narrative would show that the prosecution had relied heavily on the document said to be a confessional statement.The relevant translation of the confessional statement is in the following terms:I married the girl named Bindu in Court.But this girl did not obey me after marriage.She became a whore.I killed her.When I was sleeping, the girl made attempt to strike me with knife so I saved myself and killed her........"Though PW-4 was apparently cited in support of the submission, regarding the seizure of other documents and also the specimen signatures of the appellant, he turned hostile.PW-11, however, deposed having obtained the specimen writings and signatures of the appellant; his cross-examination did not elicit anything favorable to the appellant.The expert clearly deposed that both were written by the same individual.The appellant is no doubt right when he contends that a conviction cannot be based solely on the opinion of an expert.However, in this case, the opinion about the appellant's handwriting is a strong corroborative material.What is important is the deposition of PW-3, who clearly testified that the appellant used to live with Bindu and that he went missing after the Crl.A.373/1997 Page 6 day of the incident.Even though PW-4 turned hostile in the cross, in the examination-in-chief, he supported this part of prosecution story.Furthermore, the appellant himself admitted living in the premises.If these circumstances are held to be proved, what emerges is that both the appellant and his wife were seen together in the night preceding the incident.Having regard to the mandate of Section 106 Evidence Act, it was imperative for the appellant, who alone knew the circumstances which compelled him to leave the premises; to explain where he had gone and to establish his innocence.Although the Court would not draw an adverse inference against the accused on his abscondence, yet the fact of the matter is that immediately after the incident, the appellant was missing.He did not state where he went and what kept him away during the time before he was arrested.The Trial Court had noticed the contention that the earliest intimation, Ex. 18/B did not make any mention of the document, Ex. PW-3/C. However, the Court dealt with this and concluded that such circumstance alone could not lead to the inference that it had not been recovered at the time when the prosecution claimed it to have been so recovered.The relevant discussion leading to the appellant's guilt is in the following terms:"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXMy attention has been drawn to the rukka Ex. PW 18/8 and the inquest paper Ex. PW 18/C. None of these documents mentions Ex. PW 3/C. It is therefore contended that Ex. PW 3/C was not recovered from the place of occurrence and that it was subsequently fabricated by the police.This arguments is positively rebutted by PW 3 Anil Kapar.Anil Kapar was occupying a room in the same house as tenant.He had not ill will against the accused.He is by all means an independent and disinterested witness.He says categorically that the paper Ex.A.373/1997 Page 7 PW-3/C was recovered from a rack affixed in the wall of the room.His testimony is corroborated by PW 8 SI Ishwar Singh and PW 18 Inspt.Ishwar Singh.The confession scribed on Ex. PW 3/C has been retracted by the accused but it can still be the basis of conviction because there are other corroborating circumstances.It is an admitted fact that the accused was living with deceased Bindu in a room in H. No. L-23, Mahindra Park, Jahangir Puri.He states U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he left for work around 3.00 pm and returned from duty next morning and then he came to know about the death of his wife.The postmortem report Ex. PW 7/A gives inference to the contrary.The autopsy was conducted on 27.7.92 at 10.00 a.m. In the opinion of the doctor the time since death was about 24 hours.If the accused used to leave around 3.00 pm for duty, he must have been at home around 10.00 am.This shows that accused was present in the house at the time of death.He admits that he absconded due to fear.If he did not have a guilty conscience, there could be nothing for him to fear.The fact that the accused was present in the room at or about the time of death and his subsequent absconion lend corroboration to the confessional statement written on Ex. PW 3/C. His presence at the time of death, subsequent absconsion and the confession statement Ex. PW 3/C are all incriminating facts of conclusive nature and they have been satisfactorily established beyond a shadow of doubt.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

a hy Heard on IA No.21653/2017, an application filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Jagdish Giri for suspension of sentence and grant of ad bail.M Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC and awarded the sentence RI for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-.of Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are rt two dying declaration of the deceased, who was the wife of the ou appellant.The deceased received burn injury on 23.4.2014 and she was died on 15.5.2014 after 22 days, even though the act of the C appellant be accepted for causing injury to the deceased as it is, he h would be liable to be punished under Section 326 of IPC.In support ig of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the H judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B. N. Kavatakar Vs.In the present case deceased received burn injury on 23.4.2014 and she was died on 15.5.2014 after a period of 22 days.Doctor P. W. 16, who performed autopsy of the deceased, deposed that she was died due to medical complication during her treatment.The Supreme Court in the matter of B. N. Kavatakar (Supra) has held as under :9.The next question that comes up for our consideration is what is the nature of the offence that the appellants have committed.The Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has opined sh that the death was as a result of septicaemia secondary e to injuries and peritonitis.As we have indicated above, ad the deceased died after five days of the occurrence in the hospital.On an overall scrutiny of the facts and Pr circumstances of the case coupledwith the opinion of the a Medical Officer, we are of the view that the offencewould hy be one punishable under Section 326 read with Section ad 34 IPC.10.In the result, we set aside the conviction under M Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of of imprisonment for life imposed therefore on each of the appellants.Instead we convict them under Section 326 rt read with Section 34 IPC and sentence each of the ou appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period C of three years.With the above modification in the h conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed.ig The Apex Court in the aforesaid case converted conviction of H the appellant from Section 302 to 326 of IPC because the deceased was died after five days of the occurrence in the hospital due to medical complication.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by the appellant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court sh on 13.11.2018 and on other dates as may be notified by the office in e this regard till disposal of this appeal.ad C. C. as per rules.Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY ad Date: 2017.12.08 15:36:05 +05'30' M kkc of rt ou C h ig H

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3, Station House Officer, Badalapur, District Jaunpur to conclude further investigation in compliance of the order dated 22.4.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Juanpur in Misc.Case No.3 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.184 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 506, 166-A I.P.C., Police Station Badalapur, District Jaunpur.The office has placed before the Court an objection/reply received by E-mail from the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, which is taken on record.It transpires from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the petitioner is the informant of the case.It further appears that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the petitioner against the respondent nos. 4 & 5 and one unknown accused for the offence under Sections 376-D, 506, 166-A I.P.C. on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after investigation police has submitted final report in the matter, against which the petitioner preferred a protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.4.2019 has ordered for further investigation, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and it is stated that the said investigation has not yet been concluded.It further transpires that the petitioner had also approached this Court for fair investigation by means of filing Crl.Writ Petition no.31704 of 2018, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.11.2018 directing the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur to conclude the investigation expeditious, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.It further transpires from the list of fresh cases that the accused Ramanuj had already approached this Court by means of filing Crl.After having examined the pleadings made in the writ petition and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Investigating Officer of the present case to conclude the further investigation of the present case in pursuance of the order dated 22.4.2019 passed by the C.J.M., Jaunpur, if not already concluded, and submit a police report before the Magistrate concerned expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.(Samit Gopal, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2020

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Sanjay @ Sanju s/o Ajab Singh Thakur has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.03/2014 registered by Police Station Crime Branch, Indore for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and 66(D) IT.Counsel for the respondent/State has produced a list of 42 criminal cases recorded against the present applicant.Counsel for the applicant, however, prays for time to verify the same.Looking to the criminal cases listed against the applicant, I find that the application cannot be allowed since the offence registered against him for offence u/Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and 66(D) IT.Act. Therefore, the application is bereft on merit and dismissed as such.However, Counsel for the applicant is free to verify the criminal record of the applicant, if he chooses to do so.In the meanwhile, a copy of the criminal record of the applicant be handed over to Counsel for the applicant.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.28 of 2020 registered by the 1st respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 307 of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the very same occurrence, the petitioners also lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.27 of 2020, which was registered as against the complainant and others.Infact all the petitioners sustained grievous injuries and also they were admitted in the hospital for treatment, even the 1st respondent police registered the case as against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 307 of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.12958 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5058 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the very same occurrence there are two F.I.Rs, and as such they have to investigate the matter and to find out the real aggressor of the occurrence.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Considering the above submissions, the first respondent is directed to follow the procedures laid down under 588 A of Police Standing order and find out the original aggressor of the occurrence andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.12958 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5058 of 2020 complete the investigation in Crime No.28 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ssn ToThe Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.12958 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5058 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., ssn CRL.O.P.No.12958 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5058 of 2020 25.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The accused is her husband.The marriage between them was celebrated four years before theoccurrence.After the said marriage, they have a female child also.Though initially for two months, the marital lifewas a smooth one, however, it turned to be horrible for the deceased.Theaccused became drunkard.He harassed her in drunken state.Therefore, oncein two months or three months, the deceased unable to bear the torture, usedto go and stay at her parental home.P.W.1 is her mother.After the birthof the child, the accused took the deceased and the child to his house.After sometime, again, the accused quarreled with her and attempted to killher.The deceased escaped from the clutches of the accused and returned toher parental home.In connection with the said occurrence, a complaint wasmade to the police by the deceased at All Women Police Station, Aruppukottai.During the enquiry, the accused promised that he would keep the deceased ingood state and he would not harass her.Believing the words, he has beenwarned by the police also, asked the parties to make a statement ofcompromise.Accordingly, the accused took the deceased to his house again.For about one month, thereafter, the marital life was smooth.Again, theaccused started harassed the deceased and attacked her.Therefore, thedeceased again returned to her parental home.The accused came once again to the house of P.W.1 and took the deceased back to his house.While thingsstood thus, it is alleged that on 26.10.2012, around 8 p.m., there was aquarrel between the accused and the deceased.The accused had suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased.He questioned her as to with whom did she goout.It has further aggravated the quarrel.She rushed to the house.At that time, according to P.W.5, the accusedtold that while letting fire to the kerosene stove, the deceased did not takecare and as a result, it caught fire.Since the deceased was wearing a Nylonsaree, the fire engulfed her so fast.Then, P.W.5 and the other neighbours,took her in an Auto to the hospital at Government Hospital at Aruppukottai.P.W.10 ? Dr.Nagaraja Gurumoorthy examined the deceased at 8 p.m., on 26.10.2012, at the Aruppukottai Government Hospital.At that time, shewas fully conscious.She told the Doctor that while cooking, by accident,she caught fire.P.W.10 entered the same in the Accident Register (VideEx.P6).He found extensive burn injuries on the body of the deceased.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment.The accused has got nobad antecedents; He is an young man; He has got a daughter to take care of.After the occurrence also, he has not shown any deviance from law.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.203 of 2013 on the file ofthe learned Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.He stood charged foroffences under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC.By judgment dated 09.07.2014, the trial Court convicted him both under sections 498(A) and 302 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fineof Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six monthsfor the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for lifeand to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC.Challenging the saidconviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Then,he forwarded the deceased to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai.On receiving intimation from the Government Hospital atAruppukottai, P.W.14 - Sub Inspector of Police, Mallanginaru Police Stationrushed to the hospital., she registered a case in Crime No.243/2012 underSection 307 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment ofWomen Act. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P11 is the FIR.2.4. P.W.15 ? the then Inspector of Police took up the case forinvestigation, on 29.10.2012, and visited the place of occurrence at 5.30p.m., he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presenceof witnesses.He recovered a plastic can from the place of occurrence undera mahazar.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few more witnesses and recorded their statement.On 30.10.2012, he arrested the accused at the bus stop atThonukal Village and then forwarded him to judicial remand.On 01.11.2012, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in thehospital.Therefore, he altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC andSection 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same forpostmortem.2.6. P.W.9 ? Dr.He found 50% of the burn injuries on the body of thedeceased.He opined that the death of the deceased was due to the effect ofborn injuries.P5 is the postmortem certificate.On completing the investigation, he laidcharge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges underSections 498(A) IPC and 302 IPC.The accused denied the same.In order toprove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses wereexamined, 24 documents and one material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased.P.W.2 is the co-brother of the accused.P.W.3 is a neighbour of thedeceased, P.W.4 yet another neighbour of the deceased.They have stated about the previous frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased.They have further stated that they heard about the occurrence and went to thehospital.P.W.5 - the mother of the accused had stated that on hearing thealarm raised by the accused, when she rushed into the house, the accused extinguished the fire.At that time, the accused told her that whilecooking, the deceased by accident caught fire.P.W.6 has not stated anythingincriminating about the occurrence.P.W.7 has also not stated anythingincriminating.P.Ws.6 and 7 have stated that they heard about the occurrencelater.P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and arough sketch and the recovery of material object ? a plastic can at the placeof occurrence.P.W.9 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding cause of death.P.W.10 has stated about the treatmentgiven to the deceased at the Government Hospital at Aruppukottai.P.W.11 ?the learned Magistrate has stated that when the deceased was undergoing treatment at the Government Rajaji Hospital, on 27.10.2012, at 2.10 p.m., hewent to the hospital for recording the dying declaration of the deceased.Hehas further stated that at 2.26 p.m., he met the deceased in the hospital.Atthat time, the deceased was fully conscious and she was in a fit state ofmind to make a dying declaration.Then he recorded the dying declaration.In the said dying declaration, the deceased told that it was this accused,who set fire.P8 is the judicial dying declaration.P.W.12 has statedthat he handed over the dead body for postmortem as directed by theinvestigating officer.P.W.13 has spoken about the earlier complaint made bythe deceased, talks between the accused and the deceased in the policestation and the compromise reached between them.P.W.14 ? the Sub Inspector of Police has stated about the complaint made by P.W.1 and the case registered by her on the same. P.Ws.15 and 16 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.On the side of theaccused, two witnesses were examined.D.W.1 ? is the Village AdministrativeOfficer of the occurrence village.He has stated that the deceased wasworking under the 100 days employment scheme.D4 is the record showing the work done by her.D.W.2 is a co-driver of the accused.He has statedthat on an occasion, the deceased complained that the accused had pledged her jewels and the compromise between them, in which, the accused agreed to redeem the same and return to the deceased.Thus, the defence of the accusedis a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Courtconvicted him under Section 302 IPC as well as 498(A) IPC.That is how, heis before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and we have also perused the records carefully.As we have already narrated, this is a case based on circumstantialevidence.The family members of the deceased have spoken about the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused.It is in evidence that theaccused not only was a drunkard, troubling the deceased a lot, he had alsosuspicion over the fidelity of the deceased.Thus, the marital life betweenthe accused and the deceased was not as smooth as it should have been.To this extent, all the evidence of the family members of the deceased would besufficient to prove.So far as the occurrence is concerned, it was not apremeditated one.In order to prove that it was this accused, who pouredkerosene and set fire, the prosecution relies on the two dying declarations.The first one is the dying declaration made to the learned Magistrate ?P.W.11 on 27.10.2012 at 2.26 p.m. In the said dying declaration, thedeceased had stated that it was this accused, who poured kerosene and set fire in the quarrel.The learned Magistrate, after having satisfied hisjudicial conscience that the deceased was in a fit stated of mind to make adying declaration, recorded the said dying declaration.There is also noevidence even to infer that the deceased would have been tutored by somebodyto make a false allegation against the accused.Thus, we do not find anyreason to reject the said judicial dying declaration made by the deceased.However, the learned counsel for the appellant would make reliance on Ex.P6 ?the Accident Register recorded by P.W.10 ? Dr.Nagaraja Gurumoorthy.According to P.W.10, when the deceased was brought to him for treatment, she was conscious and she made a statement.She told that while she was cooking, she caught fire.Referring to this, the learned counsel for the appellantwould submit that this, being the earliest dying declaration, should be givenweightage.But, we find it difficult to make any reliance on thissubmission, because, it is in evidence that the accused was present at thehouse and his mother alone had taken the deceased to the hospital.Thus,this, earliest statement made by the deceased to the Doctor would have beendue to tutoring made by the mother of the accused.Thus, we are not inclinedto give any weightage for the said statement made by the deceased to the saidDoctor, though it happened to be the earliest statement.Thus, from thejudicial dying declaration made, the prosecution has clearly established thatit was this accused, who poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased.The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that theDoctor, who treated the deceased at the Government Rajaji Hospital at Maduraiand the Doctor, who certified to the learned Magistrate that the deceased wasin a fit state of mind had not been examined does not carry much importance.In her statement, thedeceased had stated, as to why she made different statement to P.W.10, when she was examined by him at the Government Hospital at Aruppukottai, she has stated that because the mother of the accused was with her, she made adifferent statement at that time.Having come to the conclusion that it was this accused, who causedthe death of the deceased, now, we have to examine as to what was the offencethat was committed by the accused.It is in the dying declaration itselfthat the accused questioned the deceased as to her conduct.He asked herthat with whom she had gone out indicating his suspicion over her fidelity.This had resulted in a quarrel.Certainly, the deceased would have used somewords provoking in nature.Therefore, he isliable to be acquitted from the said charge.There arelot of chance for his reformation.Having regard to these all mitigating aswell as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part, in thefollowing terms:(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304(i) IPCand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay afine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergorigorous imprisonment for four weeks.(ii) So far as the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellantunder Section 498(A) is concerned, he is acquitted.(iii) It is directed that the period of sentence already undergone bythe accused shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.(iv) The fine amount, if any paid already, shall be adjusted.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar2.The Inspector of Police Mallanginaru Police Station Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

His share out of the partnership profits was shown as Rs. 7,877-13-6 ps.; out of the payments, excluding Rs. 1,000/- paid towards him as salary, the sum of Rs. 3,000/- supposed to have been paid was deducted from the share) found, and the balance of Rs. 4,877-13-6 ps.was shown as due to him.Subsequently, between 8-9-1955 and 17-11-1955 the complainant received several cheques amounting to Rs. 4,877-13-6 ps.in all and he accepted those cheques under protest.As the respondents stuck to their case that they had made the three payments of Rs. 1,000/-each as shown in their statement of account, the appellant instituted the present case for cheating and falsification of accounts.JUDGMENT S.K. Sen, J.This is an appeal under Section 417 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed against the acquittal of the respondents Virji Kuverji and Bhulchand Padamshi in respect of a charge under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the complainant appellant, C.V. Krishnan was briefly as follows:The appellant became a partner of a firm, Virji Kuverji and Co. and a partnership deed was drawn up on 1-1-1954 by the three partners, namely, the appellant and the two respondents.It was also registered with the Sub-registrar of Assurances, Calcutta.According to the terms of the partnership deed the appellant, C. V. Krishnan, was to remain in Calcutta to look after the interest of the firm at Calcutta.He was a five annas sharer under the partnership deed and he was to receive a monthly salary which was to be fixed between the parties in addition to his interest as a five annas partner.According to the appellant his salary was fixed at Rs. 250/-and in April and August 1953 he received two cheques of Rs. 500/- each towards payment of salary, but received no further payment.After the expiry of the year 1954, he asked for accounts from the remaining partners: and after some delay, on 1-9-1955, he was supplied with a statement of accounts in which it was shown that in addition to the two sums of Rs. 500/- each admittedly received by him there were three other payments of Rs. 1,000/-each received by him.The respondents were first discharged, but under the direction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, there was a further enquiry and the respondents were summoned under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Magistrate who held the trial decided that on the facts before him it could not be said that a charge of falsification of accounts had been made out.Accordingly, he acquitted both the accused of the charge under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code.The complainant as appellant has filed this appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the order of acquittal was bad on the facts and law.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.02.2020 for the offences punishable under sections 120(a), 120(b), 121 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.No.7509 of 2020 I.P.C. r/w Sections 464, 466, 468, 470, 471, 481, 482, 484, 485, 487, 488 and 420, 465 of I.P.C., registered by the respondent police and the same was altered as Sections 120(b), 420,465,468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No. 4 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police registered a case based on the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant, namely T.Balasubramanian, Under Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, for the alleged offence under sections 120(a), 120(b), 121 of I.P.C. r/w Sections 464, 466, 468, 470, 471, 481, 482, 484, 485, 487, 488 and 420, 465 of I.P.C., @ Sections 120(b), 420,465,468 and 471 IPC.It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner fabricated the documents and forged the signature of the Government officials, in conspiracy with other accused persons with a view to obtain illegal gain by way of tampering the examination documents, OMR sheets in connection with the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as TNPSC).The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material evidence available against the petitioner and he is in prison fromhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.7509 of 2020 09.02.2020, and also some of the co-accused persons were released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.He further submitted that the petitioner was implicated in some other two cases also, wherein also the interrogation has been completed.He further submits that respondent police has not filed any final report or charge sheet even after the statutory period of 60 days, and the petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 83 days.Hence, he sought for grant of bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner involved in committing the offence by fabricating documents, forged the signature, tampering the answer sheets and aided the prime accused in commission of crime.Thereby, he committed a serious offence against the society.He also submitted that the investigation is still pending and therefore, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.It is seen that the petitioner is one of the accused in the scam of Group IV examination conducted by the TNPSC, by fabricating the documents and forged the signature of Government officials and tampering the examination sheets.Thereby, he committed serious offence against the societyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.7509 of 2020 and as such, this Court has dismissed the bail petitions of the co-accused on various occasions.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and hence, the petition stands dismissed.However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Magistrate Court concerned under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., to obtain default bail.12.05.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gskhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.7509 of 2020The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.7509 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.gsk Crl.O.P.No.7509 of 2020 12.05.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6

['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER Partha Sakha Datta, J.By this application dated 29-1-2007 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 5-1-2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore in Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2006 affirming thereby the order dated 16-6-2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrates, 3rd Court, Barrackpore in case No. C-851 of 2003 under Section 420/406 of the IPC whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner under Section 245(1) of the Cr.P.C. is under challenge.The O.P. No. 2 herein as complainant lodged a complaint with the learned CJM, Barasat being case No. C-851 of 2000 alleging that the petitioner-accused proposed to him for a partnership business which he agreed to, as a result of which a partnership agreement was drawn up between them on 5-12-2002 and the petitioner-accused received Rs. 2 lac from the complainant for carrying on partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Banerjee Chemicals Industries Estate.The accused kept the money in his own personal account in Oriental Bank of Commerce.The complainant came to be involved in partnership business for some time but owing to personal difficulties he informed the accused-petitioner through letter dated 28-3-2000, in reply to which the accused expressed his readiness to repay the money by instalments.When the complainant confronted the accused on 25-6-2000 the latter refused to make repayment of the money.After examination of P.W. 1 before charge the accused-petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 245(1) of the Cr.P.C. praying for discharge on the ground that no case was made out against him.The order of rejection by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barasat dated 16-6-2006 was affirmed in criminal revision No. 194 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore in his order dated 5-1 -2007 and it is against this order of the learned Judge in the Court below that this revisional application has been preferred on the grounds inter alia that the learned Judge in the Court of revision failed to appreciate that non-compliance with the terms of partnership agreement amounted to civil dispute and no case of criminal breach of trust or of cheating was maintainable.I have heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned advocate for the State of West Bengal.The O.P. No. 2 who is the de facto-complainant did not turn up.Affidavit of service shall be kept with the record.The complainant-O.P No. 2 stated in his evidence that he had entrusted Rs. 2 lac to the present petitioner who did not deposit the amount in the bank as per the agreement and thus according to the learned Judge there was no reason to disturb the finding of the learned trial Court.During hearing the point that has been canvassed is whether on the facts pleaded in the petition of complaint which was referred to in the partnership agreement it can be said that the petitioner, a co-partner has misappropriated the property, i.e. a sum of Rs. 2 lac, as allegedly given by the complainant to the petitioner in connection with running of the partnership business.Though normally annexures to the petition of complaint which in the instant case is a partnership agreement should not be looked into in the revisional forum as it is a material banked upon by the defence to be tested only at the trial here is an opportunity to look at the agreement in view of the said agreement having been referred to in the petition of complaint itself and has been admitted in evidence before the learned Magistrate as exhibits and also relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The agreement for partnership dated 5-2-2002 executed by and between the parties constitutes a partnership business whereby the complainant who is a second party has contributed Rs. 2 lac and the first party who is the present petitioner offered the space of the partnership firm for running the partnership business.In terms of the agreement profit and loss of the firm would be debited or credited in accordance with their respective share to capital and current account.A bank account of the firm was to be opened with a nationalized bank as would be mutually determined by the partners and the partners would Jointly operate the account.

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

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

The lawyers are reported to be abstaining from work and, therefore, this application is being decided after going through the contents thereof.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.76/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 323, 291, 148, 149, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)This Court by order dated 23.1.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise.On 30.1.2017, the parties did not appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court, therefore, the case was fixed for 16.2.2017 for the verification of compromise.On 16.2.2017, the complainant did not appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court.On 9.3.2017 also, the parties did not appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court and, therefore, the Principal Registrar of this Court directed the Office to list this case before the Court for orders.Thus, it is clear that inspite of three opportunities given to the parties, the parties did not appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for the purposes of verification of compromise.Thus, it is clear that inspite of 2 MCRC No.286/2017 the fact that more than one and half years have lapsed but the parties have not appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court for the verification of factum of compromise.

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.c as per rules.Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.This is second repeat application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.1180/2019 registered at police station Chandan Nagar, district Indore for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467 & 468 of the IPC.Indore Municipal Corporation has lodged the FIR against Ashwin Kumar and Sanjay Dubey in Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore for the offence punishable u/s.292-C and 292-D of the Act of 1956 and u/s. 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C. Vide letter dated 19.12.2019, the Building Officer, Zone No.16, Indore Municipal Corporation requested the SHO, Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore to register the FIR against the applicant and two others as they are selling the plots in Abhijit Nagar situated at Survey No.89/1/1/4, Sirpur behind the Airport Boundary Wall illegally without obtaining the order of diversion and coloniser licence fromThe Police has registered the FIR and started the investigation.As on today, the prosecution has collected photocopy of agreement to sale dated 20.2.2019 executed between Arif Ali Shah and Sanjay dubey, Govind Kushwaha in respect of land bearing Survey No.89/1/1/4 area 2.000 hect.In the said agreement to sale, it is mentioned that there are as many as 100 plots measuring 600 Sq.ft.each By virtue of the said agreement to sale, now they have started selling the plots to the individuals.The prosecution has also collected other agreements to sale in respect of Plot No.59 of same land i.e. Survey No.89/1/1/4 executed by Sanjaykant Dubey in favour of Kalu Rathore and agreement in respect of Plot No.80 of the same land executed by Sanjaykant Dubey in favour of Smt. Asha Sisodia.The investigation is going on and original documents are yet to be recovered.Aarif filed a bail application (MCRC No.11717/2020) under section 439 Cr.He further submits that on the basis of the agreement to sell with Arif co-accused Sanjaykant Dube has executed 4 agreements to sell and received the sale consideration.In those agreements present applicant has-3- MCRC No.18534/2020 neither signed as a vendor nor as a witness.Sanjaykant Dube has been granted default bail by the trial Court.The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.There is no progress in the trial due to lock down.Since two main accused i.e. Aarif and Sanjaykant Dube are on bail, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for bail.The applicant is directed to the released on bail on his donating 20 liters of sanitizer and 500 good quality masks to the District Hospital, Indore for the use of the para-medical staff and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a-4- MCRC No.18534/2020 condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)

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

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

Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.filed on behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 12.08.2020 in connection with Crime No.35/2020 registered at Police Station Udaypura, District Raisen, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that, the applicant runs a shop in the name of Reena Sales Agency.On 10.06.2019, the applicant placed an order for purchase of pigeon pulse and gram pulse to the brother of the complainant.It was agreed to purchase 125 quintals of pigeon pulse and 40 quintals of gram pulse.Co- accused Chandrashekhar Yogi was mediator in the said transaction.The pulses were supplied by a Truck bearing Registration No.MP-20-G-8643 but after receiving the pulse, neither the applicant nor co-accused Chandrashekhar Yogi turned to make the payment for the said transaction.When the complainant tried to contact the applicant and co-accused on their mobiles, they switched off their mobiles and did not respond.Thereafter, the victim lodged a report in the police station Udaypura district Raisen and aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicant and co-accused Chandrashekhar Yogi.Signature SAN Verified Not Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2020.09.10 15:01:52 IST 2 MCRC-30822-2020 applicant has falsely been implicated in this case.The victim lodged a false report against the applicant in connivance with the police for receiving the amount, instead of adopting the civil course.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is undisputed that during the pendency of this appeal, complainant/injured persons and appellants have been 2 entered into a compromise.The facts in short, giving rise to this appeal are that on 26.06.2005, complainant Vinod was standing out of the hotel of Tara Seth alongwith Pintya, Manoj and Virendra.It is alleged that at this juncture, appellants Ramesh, Raju, Deva, Sunil, Zakku @ Zakir, Prarasram and Vijju @ Vijay came there.They were having stick, pipe and rod in their hands.They abused the complainants and started making assault on them.It is further alleged that Ramesh had assaulted Manoj by sword.Raju had assaulted Pintya by rod and appellants Vijju and Parasram had assaulted Vinod by pipe.When Vinod tried to pacify the matter, he was assaulted by Zakku @ Zakir, Sunil and Gopal.Deva had assaulted Manoj, Pintya and Virendra by stick.The complainants lodged the report at Police Station Lalbagh at about 12.30 at night.(31.10.2014) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.09.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T. No.289/2005 whereby appellants have been convicted as under :-(i) Appellants No.2 and 8 have been convicted under Sections 147, 307, 307/149, 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.(ii) Appellants No.1,3,4,5,6 and 7 have been convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.Injured were sent to the hospital for treatment.During investigation, appellants were arrested and respective weapon of offence have been recovered from their possession.After due investigation, appellants have been charge sheeted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The Sessions Judge has made over the case for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur.The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 (2 counts against appellants Ramesh and Raju and under sections 147, 148, 307/149 (3 counts) of the I.P.C. against other appellants.Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the trial Court had committed an illegality in appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective.He further submitted that none of the injured person have sustained any fracture on any part of the body.As per statement of Dr. B.D. Gattani (P.W.-12), all the injured persons have sustained simple injuries like contusions and abrasions.In these circumstances, there was no evidence on record in regard to punishable offences under Section 307/149 of the I.P.C. against the appellants.It is further submitted that at the most the offence proved against the appellants was to the extent of Section 323/149 of the I.P.C. and the same is compoundable.The appellants have already entered into a compromise, therefore, on the basis of compromise, the appellants may be acquitted from the charges.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.I have perused the impugned judgment alongwith the statement of injured Vinod, Pintya, Manoj and Virendra and statements of Dr. R.K. Khare (P.W.-8) and Dr. B.D. Gattani (P.W.-12).On the basis of aforesaid, it is proved that appellants have assaulted Vinod, Pintya, Manoj and Virendra and thereby they sustained simple injuries like contusions and abrasions.In these circumstances, at the most, only offence under Section 4 323/149 of the I.P.C. has been proved against the appellants.Further the trial Court had committed an illegality in recording the conviction under Section 307/149 of the I.P.C. Since the appellants have already entered into a compromise and resolved the dispute out of the court.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction recorded under Section 307/149 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the trial Court.Also heard on I.A.No.8706/2015 which is first application under Section 397 read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant-Akram S/o Abdul Gaffar The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-The applicant was on bail during trial.Presently, he is reported to be under custody.After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18.02.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.C.C.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The other two accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and the order passed in M.Cr.4467/17 reads as under :-"Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that after eight years of marriage the deceased has committed suicide and the present applicant Bapu is brother-in-law and the applicant No.2 Mangibai is sister-in-law.It has been stated that there is no dying declaration nor any report has been lodged by anyone prior to suicide, however, on the basis of omnibus statement made by the parents of the girl, crime has been registered.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.Her contention is that a Panchayat has taken place earlier on the basis of compliant made by the girl and therefore, question of of grant of bail does not arise.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case but without commenting on merits, at this stage, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicants' arrest, the applicants be released on bail on their each furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with separate surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.It is further directed that this order shall remain operative only for a period of thirty days from today and in the meanwhile the applicant shall apply for regular bail before the Court of competent jurisdiction.Certified copy, as per Rules.(S.C.SHARMA) JUDGE sk

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

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

The petitioner was arrested on 03.09.2019 and remained in custody of BAIL APPLN.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply.-- Theprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are notinconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest,search and seizure, attachment, confiscation,investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act."Brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act was conducted on the premises of the Petitioner and other persons on 02.08.2017 in New Delhi and other places.During the course of search, at the premises of the Petitioner in Delhi at B-2/107, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, an amount of 41,03,600/- was recovered in cash.BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 2 of 192484/2019 Page 10 of 19 laundering running into at least 143 Crores.2484/2019 Page 11 of 19 incriminating documents revealed that illicit and unaccounted cash at least 143 crores were generated by the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with his associates.Out of said generated amount, a small part of 8,59,69,100/- was found and seized during search.Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah is the person who manages and maintains the tainted cash of petitioner with the active participation/connivance of Sh.Rajendra N., Sh.Sachin Narayan and others.It is also seen that the properties where the search operations were carried out either belong to petitioner or his associates and were in active control of the petitioner.The persons who have been found to be in possession of tainted cash have stated that the cash belongs to the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 11 of 19The transactions as recorded in the incriminating documents recovered indicate that he has generated large sums of money and looking into the position he has been holding as Minister for several times in the State Government of Karnataka and using some Government Servants and he is authority for furtherance of his conspiracy for both generation of huge amount of money through misuse of his official position and business relations is not ruled out as the statement given by various persons have already emphasized that all the money they were handling belonged to the petitioner and all his family members like mother, wife, daughter have shown phenomenal growth in assets in the period when he was holding high position which has not come out of legitimate business which he is claiming.The petitioner has directly as well as indirectly been involved in the process, concealment, possession, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime which was directly/indirectly derived as a result of BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 13 of 19 criminal activity relating to schedule offence.BAIL APPLN.Some part of the tainted cash was claimed as agricultural income and was directly invested in immovable properties without routing through bank accounts where other part of the tainted cash deposited/ transferred in Bank accounts of distant relatives and associate was transferred to close family relatives like mother, father, wife and daughter of petitioner.In all these statements, the petitioner did not mention that there was BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 14 of 19 documentary evidence for the agricultural income earned by his father, which is now being used to explain the source of investment in properties.However, in the instant bail application, the petitioner has mentioned about a certificate from the Tehsildar to justify his father's agricultural income.It prima facie appears to have been created as an after thought as there is neither any date of issuance of the certificate nor Tehsildar has recorded the basic details like landholding, crops grown etc. for certifying the agricultural income to the tune of Rs.25 lacs.These laptops have been sent for forensic examination.It is further submitted that the petitioner has held high offices of Minister.From his means, position and standing there is every likelihood that he would employ every means to frustrate the investigations against him.Furthermore, his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses.BAIL APPLN.He was arrested on 3rd September, 2019 and remained 15 days in the custody of respondent and thereafter in judicial custody.He shall not leave the country without permission of Court.(iii).Also shall make himself available for investigation, if required by the prosecuting agency.BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 18 of 19CRL.M.A. 37260/2019 and CRL.M.A. 38212/2019(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE OCTOBER 23, 2019 Ms/p BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 19 of 19BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 19 of 19Thereafter, the Income Tax Department filed 3 complaints against the Petitioner before the Special Court, Bengaluru, u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alleging offences under the Income Tax Act. Pursuant thereto, the Income Tax BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 2 of 19 Department proceeded to grant sanction to prosecute for offences punishable u/s 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act and section 120B of I.P.C and filed a 4th complaint against the Petitioner under section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Special Court, Bengaluru took cognizance and proceeded to register a complaint against the Petitioner u/s 276C(1) and 277 of the IT Act and section 120B, 193 and 197 of I.P.C.On 29.08.2018, an ECIR i.e ECIR/04/HQ/2018 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi.The respondent issued another summons u/s 50 of the Act on the same day i.e. 29.08.2019 at 9.40 PM at the residence of the Petitioner in Bengaluru, to appear before him on the next date i.e. 30.08.2019 at 1PM in Delhi.The Petitioner participated in the said summons for 4 days (33 hours) continuously and on 03.09.2019, the Petitioner was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate.BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 3 of 19BAIL APPLN.2484/2019 Page 3 of 19The petitioner was admitted on 4 occasions since his arrest in the RML Hospital complaining of chest pain, high BP and other ailments.Even after discharge from the hospital the petitioner had grossly fluctuating BP and was diagnosed with unstable angina.However, on 25.09.2019 the Ld.Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Sr.Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted, the offences under Section 276C(1), 277 of the Income Tax Act and Section 193, 199 r.w.s.120B IPC that have been alleged against the Petitioner do not constitute a predicate offence as per the schedule given in the PML Act. The offence contained in Section 120B IPC alleged against the present Petitioner cannot be used as a standalone predicate offence in the absence of any other schedule offence under the IPC or any other penal statute to make out a case against the Petitioner of money laundering under the PML Act. Moreover, there is no conspiracy to commit a 'Schedule Offence' and therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions of PML Act on the basis of Section 120B IPC alone.Furthermore, the High Court of Karnataka in its judgment dated 29.08.2019 in W.P. No. 6210/2019, left the question w.r.t Section 120B open as regards BAIL APPLN.Anjaneya, an Assistant Liaison Officer in Govt. of Karnataka and a close associate of the petitioner, was subjected to search u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002and two laptops & mobile phone belonging to the petitioner were recovered from his house.He has tried to hide the evidences by placing his personal laptops in other person's custody.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record.The petitioner had challenged the said order in Revision Petition No. 955/2019 filed before the High Court of Karnataka which granted stay of further proceedings vide order dated 20.08.2019 in the said 4th complaint case pending before the Special Court, Bengaluru.

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

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

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have perused the materials available on record.4.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:"4.I am aware that Thiru Selvaraj is in remand in M1 Madhavaram Police Station Cr.No.610/2018, M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.No.346/2018 and 347/2018 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.He has not moved any bail application for M1 Madhavaram Police Station Cr.No.610/2018, M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.No.346/2018 and 347/2018 cases.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Selvaraj are taking action to take him on bail on M1 Madhavaram Police Station Cr.No.610/2018, M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.No.346/2018 and 347/2018 cases by filing bail application before the appropriate Court.In a similar case registered u/s 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 & 506(ii) IPC in M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.No.1141/2015 bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur in Crl.Hence I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in M1 Madhavaram Police Station Cr.No.610/2018,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 65 Pg 29.04.2016 W.P.7125(W) of 2016 (Smt. Monica Paul vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Ranjan Kali Mr. Partha Pratim Kanjilal.........for the petitioner Mr. Sakya Sen Mr. Tapas Ballav Mondal............for the State The petitioner is aggrieved by tardy and inept investigation of Dum Dum Police Station F.I.R. No. 289 of 2016 dated April 07, 2016 under sections 323/354D/307 /504/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the State submits that the accused has fled to Jammu & Kashmir and efforts are on to track his whereabouts for securing his arrest.There shall be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He further submitted that petitioner is ranked as A2 and A1 has already released on bail.Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and set fire on Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9270 of 2020 the house and the door was completely burned which worth about Rs.1,00,000/-.(Rupees One Lakh Only).Hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Page 2 of 6Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.917 of 2020, within a period of four weeks from the date on which the order copy made ready, and on such deposit the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two blood related sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9270 of 2020 [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.O.P.No.9270 of 2020 24.06.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 447, 324, 436 and 506 (ii) of IPC, in Crime No.917 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and abused him with filthy language and also set fire.Hence the complaint.[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.917 of 2020, within a period of four weeks from the date on which the order copy made ready and the receipt shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned.[c] the final order in respect of the said deposit shall be passed by the learned trial Judge at conclusion of trial.[d] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[f] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Page 4 of 6[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.24.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order dh ToThe Judicial Magistrate - I, Thiruvallur.The Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Thiruvallur District.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9270 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J dh Crl.

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

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

Having blatantly evaded the process of law, the Respondent thereafter tried to create a facade of alleged cooperation by surrendering before the Ld.Special Judge (PMLA), only after his arrest in the said case, which fact of surrender after arrest in another case is duly recorded in the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA).Learned senior counsels submitted that the role of the respondent/accused has surfaced after deportation of Rajiv Saxena on 31.01.2019 from UAE and the arrest of Sushen Mohan Gupta and his concerned foreign entities, received proceeds of crime directly from Interstellar Technologies Limited and he had received funds from both the chains of money laundering involved in the present case.The accused, using the guise of shell companies in the name of others, accumulated proceeds of crime, which have been parked and later laundered to reach the desired beneficiaries including the accused amongst other.As per ED, the proceeds of crime has been deposited in the accounts of different companies owned by accused.As per allegations, the respondent Ratul Puri is a key link to unearth the modus operandi adopted by-other accused persons and to determine last mile connectivity of the proceeds of crime in the instant case.As per ED, the diary of Sushen Mohan Gupta and emails recovered from Rajiv Saxena shows that accused was in receipt of proceeds of crime.He is the Chairman of Board of Directors of Hindustan Power Projects.He has permanent abode in Delhi and is living with his family.There is no possibility of accused tampering with the evidence or CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 17 of 22 influencing the witness.He has about 21000 employees working in his organization.On 10.06.2016, 1st supplementary complaint was filed wherein Christian Michel James, Media Exim Pvt. Ltd., R.K. Nanda and J.B. Subramanian were arrayed as Accused for money laundering and the Ld.On 17.07.2018 3rd Supplementary Prosecution complaint arraying various other Accused was filed and process was issued against the said Accused on 24.07.2018, while further investigation continued.The Accused Christian Michel James was extradited from the UAE on 04.12.2018 and certain crucial aspects of the case came to light after his arrival, Thereafter, Rajiv Saxena was deported from the UAE on 31.01.2019 and further investigation revealed certain crucial aspects of the case.Complaint was filed before the Ld.Special Judge against various Accused persons, on which process was issued, while further investigation continued.Thereafter, 5th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed before the Ld.Once the Anticipatory Bail Application of the Respondent was dismissed by the Ld.Even after his period of ED remand, the Respondent was interrogated in Tihar Jail on 22.10.19, 23.10.19, 31.10.19 after seeking permission from the Ld. Special Judge.Thereafter, 6th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed by the Petitioner on 02.11.2019 and the Ld.Special Judge was pleased to issue process against the Respondent and others vide order dated 02.11.2019, while further investigation continued.The said Prosecution Complaint duly highlighted the role of the Respondent in the commission of the offence of money laundering and further investigation is still ongoing.CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 6 of 22Learned Additional Solicitor General further argued that clinching evidence has come on record to show the complicity of the Respondent in the instant case.Investigation has revealed that the Respondent has made all possible attempts to influence/intimidate the witnesses in the investigation and hamper the investigation of the instant case, apart from the destruction/disposal of crucial evidence.The Respondent made his wife take a flimsy ground of not joining the investigation citing the medical condition of the father of the Respondent, which is further fortified by the records collected during investigation of the case.He further made her lie about their proximity and asked her not to join investigation.Moreover, he took away the i-Pad of his wife, which is believed to contain crucial leads in the case, only to derail the investigation.The Respondent sent an email dated 15.07.2019 on behalf of his father stating that his father is bed ridden and cannot come to the office of the ED.At the same time, his father was in Dehradun celebrating his birthday.The Respondent, with the active aid of Niamat Bakshi, is involved in the hiding/destruction of crucial evidence of the case and had got burnt certain documents.The written instructions for the same apart from the ashes of the burnt documents have been recovered, which has, also been corroborated by the evidence adduced in this regard.CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 7 of 22Further, investigation has revealed that Rajiv Saxena was influenced by the Respondent not to disclose that the payments received by him from Global Services FZE, and not to give any information/documents/ statement linking his father or his uncle in any matter.He further influenced/pressurized him to give selective/no information to the Petitioner.However, investigation has revealed that the Respondent was in touch with Rajiv Saxena, directly and also through his lawyers.Further, Sandeep Narang was approached by the Respondent and all attempts were made to influence him to not make the full and true disclosures before the Petitioner's department.Mr. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General further submitted that reliable intelligence inputs have further confirmed that there are a large number of documents/material related to the Respondent, which have been moved around in bags, which are believed to be containing crucial leads in the case and are still hidden, and the Petitioner is taking all possible steps to recover the same.One such instance of the same pertains to the email ids [email protected] and [email protected], wherein the Respondent denied any association with the said email ids, but when confronted with emails wherein his footprints were evident, he recalls such transactions, while conveniently ignoring the other transactions.On the other hand, Mr.Kapil Sibbal with Mr.Since then, it was making attempt to enter the competition.Mr. Bruno Spagnolini of M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd. started paying kickbacks to Mr. Guido Ralph Haschke and Mr. Carlo Valentino Ferdinando Gerosa under the guise of several consultancy contract executed between M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd. and M/s Gordian Services.The proceeds of crime was also routed through co-accused Christian Michel James.Later on, CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 13 of 22 money was also transferred to India through different companies and co- accused Gautam Khaitan had played vital role in facilitating transfer of illegal gratification to India.The respondent has provided documents to the petitioner and since the supplementary complaint has already been filed qua respondent herein and statement of witnesses have already been recorded, there is no chance of tampering of evidence or influencing witnesses on the part of the respondent.Moreover, the petitioner has failed to link the accused with the proceeds of crime as Excel Sheets provided by Rajiv Saxena are not admissible in evidence and are easily modifiable document.The allegations made against the respondent in the complaint filed by petitioner are contradictory and self destructive and are not worthy of reliance.The petitioner has filed incomplete supplementary complaint just to defeat the right of bail of accused under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., however, not relied upon by the learned Special Judge.To strengthen his arguments, learned senior counsel for respondent has relied upon the cases of L K Advani & Ors vs CBI: 1997 JCC 294; CBI vs V. C, Shukla & Ors: 1998 (3) SCC 410; Common Cause and ors vs. UOI and Ors.: rendered in WP (Civil) No. 505/2015 dated 11.01.2017; Mohd. Akbar vs State of Chhattisgarh: 2006 SCC Online CHH-30; Sameer M. Bhujbai vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement in bail application no. 286/2018 and other cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts.Hence, there is no ground in the present petition to interfere in the impugned order whereby the learned Special Judge has granted bail after completion of around 100 days in judicial custody.In case of Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana: (1995) 1 SCC 349, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.Out of 25 accused, 60% to 70% are in foreign countries.Letter Rogatories (LRs) have already been issued.The petition is accordingly dismissed.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1999 (Sessions Case No. 82 of 1993) thereby sentencing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer further R.I. for 3 months each for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.After marriage her husband, her brother-in-law-and sister-in-laws used to torture Anjana severely.On 24.6.90 at about 10.30 p.m. P.W. 1 received information through Durgapur P.S. about death of his sister Anjana Kar.On that day he received two letters of his sister Anjana sent by her through the husband of his elder sister.After going through the contents of the letters he and other inmates of his house learnt about deep rooted conspiracy and they apprehended that Anjana has either been murdered by her in-laws or she was instigated to commit suicide.In the said letters his sister revealed that as her father could not give the articles of dowry as per demand she was subjected to torture in her in-laws house.In the marriage of Anjana his father gave to the bridegroom party liquidated money of Rs. 10,000/, gold ornaments of 10 bharies, 1 cot, dressing table, almirah and other articles as per demand of the bridegroom party.In the said letters his deceased sister informed that her husband, brother-in-law Tapan Kar and sister-in-laws used to torture her.His sister was not allowed to write any letter to him or to his father and if she wanted to write any letter such letters were opened by her husband and brother-in-law Tapan Kar to know the contents of the letters and if the letters were beyond their choice they used to torn the letters.She had to bear scolding for the cause of death of her mother-in-law soon after her marriage and over that matter she was called unlucky in her in-iaws house, though in fact her mother-in-law died after her third heart attack.P.W. 5 is a relative of accused persons and is a formal witness.P.W. 10 is the home-guard who brought the deadbody of Anjana Kar to the police station first, and thereafter, to the Rampurhat Sub-Divisional Hospital Morgue for post-mortem examination.P.W. 13 is a neighbour of P.W. 1 at Durgapur and accompanied P.W. 1 to Rampurhat at the time of lodging FIR and next time on 1.7.90 at the time of seizure of two letters written by the deceased and other articles which were physics practical book containing handwriting of deceased and two marriage invitation cards.P.W. 14 is also a formal witness who came to Rampurhat at the time of producing the letters, physics practical book and marriage invitation cards to the police officer at Rampurhat.P.W. 17 is a practising Advocate of Rampurhat Court who stated that accused Tapan Kar (since deceased) was a member of the Rampurhat Bar.The G.D. Entry No. 954 dated 24.6.90 (Ext. 15), G.D. Entry No. 961 dated 24.6.90 (Ext. 16) and G.D. Entry No. 972 dated 25.6.90 (Ext. 17) written by Ashok Kumar Ghosh was proved by this witness.He also proved the inquest report (Ext. 5/2), formal FIR (Ext. 18), six seizure lists (Exts.6/B, 6/1/B, 6/2/B, 7/3, 8/5 and 19) wliich were prepared and recorded by Ashok Kumar Ghosh.Anjana died on 24.6.90 inner in-laws house by committing suicide by hanging.On 24.6.90 at about 10.30 p.m. they received news of death of Anjana communicated by Arabindo P.S. of Durgapur.His sister Anjana was ill-treated by her husband and other in-laws and she was subjected to both physical and mental torture by them.The accused persons inflicted torture on her as their demands were not fulfilled by them.About a fortnight after marriage of Anjana, her mother-in-law died and over this matter also she was treated as unlucky and had to digest abusive remarks.After their return to Durgapur they found two letters written by Anjana on pages of diary and the letters were kept in the bag of his brother-in-law.This witness proved the handwritings of these two letters as the handwriting of his sister Anjana and the letters were marked as Exts.2 and 2/A. He also proved some other writings of his sister Anjana found in different pages of diary of LIC which was seized by deceased police officer Ashok Ghosh on 24.6.90 and the diary was found in the drawer of dressing table inside the room where the deadbody of Anjana was found hanging.In the said diary the deceased wrote several letters out of which one was addressed to this witness also, one was addressed to 'bardi' and 'chordi' thereby meaning the female accused persons being sister-in-laws of Anjana and another letter addressed to 'maa' and 'baba' i.e. parents of the deceased.P.W. 1, thereafter, stated that at the time of marriage ceremony of Anjana his father gave 6 bharies gold ornaments and Its.10,000/- in cash apart from utensils, dresses and other furniture.They could not give gold ornaments of 10 bharies as his father was a poor employee though they had the intention to give the remaining 4 bharies of gold ornaments subsequently.They also could not give a 'benarasi' saree which was promised to be given during the marriage ceremony.After 'astamangala' he did not receive any information of his sister Anjana and as such his elder brother-in-law and his youngest sister were sent to Rampurhat for obtaining information of Anjana.The cross-examination of P.W. 1 reveals that before lodging FIR they did not make any allegation at any police station in Durgapur.He was not present at the time of finalization of marriage of Anjana with Arup Kar as at that time his father was alive.He had some personal knowledge and he heard other facts from his father concerning the marriage talks of Anjana.He was not present at the time of execution of 'lagnapatra'.He did not produce and submit the two letters written by Anjana at the time of lodging FIR.During the 'sradh' ceremony of mother-in-law of Anjana his father attended the said function.He admitted writing of his sister Anjana inside the said diary under date 21st August, 1990 and letter of his father dated 20th June, 1990 which were marked as Exts.A and B respectively.He handed over the diary, the physics practical khata and other articles to police.On 24.6.90 at about 10 a.m. he returned to home and found P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 who had returned from Rampurhat and at that time he learnt under what circumstances the said two letters written by Anjana were found in the bag of P.W. 11 Ashok Sarkar.He did not see whether in the lagnapatra' there was mention of dowry.He denied the defence suggestion that his sister Anjana had an affair with Uttam Biswas and for the fear of Uttam they did not bring Anjana to Dur gapur after marriage.He also denied the defence suggestion that the demands of dowry as mentioned in the FIR were fabricated and concocted.He also denied the defence suggestion that for her affair with Uttam Biswas Anjana could not accept her marriage with Arup Kar.After marriage of Anjana he did not visit her matrimonial home.P.W. 6 is a neighbour of P.W. 1 and he came to Rampurhat twice, first at the time of lodging FIR by P.W. 1 after expiry of Anjana and next time on 1.7.90 when they produced the two letters written by Anjana, joint photograph of Anjana and her husband, marriage invitation cards of two families and the physics practical note book of Anjana which were seized through seizure lists marked as Exts.In cross-examination he stated that he visited the police station at the instance of father of deceased and Ashok Sarkar handed over the aforesaid documents to the police.The name of the deceased appears on the physics practical note book.P.W. 9, the autopsy surgeon in his evidence stated that on 25.6.90 he held the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Anjana Kar.He found one oblique non-continuous ligature mark high up in the neck above the hyoid bone, the knot mark being on the left side.The groove parchmentised.On dissection, sub-cutenous tissue was found to be parchmentised and no fracture was detected in the hyoid bone.Marks of saliva was seen to be dripping from the right angle of the mouth.Viscera was preserved for chemical examination.He opined that the injuries found on the deadbody of Anjana were ante-mortam in nature.Subsequently, after receiving FSL report he formed his final opinion.He opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia by hanging which was ante-mortem and suicidal in nature.The reports submitted by him were marked Exts.His cross-examination reveals that at the time of holding post-mortem examination he also examined the inquest report.P.W. 11 in his evidence gave the picture before the Court that Anjana, his sister-in-law after marriage went to her matrimonial home.He visited the matrimonial home of Anjana first on the day of 'boubhat' and thereafter during 'astamangala' when he went to her matrimonial home for taking her back to her paternal home.Thereafter on 23.6.90 he visited the matrimonial home of Anjana as his mother-in-law told him to take information of her as they did not receive any news from Anjana for a long time.On 23.6.90 his youngest sister-in-law Kakali accompanied him and they reached Rampurhat between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. They enquired from the deceased Anjana as to why she did not contact with them by any letter and why she did not send any information to her father's house.They learnt from her that she was not allowed by the accused persons to write any letter or to send any information to her father's house.She further reported to them that she was being tortured by the accused persons and P.W. 11 found some marks of injuries on her person.Anjana made allegation before them that she was tortured by the accused persons holding her responsible for the death of her mother-in-law designing her as a witch.Kakali called her husband Arup and he came before them when Kakali asked Arup as to why he was torturing the deceased.Over this question Arup became furious and twisted the hands of deceased Anjana out of anger.Arup also asked the deceased Anjana to leave that room to which P.W. 11 raised protest.Arup in their presence again held Anjana responsible for the death of his mother and made further allegation that Anjana did not pass B.Sc.Examination and that during marriage he was given old gold ornaments and old sarees.Arup Kar stated that a day will come when he will laugh and his mother-in-law will be weeping.Staying the night in the matrimonial home of Anjana they left Rampurhat at dawn and came back to Durgapur.After coming back to Durgapur when he was bringing out wearing apparels from his kit bag he found two letters written by the deceased Anjana on pages of diary which were addressed to her mother and his elder sister, that is his wife.He handed over the letters to his father-in-law.On that very day i.e. on 24.6.90 at about 10.30 p.m. they received the information of death of Anjana.On 1.7.90 he came to Rampurhat P.S. and handed over two marriage invitation cards, those two letters written by deceased found in his bag on 24.6.90, one practical note book and some photographs of the marriage of deceased.In his cross-examination we find that he was present at the time of final talk of settlement of marriage between Anjana and Arup Kar.At the time of marriage of Anjana the female accused Maya and Chhaya i.e. sister-in-laws of Anjana were already married and they used to live in their matrimonial homes.On 23.6.90 Anjana did not tell him to take her away to Durgapur but she requested him to seek the permission of her father-in-law before taking her away.He denied the defence suggestion; that deceased Anjana never made any allegation to him against the accused persons and also denied the defence suggestion that the documents which he handed over to his father-in-law were manufactured.She stated that as they were not getting any information from Anjana for a long period they came to Rampurhat to enquire about her.They reached her matrimonial home between 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. and enquired from her as to how she was in her matrimonial home.Anjana reported to them that she was not allowed to make any contact with them and she was also not allowed to write any letter to them.She alleged that her husband Arup Kar used to torture her physically.Other accused persons also used to torture her and the cause of torture was dissatisfaction of the accused persons with the gold ornaments given in her marriage.The accused persons also alleged that she was unlucky.After hearing those from Anjana she called her husband Arup Kar who came down from first floor.She then asked Arup Kar as to why he was torturing her sister Anjana and over this Arup became annoyed and he twisted the hands of her sister out of anger.She requested her sister Anjana to adjust in matrimonial home.Her sister Anjana requested her to send some sarees as she was in dearth of saree.They came back to Durgapur next morning and on that very-night received the news of death of Anjana.She admitted that Artjana told her that there was none in the house save and except the maid servant to whom she could talk.Arup Kar at that time was working as LIC agent.On 23.6.90 she did not see the female accused persons in the matrimonial home of Anjana.He opined that agreements are significant and sufficient to prove their common authorship.In cross-examination this witness stated that there may be variation in strokes and flows but significant writing features remain unchanged.A few days prior to death of her sister her mother accompanied by her another sister Kakali (P.W. 12) went to the house of accused Chhaya Mitra who resides at Durgapur in order to collect information about her sister Anjana.But Chhaya Mitra did not meet her mother and her mother was driven out of that house.Thereafter, her mother came to her matrimonial home at Purulia and reported that she was not getting information of Anjana for a long time.On 23.6.90 her husband accompanied by Kakali came to the matrimonial home of Anjana at Rampurhat.On 24.6.90 at morning they returned back to her parents house at Durgapur and they reported about torture of accused Arup Kar on Anjana.Her husband while bringing out his wearing apparels from the bag found two letters written by her deceased sister Anjana, one was addressed to her and the other to her mother.In those two letters the deceased depicted everything about torture on her at her matrimonial home.It should be remembered that Anjana died within 48 days of her marriage and she was still a newly married wife.A newly married wife in her matrimonial home is expected to wear some gold ornaments on her person.These evidence and circumstances clearly show that there was no torture at all on Anjana by the appellants after marriage demanding dowry and the prosecution has introduced this story only for harassment of the appellants and to put them behind the bar.Apparently, the above submission seems to be convincing, but we find that this submission has also no force when we consider the entire evidence and circumstances.It was unexpected that at the time of 'sradh' ceremony when the entire family was in grief and mourning, the newly married daughter would make complain to her father about torture on her in her matrimonial home during 'sradh' ceremony of her mother-in-law.Neither in FIR nor in evidence of P.W. 1 it was mentioned at the time of the 'sradh' ceremony of mother-in-law of Anjana there was torture on her which was heard by his father.Evidence of P.W. 11 reveals that they reqiiested Anjana to go with them but she told that unless her father-in-law permits her she cannot leave her matrimonial home.From evidence we find that on that day her father-in-law was not in the matrimonial home and he had gone to Bolpur, matrimonial home of one of his daughters i.e., house of one of the female accused persons.Evidence and circumstances make it clear that when P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 learnt about such a pathetic life of Anjana and saw conduct of her husband themselves with their own eyes they did not dare to leave her matrimonial home for that day.Evidence of P.W. 12 reveals that she requested her sister Anjana to adjust in her matrimonial home.Their evidence discloses the cruel and ruthless desire of Arup Kar when he disclosed stating that a day will come when he will laugh and reversely his mother-in-law shall be weeping.On the basis of such FIR Rampurhat P.S. Case No. 74/90 dated 24.6.90 under Section 304B of the IPC was started against the husband and other in-laws.After completing investigation the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) submitted chargesheet against four accused persons under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC.The trial that followed ended in conviction of the four appellants.During pendency of the appeal appellant No. 1 Tapan Kar expired on 17th January, 2005 and as such the appeal stands abated against him.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses namely, P.W. 1 Krishnendu Palit (the informant and brother of deceased Anjana), P.W. 2 Abdul Mahasin, P.W. 3 Sekhar Sinha, P.W. 4 Satyendra Nath Das, P.W. 5 Sandip Kumar Roy @ Gopal, P.W.6 Subir Sengupta, P.W. 7 Mirza Zakin Beg (scribe of FIR), P.W. 8 Somnath Sinha, P.W. 9 Dr. Gopal Chandra Saha (post-mortem surgeon), P.W. 10 Monohar Sk.(homeguard), P.W. 11 Ashok Kumar Sarkar (brother-in-law of P.W. 1), P.W. 12 Kakali Palit (sister of deceased), P.W. 13 Debasish Saha, P.W. 14 Amar Kumar Sarkar.P.W. 15 Tapan Kumar Roy (hand writing expert), P.W. 16 Anita Sarkar (elder sister of deceased), P.W. 17 Kazi Saimuddin, P.W. 18 S.I. of Police Abdul Zalil, P.W. 19 Rabindra Nath Chatterjee (retired police officer-cum-part I.O.), P.W. 20 Uttam Biswas and P.W. 21 Satyaban Mondal.P.W. 2 was a witness of inquest as well as seizure of diary and the wearing apparels as well as ornaments of deceased.P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are also witnesses of seizure and P.W. 4 was also a witness of inquest.Before that at Durgapur P.W. 11 found two letters written by her sister inside his kit bag which were kept in the bag beyond their knowledge.On 1.7.90 she again visited Rampurhat and came to police station along with P.W. 11 and others and handed over the letters, photographs, practical note book and marriage invitation letters.Her cross-examination reveals that mother-in-law of Anjana expired 15/16 days after marriage of Anjana and her father attended the 'sradh' ceremony.She had talk with the police at Rampurhat on 1.7.90 and she stated about torture on her sister Anjana by the accused persons as the accused persons were not satisfied with the gold ornaments given in the marriage.She identified the said letters which were Exts.2 and 2/A.She denied the defence suggestion that her sister Anjana used to maintain correspondence of letter with Uttam Biswas.She did not state to I.O. that Anjana continued correspondence of letter with Uttam Biswas even after her marriage.She was present in her father's house at Durgapur when after marriage Arup Kar visited her father's house on account of 'astamangala'.Evidence of P.W. 19 (I.O.) reveals that he sent the two letters written by deceased, the LLC diary for the year 1990, physics practical note book of deceased to the Question and Document Examination Bureau for examination and opinion.He collected FSL report and obtained final opinion of doctor as to the cause of death of deceased.He also received the report of handwriting expert.P.W. 16 Anita Sarkar stated to him that from the letter shown by him to her she learnt that Anjana had love affair with Uttam Biswas.She also stated to him that Anjana committed suicide on her own and did not hold anybody responsible for the same.His evidence further reveals that he also examined Uttam Biswas and learnt from him that Anjana was his distant relative.His evidence also gives us the light that after completing investigation he came to the conclusion that Anjana had no intimacy with Uttam Biswas.His cross-examination reveals that Uttam Biswas stated to him that he could not understand as to why such a letter was sent to him.P.W. 20 is Uttam Biswas who in his evidence stated that Anjana was not personally known to him and he had no correspondence of letter with her.Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the FIR P.W. 1 mentioned about the two letters written by deceased Anjana which were found in the bag of P.W. 11, but those two letters were not produced and handed over to police at the time of lodging FIR at Rampurhat P.S. He further submitted that P.W. 1 in his evidence in cross-examination stated that he handed over the diary, khata and other articles to police.From Ext. 6/1/B, the seizure list dated 24.6.90 it appears that the sky blue LIC diary was seized from the drawer of dressing table in the bed room of deceased and key of the drawer was found tied with one corner of saree of deceased.P.W. 1, therefore, cannot produce the diary before the police and he gave wrong statement in Court.In our opinion, this submission of Mr. Basu does not make P.W. 1 an untrustworthy witness, it was a mistake on his part during cross-examination due to his failure to understand the nature of the question.It appears to us that he wanted to signify that the two letters written by his deceased sister were in the pages of the diary.From the inquest report, from the seizure list and from seizure witnesses it is clear that the said diary was seized after it was found in the drawer of the dressing table inside the bed room of deceased.The two letters written by deceased were in fact produced at Rampurhat P.S. along with photographs of marriage, marriage invitation cards of both the families and one physics practical note book by P.W. 11 Ashok Sarkar at Rampurhat P.S. when those were seized by two seizure lists marked as Exts.In our opinion, this mistake of P.W. 1 is not at all sufficient to destroy his evidence.Mr. Basu also submitted that P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 did not narrate to P.W. 1 about the incident dated 23.6.90 which took place in the matrimonial home of Anjana at Rampurhat.In our opinion, this submission has no force as P.W. 1 in his evidence stated that on 24.6.90 he returned to his house at about 10 a.m. and heard everything.It is natural that family members of P.W. 1 including his father and others would anxiously wait for the return of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 from Rampurhat, the matrimonial home of Anjana and to know from them about Anjana and how she was leading her new life at her matrimonial home.Next point of attack of Mr. Basu was non-production of 'lagnapatra' and it was his contention that failure of prosecution to produce 'lagnapatra' in Court totally negates the prosecution story of demand of dowry.It was contended by him that production of 'lagnapatra' would have revealed whether there was any demand of dowry in the marriage by the bridegroom party.We are not convinced with this submission as in our opinion non-production of lagnapatra' during trial is not at all vital to throw the prosecution case out of Court when we find direct evidence of witnesses and letters of deceased and other papers to show that what was the demand of dowry in the marriage and what was paid by father of deceased Anjana in the marriage and what were the causes of discontent of the appellants for the failure to supply total demand of dowry.We find from evidence of P.W. 1 that in the marriage there was demand of 10 bharies gold ornaments and some good quality sarees including 'benarasi' saree but his father could not pay gold ornaments of 10 bharies.His father could give only 6 bharies gold ornaments and Rs. 10,000/- in cash besides utensils, dresses and other furniture.They could not give 'benarasi' saree.The deceased in her letters marked as Exts.2 and 2A clearly depicted her torture on her for failure of her father to fulfil all the demands of dowry promised at the time of marriage and taunt of the appellants for providing some inferior quality sarees and other articles.It was further argued by Mr. Basu that there is no evidence that during 'astamangala' when the deceased came to her father's house she made any complain or allegation regarding torture on her concerning dowry.In our opinion, this submission has also no force and it does not destroy the prosecution case.It was not the prosecution case that within 7 days of marriage the deceased made complain to her father relating to torture on her demanding dowry.Even if she was taunted for inferior quality of articles of dowry it was unexpected that in presence of her husband during 'astamangala' she would make complain of torture on her so as to make her life precarious in matrimonial home.It appears to us from evidence at the time of 'astamangala' torture on her did not start and it was started only after death of her mother-in-law for which she was taunted by the appellants as unlucky girl and witch.Next contention of Mr. Basu for the appellants is that the inquest report reveals that at the time of death there were gold ornaments on the person of the deceased.A lady who was subjected to torture for dowry and that too concerning failure to pay balance gold ornaments is not expected to wear so many gold ornaments at the time of her death.We have carefully perused the inquest report and we find that only normal ornaments were found on the person of deceased Anjana at the time of her death and inquest.The inquest reveals that only two gold bangles on her left hand, one golden ring in the finger of left hand, one gold bangle on her right hand and one 'nakchabi' i.e. nose-ring were on her person besides iron and red 'pala' bangles.Those were the normal bangles and ornaments which can be found on the person of all newly married women.Mr. Basu further submitted that stay of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 in the matrimonial home of Anjana on the night of 23.6.90 is unusual after such incident at noon when allegedly the husband Arup Kar twisted hands of Anjana and taunted her again saying that she was responsible for the death of his mother with further complain that he was given old gold ornaments and old sarees.It was further argued by Mr. Basu that father of Anjana attended the 'sradh' ceremony coming to matrimonial home of Anjana after death of her mother-in-law.There is no evidence before the Court to show that either P.W. 1 or P.W. 12 or P.W. 16 stated that they learnt from their father story of torture on Anjana demanding dowry when their father attended 'sradh' ceremony for the death of mother-in-law of Anjana.Even if Anjana was tortured before death of her mother-in-law or immediately after the death of mother-in-law as a sensible lady she did not disclose it to her father during 'sradh' ceremony of her mother-in-law expecting future, good relation with husband and other in-laws in her matrimonial home.P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 came to enquire about Anjana as parents of Anjana did not receive any news of her for a long time since the 'astamangala'.No letter was received by them from Anjana containing news of her and being anxious they sent P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 to her matrimonial home.Ext. B which the defence brought in evidence reveals that in the said post card, written a few days before death of deceased, father of deceased expressed his anxiety due to not receiving any news of Anjana for a long time.Thereafter, evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 reveals the vivid story of torture on Anjana on 23.6.90 which we have already mentioned while discussing evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 and we do not intend to reproduce the same evidence.P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 stayed at matrimonial home of Anjana on the night of 23.6.90 only to have talk with her, to give her strength, courage and energy for adjusting in matrimonial home and also to console her.Rather they stayed purposefully so that during their stay on that day the husband did not dare to cause further torture on Anjana.From evidence and circumstances we can easily understand the grounds of stay of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 in matrimonial house of deceased on 23.6.90 though no question was put to P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 as to why they stayed in that house after such incident.He submitted that the incident dated 23.6.90 as transpires from evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 and evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 16 and the documentary evidence clearly prove that the deceased Anjana was subjected to torture on demand of dowry and it resulted into untimely death of a newly married wife only within 48 days of her marriage.We have discussed in detail the evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 and the circumstances transpired from their evidence which reveal the conduct of the husband which amounts to torture on deceased Anjana, his newly married wife.Mr. Basu for the appellants submitted that the two letters allegedly-written by the deceased are fabricated and manufactured.On 23.6.90 P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 came to the matrimonial house of deceased Anjana and initially these two witnesses had talk with Anjana.Why the deceased would secretly keep the letters in the bag of P.W. 11? It proves that the story introduced by P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 are imaginary and unbelievable.Considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and the circumstances we are unable to agree with the views of Mr. Basu.From the entire evidence and circumstances we find that Anjana was almost a captive lady like 'Rupkatha' story i.e., fairy tale stories in which princess was confined in 'Yakshapuri'.Evidence of P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 16 reveal that since 'astamangala' they did not receive any information of Anjana nor any letter from her.P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 after reaching at matrimonial home of Anjana learnt from her that she was not allowed to write any letter or to send any information to her father's house and she was not allowed to do so by the accused persons.They learnt that deceased had to bear with taunts on her for delivering old gold ornaments and old sarees in the marriage and failure of her father to supply balance 4 bharies gold ornaments and also teasing for death of her mother-in-law.In sixth a situation and after such incident dated 23.6.90 when the deceased was tortured in presence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 it was not possible for the deceased to handover the letters to P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 for fear of being detection of revealing tortures on her to her sister and other relations of parental house.Considering the writings of deceased in her letters as found in the pages of the diary and also in the letters marked as Exts.2 and 2/A we clearly find that she was an intelligent lady.She knew that, if she handed over the letters to P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 addressed to her mother and elder sister at noon, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 after reading the same would have charged the husband which conversely would have made her position more adverse or miserable.She knew that, if she handed over letters to P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 in front of her husband or during day time there would have been more torture on her and for that reason she did not handover the letters to P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 during day time or in presence of her husband and secretly kept the letters in bag of P.W. 11 so that the letters can safely reach Durgapur.From the said letters we find that she wrote the letters long back but could not drop those in post office as she was not allowed to go outside and she had the opportunity to send the letters to her parents through P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 when on 23.6.90 they came to her matrimonial home there were writings of deceased Anjana and in the pages of that diary she wrote those two letters.There is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 and their evidence establishes the story of torture on Anjana.If we exclude the letters of Anjana marked Exts.2 and 2/A from our consideration, the evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 proves torture on Anjana and torture was done on her by Arup Kar in presence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 on 23.6.90 which we have discussed earlier.Demand of dowry may be oral also.The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to check dowry deaths which were continuing despite the then prevailing laws.The object was not achieved and there were amendments by amending various provisions of the said Act and the related provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act. For that purpose Section 304B of the IPC was introduced and also the Section 498A of the IPC.At the same time, Sections 113A and 113B were introduced in the Evidence Act. Earlier, the definition of 'dowry' was limited to the time at or before the marriage, but after the amendment of the Act by Act 43 of 1986 w.e.f. 19.11.86 the definition of 'dowry' was extended to the period even after the marriage.In the present case, the evidence of the aforesaid P.Ws. are very clear and convincing.After a few days of the marriage, there was torture on the deceased Anjana as well as teasing and taunting on her for not supplying the gold ornaments as promised in the marriage and also not providing with 'benarasi' saree.They could not supply 'benarasi' saree in spite of their intention to deliver the same.The husband and others were not satisfied with the items given in the marriage by the father of the deceased and in presence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 the husband again taunted deceased saying that he was provided with old gold ornaments and old sarees.She was physicaly tortured also by the husband in presence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 when the husband twisted the hand of deceased.Not only that, the husband again teased her on 23.6.90 in presence of P.Ws.saying that the deceased was responsible for the death of his mother.From evidence it transpired that the husband and other in-laws teased the deceased saying her unlucky and witch.The demands as transpires from evidence cannot be said to be not in connection with the marriage.Hence the evidence clearly establishes demand for dowry in connection with the marriage and in the circumstances of the case constitutes to be a case falling with definition of dowry under Section 2 of 1961 Act and Section 304B of the IPC.There was torture also both physically and mentally on the same demand of dowry and it establishes the elements of offence under Section 498A of the IPC.We have already explained that the letters of the deceased marked as Exts.2 and 2/A gives us a picture of her sad experience and the torture, the taunts and the teasing she was receiving from his husband, her sister-in-laws and one brother-in-law in her matrimonial home after her marriage.The said letters discloses that the appellants teased her stating that her father delivered only 6/7 bharies gold instead of 10 bharies gold and did not supply 'benarasi' saree.She was also teased and held responsible for the death of her mother-in-law which occurred within 14/15 days of her marriage.Evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 revealed the detailed story as to how the husband tortured the deceased both physically and mentally in presence of such witnesses.If in presence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, the husband showed such a conduct it can easily be understood what conduct and behaviour the deceased received from her husband at night in their bed room, and it is clear in evidence that next afternoon i.e. on 24.6.90 the deceased committed suicide.After such evidence the entire burden was on the accused appellants to prove otherwise.The aforesaid evidence on the basis effects and circumstances bring to an inescapable conclusion that the incident of torture by the husband both physically and mentally as stated by P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, a day before the actual death of the deceased cumulatively with other evidence constitutes to be cruelty and harassment in connection with marriage and it has direct relation with the preceding evidence of demand of dowry and renewal of demand of dowry and as such in the present case the evidence and the circumstances covers both elements of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC.It was open to the accused persons to prove otherwise or dispel the evidence by means of evidence to destroy the deeming clause.The husband and others did not lead any evidence to dispel the presumption of the aforesaid sections as well as the prosecution evidence.The evidence clearly includes and proves harassment to the deceased within the meaning of Section 498A(b) as she was repeatedly coerced, teased, taunted for not meeting the demands leading to her mental torture and agony which ultimately led her to commit suicide.After scrutinising the evidence of prosecution witnesses namely, P.W. 1, P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 15, P.W. 16, P.W. 19 and P.W. 20 we find no ground to disbelieve their evidence and there was no defect or lacuna in their cross-examination which can impair value of their evidence.The learned Trial Court rightly believed the testimony of the said witness.From Exts.2 and 2/A as well as the letter found in the diary addressed to the husband (Ext. 3/4) the deceased clearly mentioned that her body and flesh was still pure which was indicative of the fact that before marriage she had no physical relation with anybody.But her husband did not try to understand her and suspected her on character and for that reason the husband did not use to behave well with her and seldom used to talk with her.From the trend of defence suggestion we find that the appellants tried to suspect her for an affair with one Uttam Biswas.From evidence of I.O. (P.W.19) it appears that after concluding investigation he came to the conclusion that Anjana had no intimacy with Uttam.Uttam Biswas as P.W. 20 in his evidence clearly stated that Anjana was not known to him and he had no relationship with her.It has been proved from cogent evidence that the husband under a mistaken suspicion or belief unnecessarily doubted his wife on her character which was totally unfounded.In view of our discussion made above we find that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the husband Arup Kar and has been able to bring home both the charges against the husband.The Trial Court rightly convicted the husband Arup Kar under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC and we affirm the judgment and order of conviction of Arup Kar under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.In the letters the deceased made allegations against the sister-in-law's concerning harsh words on her.In our opinion, those two letters in this case cannot be regarded as admissible evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act to prove torture on her demanding dowry by the female accused persons.Principal witnesses namely P.W. 1, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 16 did not specifically state in their evidence nature of torture perpetrated by the female accused persons on the deceased demanding dowry.Their evidence against the female accused persons are of general nature.The letters of deceased marked as Exts.2 and 2/A reveals that the female accused persons used to tease her, taunt her by using harsh languages and they were in the habit of taking away different articles from their parental home visiting the parental home after gap of 10/12 days.No such evidence transpired from P.W. 1, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 16 against the female accused persons.From evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 it appears that on 23.6.90 the female accused persons were not present in the matrimonial home of Anjana.The test of proximity behind the death of deceased to attract elements of torture "soon before her death" cannot be applied against the female accused persons and also the elements of torture within the ambit of Section 498A, IPC.We find that in this case evidence is mainly confined against the husband and not against the female accused persons i.e. the sister -in-laws of the deceased.Hence, considering the evidence on record so far as appellant Nos. 3 and 4 namely, Maya Mitra and Chhaya Mitra are concerned, we extend to them benefit of doubt and acquit them of the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC.Two female witnesses namely, Dhira Mukherjee and Pratima Some were examined by the I.O. and their statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC were also recorded but they were not examined in Court.We fail to understand what was the need of cross-examining the I.O. in respect of statement of those two female witnesses when the defence was that female accused persons were residing at their matrimonial homes at Durgapur and Bolpur respectively.The defence due to such cross-examination was able to bring access of the female accused persons at least twice into their parental home which was the matrimonial home of deceased Anjana.Fortunately for them, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 11, 12 and 16 was not specific on torture by female accused persons and the letters of deceased did not reveal specific parts of female accused persons and their absence on 23.6.90 in their father's house when P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 experienced torture on deceased by the husband and as 161, Cr.PC statements cannot be regarded as substantive evidence we extend benefit of doubt to the female accused persons.In view of the discussion made above and the aforesaid reasons we partly allow the appeal.The appellant No. 1 has already expired and the appeal has abated against him.Criminal section is directed to send down the Lower Court Records along with copy of judgment and order to the Trial Court for information and necessary action.Partha Sakha Datta, J.I agree.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 01:26:31 :::concerned Police Station on 17th, 18th and 19th June 2019 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m and thereafter, as and when called;(iii) The applicant shall not contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 01:26:31 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 15.5.2015 relating to Crime No.94/15 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 120-B/34 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.In the present case, the deceased was nephew of the applicant and therefore, no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would be applicable.Looking to the allegation made by the deceased in his suicidal note, the applicant was pressurizing to get dowry from his in-laws.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.opposes the application.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', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.I.A. No. 8146/2020, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Also heard on I.A. No. 9503/2018, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.In view of averments made in the application which supported by an affidavit of brother of the appellant, I.A. No. 9503/2018 is allowed.Delay of 1264 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.Also heard on the question of admission.This appeal seems to be arguable, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.There are fair chances of success of this appeal.There is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future.It is further submitted that appellant has already served total imprisonment of Five years and Two months.Under these circumstances, the execution of sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the bail application.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N DURGEKAR 2020.07.07 17:22:25 +05'30'

['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/petitioner assailing order dated 02/07/2016 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court Bareli, Raisen in S.T. No.134/2016, whereby the application for remitting the Session Trial to JMFC for trial has been dismissed.Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petitioner are that, Crime No.134/2007 was registered at Police Station, Udaypura on 07/06/2007 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC, against the petitioner/Pramod Verma and three others Suhagchand, Narmada Prasad and Chandra Prakash Mishra.When charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Udaypura on 05/09/2007, criminal case No.280/2007 has been registered against the three accused persons Suhagchand, Narmada Prasad and Chandra Prakash Mishra.The petitioner was absent and declared absconded.The learned JMFC, Udaypura pronounced judgment.Accused/Laxmi Narayan was acquitted.Accused persons Suhagchand and Narayan Prasad were convicted for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC.The State preferred Criminal Appeal No.142/2011 for enhancement of the sentence as against the Suhagchand and Narmada Prasad and challenged the order of acquittal against the accused Laxmi Narayan.This appeal was decided on 11/08/2016 by the Third ASJ, Raisen Link Court, Bareli.Witnesses were not examined however, on 10/04/2013, the learned JMFC committed the case to the Court of Sessions on the basis of the amendment made in the Cr.P.C., whereby offence under Section 467, 468 & 471 of IPC have been made triable by the Court of Sessions.The same Court which has decided the matter with regard to the co-accused, will try the same offence against the petitioner.

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

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

proceed in accordance with law in the manner of tracing the location of the Unique Identification Number of the computer machine/mobile instrument identifiable by the simultaneously emission/transmission to the service provider M/s. AIRTEL utilized for perpetrating the online fraud in the initially initiated Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 270 of 2009 dated 19.05.2009 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;(b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition do issue prohibiting the concerned respondent from arresting Your Petitioner on the strength of the Warrant of Arrest issued on 18th July 2012 and extended further on 17th November 2012 issued by the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in the Jadavpur Police Station Case No.270 of 2009 dated 19.05.2009 (now ACGR: 8757/12, BGR:384/03) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, later added with Sections 66C and 66D, of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in terms of the order dated on 18.03.2011 in abuse of the process of law;(c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the concerned Respondent No.1 to produce the records of the instant matter including the case records of the Jadavpur Police Station Case No.270 of 2009 dated 19.05.2009 (now ACGR: 8757/12, BGR: 384/03) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, later added with Sections 66C and 66D, of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in terms of the order dated 18.03.2011 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, certify the same and upon hearing the parties hereto set and quash the all proceedings against Your Petitioner in the 3 said Jadavpur Police Station Case No.270 of 2009 dated 19.05.2009;"Interim order has been prayed for as follows:"(f) A further interim order staying the execution of the Warrant of Arrest issued on 18.07.2012 further extended on 17.11.2012 in respect of the Jadavpur Police Station Case No.270 of 2009 dated 19.05.2009 (now ACGR: 8757/12, BGR: 384 / 03) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, later added with Sections 66C and 66D, of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in terms of the order dated on 18.03.2011 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal be passed;"

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

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

Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.1356/2018 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.1356 of 2018:O.P.(MD)No.11836 of 2018:-3.In the considered view of this Court, the Final Report does not makeout an offence of unlawful assembly or wrongful restraint.Accordingly, allthe Criminal Original petitions are allowed, and the Final Report filed ineach of the case is hereby quashed.33.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.This Court records its appreciation for the effective assistancegiven by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and alsothe learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, to enablethis Court to deal with an offence under Section 188 of IPC and givenecessary guidelines with regard to the procedure to be followed.1.Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District.Copy to:1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.2.The Inspector General of Police, All Zones.Rajesh Saravanan, learned counsel, appearing for some of thepetitioners, apart from adopting the submissions made by Mr.M.Karunanithi,also added one more important submission for consideration.In cases inwhich he is appearing, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on aFinal Report filed by the Police, apart from being challenged for violationof Section 195(1)(a), is also challenged on the ground that the complainant,the Investigating Officer and also the person who filed the Final Report,were all the same and therefore, the very Final Report itself, according tothe learned counsel is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the followingjudgments, to substantiate his arguments.a) Daulat Ram .Vs.b) Saloni Arora .Vs.c) Mohan Lal .Vs.The State of Punjab in Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011 by the Hon'bleSupreme Court.Pandithurai, learned counsel appearing for some of thepetitioners, apart from adopting the arguments made by the other counsel,also brought to the notice of this Court the following judgments.a) C.Muniappan and Others .Vs.b) V.Palaniswamy .Vs.The Inspector of Police in Crl.OP.No.13251 of 2009dt.4.02.2015 (Madras High Court).c) M.Balaji .Vs.The Principal Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,Secretariat, Chennai and Others in W.P.No.17768 of 2017 dt. 9.4.2018 (Madras High Court).12.Per contra, the learned Additional Public ProsecutorMr.M.Chandrasekaran made the following submissions.Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore the Police is dutybound to register an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.a) S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement .Vs.Videocon International Ltd ., & Ors in Crl.A.No.175 of 2007 dated 25.1.2008, [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India].b) Bechar Vala .Vs.State of Gujarat on 27.12.2002,[Gujarat High Court].c) G.S.R.Krishnamurthi .Vs.M.Govindaswamy, Income-Tax , on13.6.1991 [Madras High Court]d) K.Muhammed Aslam .Vs.State rep.by Public on 24.3.2010, [Kerala High Court].e) V.Gowthaman & Others .Vs.State, rep.by its Inspector of Police, St.f) Mithun Mohan and Others .Vs.State & Others in Crl.M.C.No.5291 of 2014 on 6.6.2014, [Kerala High Court].g) E.K.Palanisamy .Vs.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode Town Sub-Division, Erode District in Crl.O.P.No.7699 of 2009dt.18.08.2009, [Madras High Court].In all the cases, the assembly of persons were made to expressdissatisfaction of the governance and claiming for minimum rights that areguaranteed to a ordinary citizen.Accordingly, all the Criminal Original petitions areallowed, and the Final Report filed in each of the case is hereby quashed.In fact, Section 32of the Police Act itself provides for a penalty for disobeying an orderissued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act with a punishment of a fine notexceeding 200 rupees.Where as an offence under Section 143 of IPC ispunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months.Therefore, a violation of the so called promulgation under Section 30(2) ofthe Police Act will not by itself constitute an offence under Section 143 ofIPC.In all the cases, the assembly of persons were made to expressdissatisfaction of the governance and claiming for minimum rights that areguaranteed to a ordinary citizen.If such an assembly of persons are to betrifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and filing a FinalReport for the very same offence, no democratic dissent can ever be shown bythe citizens and such prohibition will amount to violation of fundamentalrights guaranteed under the Constitution.2.In these cases, the informant and the investigator are one and thesame person.Therefore, there was no fair investigation in these cases.The State of Punjab in Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011 referred supra.Therefore, the Final Report for an offence under Section 143 of IPC is herebyquashed.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petitions are allowed, and theFinal Report filed in each of the case is hereby quashed.In this case, the FIR was registered underSection 143 and 188 of IPC.The Final Report was filed for an offence underSection 143 of IPC.O.P.(MD)No.15655 of 2018 In this case, an FIR has been registered as against 102 persons for anoffence under Section 341,143 and 188 of IPC.2.In all the cases, the assembly of persons were expressingdissatisfaction on the governance and claiming for minimum rights that areguaranteed to an ordinary citizen.If such an assembly of persons are to betrifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and filing a FinalReport for the very same offence, no democratic dissent can ever be shown bythe citizens and such prohibition will amount to violation of fundamentalrights guaranteed under the Constitution.A reading of the Final Report alsodoes not make out an offence under Section 341 of Cr.P.C since any form of anagitation, will necessarily cause some hindrance to the movement of thegeneral public for sometime.That by itself, does not constitute an offenceof a wrongful restraint.J.Cedric Manuel, Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The evidence let in by the prosecution, in brief is as follows:(a) P.W. 1, is the resident of North Subramaniyapuram.He had deposed that he is working as an Electrician in a private company and that the deceased is his paternal uncle.He also knows the enmity between the deceased and the accused.He had also stated that A-4s paternal uncle, one Subbaiah, is his fathers younger brother.That case ended in a compromise.P.W. 1 had further stated that on 04.08.2000 at 11.00 p.m., P.W. 1 along with one Balamurugan and P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to see Villupattu which was going on in Sudalaimadasamy temple at Kadambur Road.While they were walking near the bridge in Kadambur Road, they saw A-1 to A-3 standing under the tamrind tree and armed with aruvals.Fearing on seeing them, they hid themselves.At that time, the deceased Natarajan was coming in his TVS-50 motor cycle.On seeing the deceased, A-1 uttered that the deceased is coming and he should be finished off.While saying so, he took the stick and beat the vehicle due to which the deceased fell down. A-1 attacked the deceased with the aruval on his neck several times.A-2 attacked the deceased on his head with the aruval repeatedly.A-3 attacked the deceased on his right side of the stomach, right thigh with the aruval several times.After the occurrence the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.At 2.45 a.m., P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the scene of occurrence.He also stated that the deceased was working as a driver in Kayatharu Transport Corporation and A-4 was working as a driver in Tirunelveli Transport Corporation.(b) P.W. 2 is the resident of the same village.He is the brother of the deceased Natarajan.He had deposed that he knows all the accused since they are also the residents of the same village.Due to previous enmity, three months prior to the occurrence, A-1 and A-4 went to the house of the deceased and threatened him that he will be done to death, for which the deceased gave a complaint to Kayatharu Police Station.The Inspector of Police called A-1 and A-4 and enquired them.After giving warning, the Inspector of Police sent them to home.This made A-4 to get angry with the deceased.He also stated that he and one Balamurugan were at scene of occurrence after the occurrence.(d) P.W. 4 is also the resident of the same village.He had deposed that he knows both the deceased and the accused.Since the coconuts in the field of one Mohandoss were being robbed often, P.W. 4 and the said Mohandoss went for safeguarding the field.In the meanwhile, he instructed the others to kill the deceased on 04.08.2000. A-4 told A-5 and A-6 to give torch light signal when the deceased is coming near the place of occurrence.He also instructed A-1 to attack the deceased with stick and aruval; A-2 to attack the deceased on his neck and A-3 to attack on the deceased leg in order to prevent the deceased from running.He also told them that he will take A-1 to A-3 and A-5 and A-6 on bail.Since P.W. 6 was out of station, they neither informed him nor to anybody.On 04.08.2000, they came to know about the murder of the deceased and went to the scene of occurrence.They also informed the conspiracy to the police, when enquired.(e) P.W. 5 is the resident of North Sonarpet and he is doing coolie work.On the date of occurrence, he and one Murugan went to North Subramaniyapuram to attend some personal work.When they were nearing the bridge which was nearer to the place of occurrence, they saw A-5 and A-6 holding lighted torch.When enquired, A-5 and a-6 said nothing and they went away.Suspecting both A-5 and A-6, he informed the police about them during enquiry.(f) P.W. 6, is also the resident of the same village and he is the elder brother of the deceased.He also deposed about the previous enmity between the deceased and A-4 and the complaint lodged by the deceased in that regard.He had also stated that on 02.08.2000 and 03.08.2000, he went to his office at 8.00 a.m. and returned home late night.On 04.08.2000, before leaving home for his job, he was informed by his wife that P.W. 4 and one Mohandoss came in search of him.P.W. 6 did not meet them on that day.After completing his official work, he went to Chennai to attend his personal work.On reaching Chennai on 05.08.2000, he received the information about the murder of the deceased committed by the accused.On 06.08.2000, he went to Kayatharu Government Hospital and saw the dead body of the deceased.Later P.W. 4 and the said Mohandoss informed P.W. 6 about the conspiracy of the accused persons.(g) P.W. 8 who is the resident of the same village, had deposed that her first husband had died in a motor vehicle accident and that she started living with the deceased.She had stated that he knows the accused party.She had also further stated that she had no issues through her first husband and she had two children after she started living with the deceased.The deceased was already married and he got three children.Since A-4 did not like the friendship of his paternal aunt, one Mariammal with P.W. 8, the accused started fighting with the members of the deceased family.So, the deceased gave a police complaint in that regard.This increased the rage of A-4 and on 04.08.2000, she came to know that the deceased was murdered and thereafter, she along with her son, went to the scene of occurrence.(h) P.W. 15 was the Branch Manager of the Tirunelveli Transport Corporation during the relevant period.He had deposed that on 04.08.2000, A-4 was driving the bus bearing No.143, from Villupuram and on 05.08.2000, at 5.00 a.m., he reached Tirunelveli.He had also stated that on 02.08.2000, A-4 was on weekly holiday and Ex. P. 11 is the letter given by P.W. 15 in that regard.(i) P.W. 16 was the Sub Inspector of Police of Kayatharu Police Station during the relevant period.He enquired the matter and a compromise was arrived at between the parties.(j) P.W. 22 was the Inspector of Police of Kayatharu Police Station during the relevant period.He has deposed that on 05.08.2000 at 1.30 a.m., while he was in duty, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 came and gave a statement.Ex. P. 21 is the First Information Report.The First Information Report was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti at 2.30 a.m. on the same day through P.W. 17 and the copy of the First Information Report was sent to the higher officials.On the same day at 2.45 a.m. he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 2 - the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.2 - the rough sketch.From 4.15 a.m. To 7.15 a.m., he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P. 23 - the Inquest Report.(k) P.W. 19, who was the doctor at Kayatharu Government Hospital during the relevant point of time, received the requisition on 05.08.2000 at 8.15 a.m., from the Investigating Officer to conduct postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.A deep incised wound 6cmx4cmx4cm about the knee on the posterior side of the left thigh.The frontal portion of the head being crushed; the frontal bone was fractured and the right eye was damaged.An incised wound 3cmx2cmx2cm on the left side of the forehead.A deep incised wound on the right side of the stomach and it had traversed from right side upper portion to posterior side of the stomach with 16cmx12cmx12cm through which the intestine has come out.The doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to injuries NO.1,6 and 8 and due to shock and haemorrhage due to all injuries combined.(l) P.W. 22, the Investigating Officer, continued the investigation and on 5.8.2000, at 7.30 p.m., he recovered the blood stained earth and the sample earth under the cover of the Athakshi.On 07.08.2000, he came to know that A-1 has surrendered before learned Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Tirunelveli and on 09.08.2000, A-2 surrendered before the same Court.On 11.08.2000, A-2 was taken into police custody and the accused came forward to give the confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P. 4, pursuant to which the Investigating Officer recovered the aruval. A-2 was sent for judicial remand.On the same day, the Investigating Officer came to know that A-3 has surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, NO.4, Tirunelveli.On 12.08.2000 at 6.00 a.m., he arrested A-5 who came forward to give a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P. 25 pursuant to which he recovered aruval.Ex. D2 is the Birth Certificate of his daughter in which his name is mentioned as Balakrishnan.He has also produced Ex. D3, the Community Certificate, in which his name is mentioned as Balakrishnan.JUDGMENT T. Sudanthiram, J.The appellants who stand convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-II) Thoothukudi, in SC.No.96 of 2004, have preferred this appeal against the said conviction and sentence.The case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2000, at about 11.00 p.m., due to previous enmity between A-4 and the deceased, the accused persons including A-4, six in number, criminally conspired to kill the deceased and on 04.08.2000, at about 11.00 p.m., with a common intention to cause the death of the deceased, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons, waylaid the deceased while he was returning to home in TVS-50. A-1 stopped the vehicle of the deceased with a stick and uttered the words that the deceased had come and he should be finished off.Saying so, A-1 attacked the deceased with an aruval on his neck, A-2 attacked with an aruval on the back side of the head and A-3 attacked the deceased with an aruval on the stomach, right side shoulder, left thigh and back side of the right shoulder.A-1 beat the deceased on his head with a stick and caused the instantaneous death of the deceased.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, marked 33 exhibits and produced 10 material objects.As already the said Subbaiah died, there was no talking terms between the family of A-4 and the said Subbiahs family.Even A-4 had no talking terms with the said Mariammal. A-4 did not like this activity of his paternal aunt, since he had a wrong impression about his aunt.He also stated that three months prior to the occurrence, the deceased went to Kayatharu Police Station and lodged a complaint against A-1 and A-4 for attempt to murder.P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the said Balamurugan went near the body of the deceased and thinking that the deceased had died, they ran to the village and informed the family members of the deceased and again came to the scene of occurrence.Again on 05.04.2000, at 1.30 a.m., they went to the Police Station where the Sub Inspector of Police was on duty.Again P.W. 1 narrated about the occurrence which was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police and they had affixed their signatures.On 15.01.2000, the deceased gave a complaint against the accused party.She commenced the postmortem at 1.00 p.m., and gave Ex. P. 19 - the Postmortem Certificate, wherein she found the following injuries:The face on the right side being crushed; lower jaw and the tongue were cut.EXTERNAL INJURIES:On the back of the neck bones 1 and 2 were cut and it extended to the front side and the neck was fully severed and only a small piece of skin in the front was attached.The length of the cut around the neck was 40 cm.An incised wound of 4cmx2cmx2cm on the posterior side of the right shoulder.A deep incised wound 1cmx6ccmx8cm from the middle of the right thigh traverse towards the back.An abrasion on the right elbow.A-5 was also sent for the judicial remand.On 17.08.2000, he took A-1 into police custody who came forward to give a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P. 8, pursuant to which the Investigating Officer recovered the aruval and stick under the cover of the Athakshi.The materials recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body of the deceased and the material objects recovered pursuant to the confessional statements of the accused were all subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in two reports, viz., Ex. P. 16 - the Chemical Analyst Report and Ex. P. 17 - the Serologist Report.The Investigating Officer altered the case to one under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 120 IPC and the Express First Information Report, Ex. P. 27 was sent to the Court and to the higher officials.On 11.10.2000, after completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused.The accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against them.He denied them as false.On the side of the deceased D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked.The evidence of the defence witnesses in brief, is as follows:(a) D.W. 1 has deposed that he was working as the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, in the Regional Transport Office, Thoothukudi.He had further deposed that he had inspected the vehicle TVS-50 and on inspection, he could not see the Registration number of the vehicle since it was damaged.He had also spoken about the damages of the vehicle.(b) D.W. 2 is the son of A-3 and he is the resident of Ratchanyapuram during the relevant period of time.On 04.08.2000, A-3 told him that he is leaving for Kayatharu and so saying, he left D.W. 2s house.On 05.08.2000 at 6.00 p.m., the neighbour of D.W. 2, on reading the newspaper, came to his house and informed that his father had been involved in a murder case.He had also deposed that at the time when his neighbour came and informed him, he along with his wife,uncle and A-3 were present in the house.(c) D.W. 3, is the resident of Pudukottai and he had deposed that the distance from the place of occurrence and his residence is two furlong.He also stated that no festival was conducted in the temple and no Villupattu was going on.If there was a function, the temple management would keep loud speakers.But, no such event had occurred.He further stated that the festival was conducted by the Aachari community and the Thevar community people had nothing to do with that festival.He stated that A-4 was the Panchayat President in that village and he used to solve the problems in the village amicably.He also stated that A-4 solved that problem smoothly and after that, there existed no relation between the accused and the deceased.He had further stated that he did not know whether there was any dispute between a-4 and the deceased with regard to the property or with regard to the love affair of the P.W. 6s daughter.(d) D.W. 4 had stated that on 04.08.2000 he received summons from the Court to produce the General Diary and also the Wireless Message Register.(e) The accused who had chosen to examine himself as D.W. 5 had deposed that his name was Balakrishnan and in the school record, it was also stated to that effect.The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that P.Ws. 1 to 3, the eyewitnesses to the occurrence are only the chance witnesses and they could not have witnessed the occurrence.The conduct of P.Ws. 1 to 3 also are not natural.The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that there was no motive for A-1 to A-3 against the deceased and the motive was shown by the prosecution against A-4 who had been acquitted.The learned Counsel for the appellants also pointed out the serious infirmity in the serial number of the First Information Report, Ex. P. 21 comparing to the serial numbers in Exs.D4 and D5, the First Information Reports relating to some other crime numbers.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also heard with regard to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that immediately after the occurrence at 11.00 p.m., the First Information Report was registered at 01.30 a.m. and it had reached the Court at 5.00 a.m. and there was no delay in the First Information Report.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are also consistent.With regard to the conduct of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the evidence of D.W. 3 does not affect the case of the prosecution and D.W. 3 is neither a prominent person in the village nor a reliable witness.We have gone through the entire evidence and materials available in this case and carefully considered the rival submissions made by both parties.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to the appellants who are arrayed as A-1 to A-3 are consistent.The attack on the deceased by A-1 to A-3 with weapons is spoken by all the three witnesses.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is also corroborated by the medical evidence given by P.W. 19 and Ex. P. 19 - the Postmortem Certificate.The deceased had sustained eight injuries and died due to that injuries.Though it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the chance witnesses, actually, their evidence establishes the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 at the scene of occurrence.Though P.W. 1 admits that he was residing at Tirunelveli as his father was employed in Tirunelveli, also stated that he was residing at North Subramaniyapuram at Kovilpatti.There was no evidence to show that on the date of occurrence he was at Tirunelveli.The contention of the learned Counsel of appellants that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that they went together in the night hours in order to listen Villupattu, which was arranged in the temple festival is false as D.W. 3 who is the resident of Pudukottai had stated that on the date of occurrence, no Villupattu was arranged is to be analysed.A perusal of the evidence of D.W. 3 shows that he was interested towards the accused and he was residing in a place situate two furlong away from the scene of occurrence.But, the Investigating Officer is not able to give any explanation as to how these serial numbers are used.As far as the registration of the First Information Report is concerned, in the normal course, the officer registers such First Information Report shall follow instruction 560 of the Madras Police Standing Orders, which reads as follows:

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, in Crl.2.The petitioner has preferred a complaint against the accused and on the basis of the complaint, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, in Crime No.2 of 2019 under sections 294(b), 354 and 506(i) IPC and subsequently, final report has been filed for the offence under sections 294(b), 354(A) and 506(i) IPC.The petitioner/de-facto complainant filed a petition under section 173(8) Cr.Thereafter, the petitioner/de-facto complainant filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.18087 of 2019 under section 216 Cr.P.C for alteration of the charge sheet.As per the direction of this court, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P No.13807 of 2019 before the Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this court.3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.4.It is mainly argued on the side of the petitioner/de-facto complainant that there are sufficient materials and evidence in the charge sheet to prove the ingredients of section 4 of Women Harassment Act, however, the trial court without going into the merits, has simply dismissed the petition as not maintainable and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that either the victim or the prosecution can file petition or the court can change or alter the charge at any time and prays that the impugned order passed by the trial court has to be set aside.5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused submitted that the court alone has power to frame additional charges or to alter it neither the prosecution nor person interested has locus standi to file petition for framing additional charges and the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition filed under section 216 of Cr.P.C, as it does not contemplate any application being filed either by the accused or any witness including the de-facto complainant, it only provides thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 power of the court to alter the charge or add any charge already framed and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.6.It is seen from the records that based on the complaint received from the petitioner/de-facto complainant, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2018 on 23.01.2018 for the offence under sections 294(b), 354-A and 506(i) IPC.After completion of the investigation, final report has been filed on 18.04.2018 against the accused.P1 was marked and PW1 was cross examined on the same day by the defence side.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.P.C for alternation of charges framed against the accused.http://www.judis.nic.in 5In other words, the alternation or addition of charge must be based on the evidence if any recorded during the course of trial.When the court satisfies that there are sufficient ground to presume that the accused has alleged to have committed the offence, the court can alter the charges at any time before the pronouncement of judgment.P.C is not maintainable and the impugned order passed by the trial court is correct.10.For all the reasons stated above, this criminal revision fails and the same is dismissed.

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

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

JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J.The order of detention dated 17.11.2006 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), on the allegation that detenu is a Goonda, is in question.Binu, Radha @. Radhakrishnan, Allavudin, Reagen, Ramesh, Jai @. Jaikumar, Sekar @ Chandrasekar, Karuna @ Karunakaran, Hari' @ Bangalore Hari chased Elumalai, another accused, who fell down and raised hue and cry stating that he should not be assaulted.Binu caught Elumalai and asked his associates to cut Elumalai.These incidents.occurred on 2.7.2006 and 9.9.2006 respectively.Both the cases had been charge-sheeted.Some of the accused persons were waiting at the Court to attend trial and since one of the co-accused, namely, Rajadurai, who was in jail custody had not been brought, the Court had asked other accused to wait till the arrival of the co-accused.While the, accused persons were proceeding to take lunch, Tvl.Binu, Radha @ Radhakrishnan, Allavudin, Reagen, Ramesh (present detenu), Jai @ Jaikumar, Sekar @ Chandrasekar, Karuna @ Karunakaran, Hari @ Bangalore Hari, who were armed with knives, ran towards those accused persons.At that time, Thiru.Saravanan, one of the accused facing trial in Madhuravayal Police Station Cr. No. 1126/1998, ran away from the spot, Tvl.Other persons including the detenu, gave cut-blows indiscriminately.Public came for Elumalai's rescue, but the assailants threatened the public and subsequently ran away.On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Cr. No. 1009/2006 for offence under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 506(2) IPC was registered.The remand order was being extended periodically.It was alleged that offence under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 506(2) IPC had been committed.In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority recited:

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

05.8.13 Item No. 84 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 84And In the matter of: Reajoddin Mondal.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mondal For the Petitioners Mr. Debojyoti Deb For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No. 143 of 2013 dated 11.07.2013 under Sections 336/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.There is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Since respondent no.4 Damrulal, S/o Sukhnandan has been died during the pendency of this petition, thus the petition against respondent no.4 Damrulal stands abated.This is the petition u/s 378 (III) of Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal.Respondents were tried for the offence punishable u/s 411 of IPC before the JMFC, Bijawar in criminal case no. 736/89 (State Vs.Vijay and others) wherein they have been convicted u/s 411 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 2 years & fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer further RI for three months.Being aggrieved thereby, respondents filed criminal appeal no. 109/2006 before the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Chhatarpur wherein judgment and order passed by JMFC, Bijawar has been set aside and respondents have been acquitted to the aforesaid charge.Fact, in short, giving rise to this petition are that a report has been lodged on 8/09/1988 by Ayodhya Prasad Bajpai, caretaker of Palace of Maharani Mohini Kumari to the effect that in the night of 7/09/88 theft has been committed in the palace.On the basis of aforesaid FIR, investigation was carried out and 19 accused persons were arrested.Further on their instance, number of property has been seized from the accused persons.Specifically on the basis of memorandum statement of Kallu @ Gopal 700 gms of melted silver said to have been seized from the possession on respondent no. 4 Damrulal (since deceased) and 7 kg 875 gms of melted silver said to have been seized from the possession of Chakorilal Soni.During the search of house of respondent no.1 Prabhat Choudhary two ladies and one gents watches have been found and further a TV set and old clothes etc. also seized from the shop of Prabhat Choudhary.One melted golden and one melted silver silli, two cameras, one telescope have been seized from the possession of respondent no.2 Gulsher.After investigation, respondents alongwith other co- accused persons have been prosecuted before the JMFC, Bijawar who acquitted them from the offence u/s 380 of IPC however, respondents have been convicted for the offence u/s 411 of IPC.On appeal they have been acquitted by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Chhatarpur.Hence, this petition.On the basis of aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal in favour of respondents.Consequently, it is not a case where re-appraisal of evidence on record is necessary, therefore, no case is made out for grant of special leave to appeal.The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Jagjit Singh, J.(1) By his judgment, dated January 17, 1964, Shri Amba Prakash, Magistrate First Class, Delhi, acquitted Ram Nath Aggarwal and two others who had been tried by him on various charges.An appeal against the acquittal of Ram Nath Aggarwal was filed by State, under provisions of section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").The acquittal of the other two accused was nto challenged.(2) Six charges were framed against Ram Nath Aggarwal.The first charge was for criminal conspiracy.The third and the fourth charges were for cheating and the fifth and the sixth charges were under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.The second charge was also under section 471 and specifically mentioned three documents which, on or about July 19, 1954, were alleged to have been fraudulently used as genuine, before the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Delhi, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged.Out of those documents one was mentioned to be memorandum and articles of association of International Automobiles Limited, containing forged signatures of three merchants of Bombay, namely, M. D. Parekh, Haridass J. Bhatia and Lachhmandass J. Bhatia.The second document referred to was a power of attorney, dated July 19, 1954, also containing the alleged forged signatures of the aforesaid three persons.The order of October 18, 1968 may be read as part of this order.The trial continued up to 17-1-1964, on which date Aggarwal and other two accused, who were tried with him, were acquitted.(6) It is a common ground between the learned counsel for State and the respondent that the memorandum and articles of association were nto signed by M. D. Parekh, Haridas, J. Bhatia and Lachhmandass J. Bhatia and, similarly, the power of attorney which purported to authorise Ram Nath Aggarwal to represent the above-mentioned three persons in the matter of registration of International Automobiles Limited was as well nto signed by them.They were, however, stated to have signed a printed form of subscribers.(7) It may be mentioned that on the basis of the memorandum and articles of associations, which purported to be signed by seven persons, including the three whose signatures were alleged to have been forged, and the power of attorney which was also alleged to be forged, a certificate of incorporation was obtained.Later on the name of the Company was gto changed to Cycle Components (India) Limited.A copy of that letter was forwarded to M. D. Parekh, who by way of reply requested for being informed in which way he was connected with the matter.On October 29, 1959, Parekh wrote to Aggarwal for getting information as according to him he did nto remember to have any connection with the Company.Afterwards a report, dated January 25, 1960, was made to the Superintendent, Special Police Establishment, New Delhi, on which case F.I.R. No. R.C 5/61-FA, dated 28-6-1961, was registered.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE CRA 49 of 1998 Sujit Mitra & ors.February, 1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coochbehar in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) 96 arising out of Sessions Case No. 97/94, thereby holding the appellants guilty of having committed offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').The appellants are two (2) out of thirteen (13) accused persons.Nine (9) accused persons were acquitted by the Ld. Trial Judge and four (4) accused persons including the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.Two (2) of the convicts died during the pendency of the appeal.2) The prosecution case as would appear from the written complaint and the FIR is that the victim Basudeb Ghosh, was going to the house of one Subrata Oraon of village Bara Soulmari on 16th July, 1992 at about 8/9 P.M. On the way there was collision of bicycles between the victim and Swapan Mitra, one of the appellants.A quarrel ensued.Thereafter, when the victim reached the house of Subrata Oraon, Swapan Mitra and other people named in the written complaint brought the victim out from the house of Subrata Oraon, took him in front of the house of Sri Haripada Bardhan and in the presence of Sri Bardhan those people struck the victim with bamboo and iron rods and "picked up his left eye".They also caused serious injury to the victim on his forehead, mouth and chest and left him in an unconscious state in front of the house of Haripada Bardhan.The written complaint was lodged by the elder brother of the victim who stated in his complaint that he came to learn about the incident from Lede Asur of the same village.He went to the place of occurrence but Sudhir Mitra and the other persons named in the written complaint threatened him with dire consequences.Out of fear he ran away from the place.On the next morning at about 10A.M. he came to learn from Lede Asur that the victim "was lying dead inside the garden".3) The First Information Report was lodged on 17th July, 1992 at about 3.30 P.M. The charge-sheet was issued on 13th June, 1996, charging the accused persons with commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC.The charges were read over to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.4) The prosecution examined fourteen (14) witnesses.Accordingly, the trial ensued.The defence examined none.Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.').The stand of the accused persons including that of the appellants was one of complete denial.5) The Ld.Trial Judge considered the evidence and held the appellants and two other accused persons guilty of having committed the offences they were charged with.Hence, this appeal.7) PW1, Subhash Chandra Ghosh is the de facto complainant and the elder brother of the victim.In his evidence he reiterated what he stated in his written complaint.He further stated as follows: "................. On receiving this information, I went to the place of occurrence.There I found that my brother was lying on earth with bleeding injuries.There I found that Swapan Mitra, Sudhir Mitra, Sujit Mitra, Swapan Das, Haran Bhowmik and Jugal Dutta were standing there near the body of my brother.These people were armed with lathi, battom and iron rod.As soon 3 as I arrived at the place these people threatened me with assault.So, I left the place of occurrence out of fear of life.................. I informed my second brother Subrata Ghosh about the occurrence.Then, myself and Subrata again went to the P.O. At the P.O I found one white colour ambassador car.Till that time those miscreants were standing at the P.O. and they again threatened us.At that time my brother's body was removed about 40 cubits from the place of occurrence where I found him earlier.Being threatened with we returned to our home.................. I learnt from Lede Asur that my brother Basudeb was murdered and his body was concealed under a bridge in the midst of the Cooch Behar tea garden................. On the following morning till Lede Asur came to inform about the hiding of the body of my brother, we were all along in our house.Before going to Ghokshadanga P.S. Station the police of Ghokshadanga came to the place where my brother's dead body was concealed in a vehicle.In that vehicle I went to Ghokshadanga P.S. ................ In my complaint to Ghokshadanga Police Staion.I did not state that on the previous night I had been to Falakata P.S. but that P.S. did not entertain my complaint as the place of occurrence was within the Ghokshadanga P.S............"He stated that he did not see the occurrence.8) PW 2 is a resident of Cooch Behar Estate in the Line Quarters.He stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence.Thereupon, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.In his cross-examination by the 4 prosecution he did not in any manner support the prosecution case.Upon being examined by the defence, he stated that he never visited the house of the victim since he was an ill-reputed person.The accused persons are good people.9) PW 3 is also a resident of Cooch Behar Tea Estate Line Quarters.He was declared hostile by the prosecution.In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he did not support the prosecution case.He further stated: "I do not know the persons who are present on the dock." Upon being examined by the defence he said "I made statement to the Magistrate as instructed by the police."10) PW 4 is also a resident of Cooch Behar Tea Estate in the Line Quarters.He was also declared hostile by the prosecution and on being cross-examined he did not support the prosecution case.Upon being examined by the defence, he stated: "Police took me to the Magistrate and taught me what I would have to state before the Magistrate.Whatever the Public Prosecutor stated to me alleging my statement before the Magistrate of Mathabhanga Court are not true."11) PW 5 is a witness to the inquest report prepared by the police.In cross-examination he stated: "I signed in a blank sheet of paper being asked by the police.I cannot say what was written in that piece of paper thereafter."12) PW 6 is also a resident of Cooch Behar Tea Estate.He was also declared hostile by the prosecution.In his cross-examination by the defence he stated: "Police took me to Mathabhanga Court and instructed me what I would have to say before the Magistrate.As I stated being instructed by the 5 police I do not remember what I have stated at that time.The occurrences mentioned in my statements are not at all true."13) PW 8 is another brother of the victim.He deposed: "................ The occurrence took place at night.I cannot state the hour of occurrence definitely.At that time I was in my residence as I was ill.On the next day i.e. on 17th July, 1992 I went to Atpukuri Gram Panchayet Office to collect a bill.On my return from that place I came to know that my brother Basudeb Ghosh had been murdered.It was then 3 P.M. I do not remember who informed me about the occurrence.On hearing that I returned to my home.I did not go to see the dead body of my brother.I cannot say who committed murder of my brother."14) PW 9 is a witness to the seizure list.In cross-examination, he stated: "Police asked me to sign on a blank paper.When I signed the paper there was no written object on that paper.I do not know what has been written in that paper after I signed the same."15) PW 13 is the Investigating Officer.The post mortem examination was done by Dr. Pankaj Kr.Roy of Mathabhanga Sub-Divisional Hospital.He is now dead.He died due to motor accident in 1994................."16) While acquitting nine (9) out of the thirteen (13) accused persons and convicting four (4) accused persons, the learned Trial Judge in the judgment impugned before us, observed, inter alia, as follows: 6 "................ In such a situation, if the parents and inmates of the family of the deceased or the PW 8 did not go to the place of recovery or did not come to the Court to support the prosecution case then every man of ordinary prudence will come to the conclusion that the parent and the family members did not come to Court to depose against the accused persons out of fear of their lives.The PW 8 did not say a single word against the accused persons.That does not go to show that the PW 1 was an unreliable witness.The matter can be viewed from another angle.Conduct of PW 8 and the parents and family members of the deceased go to show to the Court that these people are not normal human beings and, so, PW 8 should not be believed at all................ Therefore, ultimately it appears that this allegation of the PW 1 against the accused persons becomes hearsay evidence and on such evidence the Court cannot place any reliance.................. Therefore, on such analysis, it is found that except the alleged information received by the PW 1 from Lede Asur, there is no other evidence against the seven (7) accused persons Bhabesh Bhadra, Netai Bhadra, Radha Raman @ Khadu, Jiten Dutta, Kajal Mitra, Niranjan Dutta, and Haripada Bardhan.Ultimately, I find there is no legal evidence against these seven (7) accused persons.So, I acquit the accused persons................. Now I find that though the signatures of Lede Asur were marked Exts. '2' and '2/1', his statement recorded by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mathabhanga, on 19.9.1992 has not been marked through mistake of the Bench Clerk.So, I direct that according to the legal provision this statement of Lede Asur recorded by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 7 Mathabhanga, in the discharge of his official duty and according to the Section 164 of Cr.P.C. be marked as Ext. '2/2'................ Of course, being cross-examined by the defence PW 3 stated: "I made statement to the Magistrate as instructed by the Police." The entire conduct of PW 3 including this statement in the cross-examination shows that he was purchased by the accused persons to give false evidence before the Court in favour of the accused persons.................. So, I find that this witness PW 1 Subhash Chandra Ghosh is fully reliable witness and even though his evidence has not been corroborated by any other independent witness, the Court can safely rely upon him in convicting the accused persons who were present near his brother's body.However, I find that the names of Swapan Das and Haran Bhowmik stated by this witness have not been mentioned in the Ext. '1' series, i.e., the written complaint made by the PW 1 to the police of Ghokshadanga P.S., therefore, these two persons Swapan Das and Haran Bhowmik are entitled to benefit of doubt.................. Ultimately, I acquit the accused persons Swapan Das and Haran Bhowmik.In Section 294, sub Section (3) of the Cr.P.C. it has been stated "where the genuineness of any document is not disputed such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed.Therefore, I direct that the post-mortem report be marked as Ext. '11'."17) The prosecution examined fourteen (14) witnesses.However, out of the material witnesses PW 2, PW3, PW4 and PW 6, were declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-examined by the prosecution.None of them supported the prosecution case.18) The judgment and order of conviction is based essentially on the evidence of PW 1 alone.P.M. on the date of the incident, found the victim lying on the ground bleeding from injuries and the accused persons standing in close proximity to the victim armed with iron rods etc. This prompted the learned Trial Judge to consider PW 1 as an eye witness to the alleged incident, although the prosecution case was that there were no eye witnesses and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.Admittedly, PW 1 did not see the accused persons beating up the victim.Being threatened by the accused persons he left that place and went to Falakata Police Station at 11.40 P.M. However, his complaint was not received as the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Ghokshadanga Police Station.The surprising thing is that, having allegedly seen his brother lying in a pool of blood with severe injuries and the accused persons standing in close proximity with weapons, PW 1 waited till next mid-day to approach Ghokshadanga Police Station.Even assuming that PW 1 did not go to Ghokshadanga Police Station on the night of the incident because he thought it was unsafe to do so, normal human conduct would suggest that he would go to the appropriate Police Station at the earliest on the next day as soon as the dawn breaks.This conduct of PW 1 makes a dent in his credibility.21) Secondly, no other person excepting PW 1 deposed that the victim was found lying injured at the place of occurrence and the accused persons standing there with arms/weapons.23) Fourthly, PW 1 deposed that on the night of the alleged incident, after coming back from Falakata Police Station he and PW 8 went to the place of occurrence where he found one white coloured ambassador car.However, what the police seized was a fiat car.24) Fifthly, it is strange that even after seeing his brother with severe injuries which were bleeding, PW 1 did not make any attempt to save the life of his brother.On the basis of the same set of evidence nine (9) were acquitted.It is not spelt out in the judgment under appeal as to how the four (4) persons who were convicted stood on a different footing.There is nothing significant in the evidence on record which could prompt the learned Judge or which persuades us to single out four (4) persons out of thirteen (13) for conviction.The appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.The judgment and order under appeal are set aside.18 Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment/order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.)

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

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

The inherent powers of the court u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked for quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 166/15 registered at Police Station Bilaua District Gwalior alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 450 & 506 of IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating from the said FIR.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is second round of litigation in respect of same crime number.The first round in shape of Cr.R. No. 745/16 was initiated inter alia by the petitioner alongwith other accused assailing the framing of charge against them u/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 450 & 506 of IPC.R. No. 745/16 which was partly allowed by order dated 17/3/17 vide Annexure P/2 by setting aside the order of framing of charge to the extent it related to section 326 and 450 of IPC against the petitioner and other applicants in the said revision.Resultantly the trial commenced based on the charge u/Ss. 143,147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324/149 and 506 of IPC.Learned counsel for the petitioner has now filed this petition seeking complete quashment of the FIR and the consequential proceedings.This court is afraid that once having adjudicated the question of tenability of charge framed against the petitioner in respect of the offences alleged by upholding the framing of charge to the extent it relates to section 143, 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324/149 & 506 of IPC, it would be inappropriate for this court to assess the tenability of the order of taking cognizance of the same 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 23289/18 (Smt. Sheela Soni Vs.When the offences alleged against the petitioner have passed a relatively more stringent test at the stage of framing of charge then the question of successfully subjecting the same offences to a relatively less stringent yardstick is neither open for the petitioner to urge nor for this court to dwell into.Consequently, this court declines interference and rejects the present M.Cr.C. sans cost.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The preamble notes:-On 15.05.2013, as per the CCTV footage placed on record, the present petitioner was seen coming out in under garments, urinating and masturbating on the street in front of Satyapal/the father of the complainant.On 26.05.2013 again, the petitioner was seen on the road in a naked condition.On 28.05.2013, at various times, the petitioner was seen on the CCTV footage doing obscene act of showing his genital part to the child witness and father of the complainant.The CDR location of the petitioner corroborate his presence at home.Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (jCrl. ) with Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh, ATO, Police Station-M. S. Park.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRIThe present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.07.2019, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the child witness was dismissed.Mr. M.N. Dudeja & Mr. G.P. Thareja, learned counsels for the petitioner have submitted that earlier the child witness could not be cross-examined and thereafter the opportunity to cross-examine was closed.It was further contended that the cross-examination of the child is necessary and absence of the same would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 1 of 9I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the case records.Briefly, the facts as noted in the impugned order are reproduced below:-"The relevant facts for the disposal of the application are that the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable u/s 504/506/509/354A(i)/294/34 IPC & 12 POCSO Act on the allegations that initially the FIR was registered for offence punishable u/s 506/509/34 IPG on the statement of one 'J' wherein she stated that 4 boys living in their neighbourhood i.e., accused Jaidev, Jagmal, Surajbhan and Jagdev troubled her regarding which she made complaint several times to the police but police did not take any action.On 31.05.2013 when she was going to her house, accused Jaidev became naked and started making obscene act and obscene gestures which was recorded by CCTV and when she refused accused Jaidev, Jagmal and Surajbhan gave her filthy abuses.Subsequently, revealed that one child witness aged about 4 years had also witnessed to the incident and her statement was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and therefore POCSO was attracted".A perusal of the case records show that, on 23.08.2017, both the parties levelled allegations of misbehaviour against each other.In order to avoid any unwarranted situation, the trial court directed exemption of all the accused persons till conclusion of arguments on charge.The arguments on charge on behalf of the State were heard and the matter CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 2 of 9 was listed for arguments on behalf of the accused persons.On these dates, the accused persons were represented by their counsels, Shri P.L. Behl, Advocate & Shri Ch.Rajender Singh, Advocate.CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 2 of 9On 16.12.2017, the child witness was examined.The counsel for the petitioner was present but refused to cross-examine the child witness on the ground that they were not prepared and one of the counsels representing co-accused was out of the country.The trial court was constrained to observe that the child witness was aged about 8 years and had come in the morning at 10:00 a.m. for her examination.It is recorded in the order sheets that opportunity was given to the counsel to prepare the case but after sometime they disclosed their inability to do so even after going through the file.The trial court noted that the examination of the child was less than half page and even at 3:45 p.m., the cross-examination was not conducted.Identification of Stress causing factors of adversarial Criminal Justice System-Factors which cause stress on child witness, rendering them further vulnerable witnesses, and impeding complete disclosure by them shall, amongst others, include:(ii) Delays and continuances.(Whenever necessary and possible, die court schedule will be altered to ensure that the testimony of the child victim or witness is recorded on sequential days, without delays.)"Article 15 of the Constitution confers upon State powers to make special provision for children.A bare reading of Section 33 of the POCSO Act would show that keeping in view the objects and reasons of the POCSO Act, a special procedure has been adopted for recording of evidence of the child witness.Under Section 33(2), it is required that the questions to be put to a child witness shall be first communicated to the Special Court, who then, in turn, would put those questions to the child witness.Section 33(5) specifically provides that child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in the Court.Again, on 31.05.2013, the petitioner CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 5 of 9 alongwith other accused on various occasions were seen doing obscene acts which were witnessed by the child witness and the complainant's father and also captured in the CCTV footage.CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 5 of 9The victim girl was sought to be re-examined after more than one year by which time she had turned major.In the above circumstances, the victim girl was allowed to be recalled.In the present case, the child witness was about 4 years of age at the time of the incident.At the time of her examination-in-chief on 16.12.2017, she was about 8 years of age.The petitioner alongwith other accused persons was duly represented before the trial court through their counsels who had appeared on many dates prior to the examination of the child witness.25.3 The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time- bound manner or within a specific time-frame under the Act.CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 7 of 9Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 Page 8 of 9Copy of this order be communicated to the trial court.

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

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

Due to misunderstanding between the mother and father of the victim girl, he deserted P.W.2 and living separately.Thereafter, the accused Murugan married her mother and residing together with the mother and the victim girl.The brother of the victim girl has stayed in grand parents house.At the time of occurrence, the victim girl was studying in 9th standard.P.W.2/mother was working in the hospital on day and night shift basis.This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records in Special C.C.No.8 of 2013, dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Mahalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) Coimbatore and sethttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 aside the same.On 18.08.2012 when P.W.2 went to hospital for night shift, this Accused misbehaved with the victim girl.When P.W.1/victim girl screamed, he shut her mouth by pillow and removed his dresses also and raped the victim girl.Further, the accused threatened her, if she would disclosed the same to her mother, he would kill her and her mother also.As she is scaring about the threat of the accused, she did not disclose the same to her mother.Subsequently, the accused did the same for several occasions and he did the same even when her mother was with her.At the time, she made an alarm, her mother woke up and scolded the accused and sent him out from the house.When P.W.1 went to school, her teacher/P.W.5 enquired her as to why she was irregular in attendinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 the school and hence, she disclosed everything happened to her and in turn her teacher P.W.5 Banumathi instructed her to inform the same to the Child help line and accordingly she informed.on 04.09.2012, the Child help line officers came to the school and enquired her and sent her to Children home.On 08.09.2012, Suganthi and Senthil enquired the victim girl and she disclosed everything to them.They brought her to All Women Police Station, Gandhipuram, wherein she had given the statements about the occurrence under Ex.P.1 and the police recorded the same and as she was not willing to go to her house, she returned to Marayalaya Home.Thereafter, she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, and recorded her statement.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses, P.W.1 to 19 were examined and 11 documents, Ex.P.1 to 11 were marked.After completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials were put before the respondents.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondents denied all the evidences are false.After ful-fledged trial, the learned Sessions Judge, found the accused guilty for offence under Section 5(n) & (1) read with 6 of POCSO Act and 506(i) and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 5(n) & (1) read with 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo three months SI and sentenced for offence under Section 506(i) IPC to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, sentenced to undergo three months SI.Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the accused has not committed any offence and in order to attract the charges levelled against the appellant, there should be physical relationship and the same should proved by producing medical records.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, the learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the revision and acquitted the appellant.According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent that the victim is a girl aged about 14 years who was studying 9th standard at the time of occurrence and she has clearly spoken about the offence committed by the appellant/accused which would attract offence under the POCSO Act. When the accused made an attempt to commit sexual assault on the victim girl, he was caught red handedly by the P.W.2 and sent him out from her house.The Special Court after examining all the witnesses and after hearing both the parties, had come to the conclusion that the accused found guilty of offence punishable under the POCSO Act. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction, when it is well founded.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leniency of the Court to reduce the lessor sentence.However, on reading of provisions in POCSO Act, it is seen that the whoever commits penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.13.03.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order rliThe Sessions Mahalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) Coimbatore.The The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,Coimbatore,The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN.,J.rli Crl.A.No.585 of 2016 13.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant, who is the sole accused in the case, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 324, I.P.C. for allegedly causing the death of one Pappachan and for causing grievous hurt to Baby, PW-2, and simple hurt to the father of the deceased, PW-1, on 26-10-1982 at about 2-30 p.m. near the tea shop of the deceased.The accused also received injuries and the plea of self-defence had been put forward.The prosecution case is mainly on the evidence of the two injured witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and PW-3, wife of the deceased.But, taking into consideration the plea set up by the accused, it took the view that the accused had a right of private defence and since ' he had a reasonable apprehension that the three persons were likely to cause his death or grievous hurt, in that view of the matter, acquitted the accused.The State preferred an appeal questioning the said order of acquittal and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reversed the same holding that the accused had no such right of private defence.Hence, this appeal.The accused is no other than the elder brother of P.W-1, and the deceased was the son of P.W-1 and PW-2 was the son of the deceased.It is stated that there was some family feuds between the deceased and his family members on the one hand, and the accused on the other.On the day of occurrence, P.W-1 got down from a jeep in front of the house of the deceased and by then a quarrel was going on between the accused and the deceased.He saw the quarrel between the accused and the deceased.He then saw the accused whipping out a knife and stabbing the deceased.At that juncture, PW-2, son of the deceased, came out of the house with a stick and dealt a blow on the head of the accused.Thereafter, the accused stabbed PW-2 also on his stomach.When P.W-I tried to pacify, it is alleged that the accused also inflicted an injury on him and ran away.All the three injured were taken to the hospital at Palghat whereat PW-1 gave a report, Ex. P-1, to the Police.The case was registered and the accused was arrested and at his instance, MO-1, the weapon was recovered.The deceased died and the post mortem was conducted, and four incised injuries were found on the dead body.One of the injuries extended into the left lobe of the liver and the other injuries were on other parts, namely, on the left side of the neck and on dorsum of the left hand and on the back of the chest.It is only the injury to the liver which was serious.The Doctor, however, opined that the death was due to the injury to the liver as well as cumulative effect of the other injuries.PW-2 also was examined by the Doctor who found an incised injury on his stomach.On P.W-1 a simple incised injury was found on the left arm.The Doctor, who examined the accused, found one lacerated injury, 4 cm.x 0.5 cm.would deep on the right side of the head and also two abrasions on the forehead and on the palm.After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was laid.When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. , the accused pleaded that he was not guilty and put forward a version stating that on the date of the incident he had gone to the house of one Jose in connection with the purchase of a cow and while he was passing through the road in front of the tea shop of the deceased, he saw the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 2 standing in front of the shop armed with knives and a stick.The deceased abused him and caught hold of him and P.Ws. 1 and 2 beat him.Apprehending that he would be killed by them, the accused stated that he tried to wield the knife from him and then there was a scuffle between him and the three persons and, thereafter, he ran away.In his version the accused suggested that he did not intentionally inflict injuries on the three persons and it was during the scuffle that the three persons happened to receive those injuries.The trial court accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as that of PW-3 that the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 received the injuries at the hands of the accused but observed that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the belated plea that PW-2 happened to inflict an injury on the accused cannot amount to a proper explanation of the injury found on the accused, and that the accused has taken a specific plea which leads to an inference that he must have acted while exercising his right of private defence and, therefore, the accused was entitled to acquittal.The High Court while upsetting that finding held that the accused had no right of private defence and he was armed with a knife and deliberately inflicted injuries on these persons.It may be mentioned that P.W-1 who gave the report did not say anything about the accused having received any injury.No doubt, at a later stage, the prosecution has made an effort to explain away the injuries on the accused but when a specific plea has been put forward by the accused and the presence of injuries on him is corroborated by medical evidence, the Court has to see whether the plea set up by him is -plausible.Every kind of explanation put forward particularly at the belated stage by the prosecution will not be sufficient and cannot be held to be an appropriate explanation to reject the version put forward by the accused particularly when it does not appear to be false but, on the other hand, appears to be plausible.The injury was inflicted on the forehead of the accused which is on a vital part.However, having regard to the fact that he inflicted four injuries on the deceased and also a serious injury on PVV-2, he certainly exceeded the same.Therefore, Exception (2) to Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted and not the General Exception, as held by the trial court.Accordingly, in the result, we set aside the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded thereunder and convict him under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and sentence him undergo 7 years' R. I. The other sentences and convictions are, however, confirmed.The sentences are directed to run concurrently.The appeal is, thus, partly allowed.

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

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

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.According to the prosecution version, a written report was submitted by Dhanno wife of late Mahavir on 16.8.2006, which was written by one Umesh Kumar, Advocate stating that mango grove of complainant was taken on lease by Dr. Younus on a consideration of Rs.50,000/-.After the lapse of the time grove came in the possession of complainant.About a month before the incident accused Dr. Younus, his real brother Pappu and Hukum Chand and Munna Lodh son of Nanha came to her house and asked to sell the mango grove to Dr. Younus- accused.Complainant and her son Munna declined to sell the grove.All the accused left the place by threatening that the grove shall be taken by Dr. Younus.On 03.8.2006, all the accused Younus, Pappu, Hukum chand and Munna came to her house at about 10:00 AM on two motorcycles.They told the Munna son of complainant that they have left his mango grove.Document is to be executed at Safipur.After the execution of the document complainant and her son would be in possession.Complainant and her son agreed to it.Munna went with the accused who did not return till late night.Next day complainant went to the house of Dr. Younus where all other accused were present on his clinic.Complainant asked about her son, who told the complainant that Munna has left the place yesterday at about 04:00 PM.Since then complainant was searching her son but did not get any information then a written report was submitted by her at police station Safipur, District Unnao on 16.8.2006 at 15:10 hrs.First information report was lodged at case crime no.350/2006 under section 364, 302, 201 IPC.Investigation was handed over to SHO R.P. Shahi.On the same day accused Hukum Chand was arrested by the Investigating Officer.His statement was recorded wherein he has stated that the deceased Munna has been murdered by him, Dr. Younus, Pappu and Munna.His head is chopped of and dead body is concealed after digging a pit in the field of Dhaniram.Investigating Officer informed the complainant, who also came at the spot.Dead body was recovered from the field of Dhani Ram which was identified by the complainant as well as wife of the deceased.Accused Hukum Chand further stated that the clothes of deceased were taken away, head, clothes, spade and knife were taken away by co-accused Munna, Younus and Pappu.Inquest proceedings of the body of deceased were conducted which began at 16:10 hrs on 16.8.2006 and concluded on 16.8.2006 at 19:00 hrs.Headless dead body was sealed.Police papers were prepared.Dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 17.8.2006 at 04:00 PM.Site plan was prepared.Blood stained and plain earth was recovered from the place of recovery of dead body.During investigation on 25.8.2006, Investigating Officer arrested the co-accused Munna son of Nanha Lodh at 13:10 hrs, who confessed before the Investigating Officer that he has kept the head of the dead body with the help of Younus and Pappu which was recovered from the southern side of the grove of Dhaniram on the pointing out of co-accused Munna.Recovery memo was prepared.PW-1 Dhanno is the mother of the deceased who is also a witness of fact.Thereafter, when he did not return to house she went to the house of the accused Dr. Younus on the next morning wherein all the accused were present.An effort has been made to explain the delay by stating that she continued to search her son but when she did not trace him then she lodged the FIR on 16.8.2006 at 3.10 PM.Dead body of the deceased was recovered from a distance of 1.5 Kms.from the place of arrest.How could it be possible that the arrest was made at 4.00 PM and within 10 minutes statement of accused is recorded, distance of 1.5 Kms.is covered, 4 ft. of earth is dug out, dead body is recovered and the inquest proceedings also began at 4.10 PM ? This all indicates conclusively towards a fact that FIR was lodged with a considerable delay.When the dead body of the deceased was recovered and a story is cooked up by the prosecution.Minute to minute details as has been mentioned in the chik FIR, inquest report and the statement of Inspector R.P. Shahi conclusively proves that it is a case wherein the first information report is ante-time which is a serious lacuna on the part of the prosecution and benefit would go in favour of the accused.38. PW-1 Dhanno and PW-3 Bholi reached at the spot where the dead body was recovered.Both of them have stated that they received information regarding recovery of the dead body at about 06:00 PM.PW-3 Bholi has gone to the extent by stating that she had not gone at the spot to identify the dead body while PW-1 Dhanno has stated that she received the information and reached at the place of recovery.PW-1 Dhanno and PW-3 Bholi have stated that they have received the information at about 06:00 PM regarding recovery of the dead body.It also shows that the recovery was not made at 04:00 PM or the inquest proceedings did not began at 04:10 PM as has been stated by the prosecution.There is another inherent defect in the prosecution version.There are three recoveries in this case.Hon'ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.)1. Heard Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.Both the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment, hence, are being disposed of by one judgment.Instant appeals have arisen against the judgment and order dated 08.4.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in S.T. No.688 of 2006, arising out of case crime no.350/2006, Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, whereby the accused-appellants Dr. Younus, Pappu, Munna son of Nanha Lodh and Hukum Chand were convicted under section 364 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with a default stipulation of six months imprisonment, under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation of one year imprisonment and under section 201 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of six months.On 07.9.2006 one spade, one knife and clothes of deceased were recovered by the Investigating Officer on the pointing out of Younus and Pappu from the field of Dhaniram.Recovery memo was prepared.Site plan of places of recovery were also prepared.Statement of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer.Spade and knife wre sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow human blood was found on the spade and knife.After concluding the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused-appellants.Accused were charged under section 364, 302 read with section 34 IPC and 201 IPC who denied the charges and claimed trial.In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced PW-1, Dhanno complainant and witness of last seen, PW-2 Head Moharrir Matadeen, who has scribed the chik FIR, PW-3 Bholi wife of deceased, PW-4 Umesh Kumar scribe of written report, PW-5 Dr. Arun Prakash who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body on 17.8.2006 and found that head alongwith the neck at the base absent by traumatic amputation.Scrotum absent.According to the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Duration was about two weeks.He has also recorded the statement of witnesses.Spade, knife and clothes of deceased were also recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Younus and Pappu.PW-9 Constable Arvind Kumar who has taken the dead body for postmortem.In the statement under section 313 CrPC accused Mohd. Younus has stated that he was not interested to purchase the grove of complainant and deceased, rather Hari Sharan has taken the grove on lease for five years in the month of June.Accused Pappu, Munna and Hukum Chand have denied the prosecution version and the recovery and stated that they have been falsely implicated.In defence registered deed of the grove in favour of Hari Sharan dated 2.6.2006 is filed while a copy of FIR showing name of deceased Munna and a copy of judgement wherein the deceased Munna was accused, were also filed.We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned AGA and also gone through the evidence on record.Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.There was no motive for the commission of the offence.Complainant and deceased were in possession of grove, hence, there was no question for executing any deed in favour of complainant or her son for releasing the grove.It is further submitted that the witnesses PW-1 Dhanno and PW-3 Bholi have admitted that they were in possession over the grove, hence, there was no occasion for the re-transfer of possession in favour of complainant.It is further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein the chain of circumstances is not complete.The deceased went with the accused on 3.8.2006 but the First Information Report was lodged on 16.8.2006 at 3.10 PM.No explanation has been given for delay in lodging the FIR.It is further submitted that FIR itself is ante-time as the same was registered at 3.10 PM while according to the inquest report of the dead body, which was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of accused Hukum Chand, inquest proceedings began on 16.8.2006 at 4.10 PM which shows that just after an hour of lodging of FIR accused Hukum Chand was arrested.His statement was recorded from a place which is about one and half to two Kms.from Police Station.Thereafter, dead body was also recovered after digging the pit for about four feet which shows that at the time of lodging the FIR dead body had already been recovered.It is further submitted that due to this reason the FIR was lodged under section 364, 302, 201 IPC.It is submitted that when the FIR was lodged after recovery of the dead body then the recovery as well as FIR becomes doubtful.It is further submitted that the recovery of headless dead body, head and spade, knife and clothes of the deceased were made at different intervals on 16.8.2006, 25.8.2006 and 7.9.2006 from the same field.Recovery was made under section 27 Indian Evidence Act which is not legally proved.Condition of the dead body of deceased shows that the male organ of the deceased alongwith scrotum were not present on the dead body which shows that someone has brutally cut them alongwith the head.Such type of brutality could not be assigned to the accused as the motive is not such which may extend to such brutality.PW-1 complainant Dhanno was searching her son.When she could not succeed then she lodged the FIR.Thereafter recovery was made.Deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons.Statement of the doctor correlates the date of incident.Recovery was made on the pointing out of the accused.Now it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has successfully proved the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt ?Admittedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein the deceased went alongwith the accused on 3.8.2006 and the FIR was lodged on 16.8.2006 at 3.10 PM.That is a matter of appreciation of evidence.There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay.Even in the absence of direct explanation, there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately.The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report.When deceased did not came back then next day she went to the house of Younus wherein accused met her.When she asked them about the whereabouts of her son they told her that he had left for his house yesterday at 04:00 PM.Thereafter, she kept on searching her son for ten to twelve days.Then she went to Safipur tehsil and got a written report scribed by PW-4 Umesh Kumar Advocate.Why the report was not lodged on the very same day or the next day of the incident when PW-1 Dhanno was knowing that the accused are inimical to her and her son.This delay and the date of loding the FIR attains importance in view of the date and time of recovery of dead body of deceased on the pointing out of accused Hukum Chand.PW-8 Inspector Shahi has stated that he had arrested accused Hukum Chand at 04:00 PM.In the inquest report itself Investigating Officer had endorsed the factum of arrest of Hukum Chand.Confessional statement made before the Investigating Officer was also recorded in the inquest report."eSa] MkDVj ;wuql] MkDVj ;wuql ds HkkbZ iIiw o eqUuk iq= uUgk yks/k us feydj QkoM+s o Nqjh ls eqUuk iq= egkohj yks/k dh gR;k dj /kuhjke ds ckx esa xkM+ fn;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd ''ko dks pydj eSa cjken djk ldrk gwa A "Thereafter the Investigating Officer has stated that he went in the grove of Dhani Ram alongwith accused Hukum Chand wherein the dead body was recovered on the pointing out of Hukum Chand.Hukum Chand was arrested at 4.00 PM.Distance from the place of arrest to the grove of Dhani Ram was about 1.5 Km.After arrest, statement of Hukum Chand was recorded at the place of arrest.Number of persons were present there but none of them became a witness.Thereafter, Hukum Chand was taken to the grove of Dhani Ram.About 100 persons were present at the grove.When a specific procedure is prescribed under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act for proving a recovery then that procedure should have been strictly followed.Section 27 Indian Evidence Act has serious consequences.Interestingly, Inspector R.P. Shahi took over the investigation as he was posted as SHO of Police station Safipur, Distt Unnao.Just after lodging the FIR within an hour, he arrested the accused Hukum Chand.His statement was recorded.Dead body was recovered after digging about 4 ft. of the earth.Thereafter, inquest proceedings also began at 4.10 PM.The whole story itself creates a serious doubt about the prosecution version.It is not a statement of an illiterate person wherein margin of time could have been given.It is a statement of Inspector of police who was legally entitled to refresh his memory in the court at the time of making the statement wherein specific time is mentioned by him.Headless dead body was recovered on 16.8.2006 at 4.10 PM on the pointing out of accused Hukum Chand.On 25.8.2006, co-accused Munna was arrested.On his pointing out head of the deceased was also recovered from the same grove of Dhani Ram with a shorter distance from the place of recovery of headless dead body.Recovery of spade, knife and clothes of the deceased was made on 7.9.2006 on the pointing out of accused Dr. Younus and Pappu.This recovery was also made from the grove of Dhani Ram.According to the prosecution version all the four accused have committed the murder of deceased.Thereafter, dead body was concealed in the field of Dhani Ram.It is stated by PW-8 R.P.Shahi, Investigating Officer, that after the recovery of headless dead body he asked the accused Hukum Chand about the head and other articles wherein he replied that when he concealed the dead body in the earth then other co-accused asked him to leave the place then he left the place.Interestingly, from a distance of 30-35 steps head was recovered while the spade, knife were recovered from 8-10 steps away.All these articles were recovered on the pointing out of different accused.No recovery memo of the head is prepared rather again in the same inquest report recovery under section 27 Evidence Act of the head was made.No separate recovery memo was prepared even the statement required under section 27 Evidence Act was not proved.A simple statement is made by PW-8 Inspector R.P. Shahi that :-"vfHk;qDr eqUuk us e`rd dk lj cjken djk;k Fkk A"Again it was stated that on the pointing out of Younus and Pappu spade, knife and clothes of the deceased were recovered.Recovery of the head of the deceased under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act on the pointing out of accused Munna is also not legally proved.There is no witness of recovery made under section 27 Evidence Act. The only statement on record is a statement of PW-8 Inspector R.P.Shahi which too is not worth reliance.Recovery of head was not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the recovery under section 27 Evidence Act. What statement was made by Munna before the Investigating Officer is not proved.Accused Younus and Pappu have stated that they have committed the crime.Younus said that he can get recover the knife by which he has committed the murder while Pappu stated that he can get spade and clothes of the deceased recovered.These two recoveries were also not in accordance with the section 27 of the Evidence Act. As has been held in the earlier part of judgment a recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general principles of the criminal jurisprudence as has been prescribed under section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Prosecution is under obligation to prove the recovery strictly in accordance with law which is not proved.Hence, neither the recovery of spade, knife, clothes of the deceased nor head of the deceased is legally proved under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.It is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein the chain has to be completed.At the same time, it is also to be looked into as to what was the motive for commission of the crime."Where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence.If motive is indicated and proved, it strengthens the probability of the commission of the offence."It is stated in the FIR that the grove was given on lease to the accused which period had expired.Again the accused were insisting upon the complainant and the deceased to let out the grove to Dr. Younus but the complainant and deceased were not agreeable.Then on 03.8.2006, accused came to the house of complainant and said that they have surrendered the lease.Deceased should go with them for documentation of the same.PW-1 Dhanno and PW-3 Bholi are mother and wife of the deceased.PW-1 Dhanno is also the complainant who has admitted in her examination-in-chief that the grove came in their possession from accused after the expiry of period of lease.Thereafter after a month accused came to her house and asked for further lease which is denied by complainant and her son.Thereafter, accused came and asked the deceased that they have surrendered the lease in their favour.Deceased went with them for documentation and did not return.This fact is also admitted by PW-3 Bholi that the grove was in their possession before the date of incident.Now, the question arises that when the grove in question was already in possession of the complainant and her son deceased then what was the occasion for the deceased to go with the accused for documentation regarding surrender or transfer of possession of the grove.It is also admitted by PW-1 Dhanno that the grove in question was let out by her to one Lala Hari Sharan fifteen days before the date of incident.A consideration of Rs.50,000/- was also received by her.Specific motive is alleged by the prosecution but the same could not be proved.When grove was already in possession of the complainant and decased and the same was given to Lala Hari Sharan for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- then what was the occasion for the deceased to go with the accused for executing the documents.Material links could not be connected to conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the accused-appellants.On the basis of the discussion made above we are of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Learned trial court has misappreciated the evidence on record.Accordingly appeals deserve to be allowed.Appeals are allowed.Judgment and order dated 08.4.2009, passed by the learned trial court is set aside.Date :- 8.11.2017 mks (Prashant Kumar, J.) (Anil Kumar Srivastava- II, J.)

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

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

JUDGMENT K.L. Shrivastava, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 6-12-1983 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1983 convicting the appellant under Section 304, Part I of the Penal Code and sentencing him td undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.According to the prosecution story in Feb., 1983 the appellant was an inmate in the C. I. Jail, Indore undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The deceased Lotan was also undergoing sentence there and so was Hubbilal (P. W. 5).Thereupon the appellant had threatened him.On 21-2-1983 at about 7.00 a.m. the appellant dealt fire-wood blow on the head of Lotan.Hubbilal (P.W. 5) had intervened and in that process had sustained injury on his right hand at the hands of the appellant.Dr. Kailash Lakhotiya (P.W. 20) had examined Lotan at 8.30 a.m. on 21-2-83 and had found that he was unconscious.He also found a contused lacerated wound 4" X 1/2" bone deep on the right parietaL region,Before 10\30 p.m. on 21-2-83, Lotart succumbed td the head injury.Dr. R, S. Chakravarti (P.W. 21) who conducted the post-mortem found that the skull was fractured rind brain was damaged.According to him the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The appellant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as already stated.The defence of the appellant in the trial Court was one of denial.The point for consideration is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed.It has not been controverted that Lotan died a homicidal death; The material on record amply proves such death.

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

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

Through : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP with Insp.Ratnesh Kr.and ASI Suresh Kr., New Delhi CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRIThe present proceedings are instituted challenging the judgment on conviction dated 14.01.2013 passed by ASJ-03(NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi arising out of SC No.115/10 in FIR No.24/08 registered under Section 307 IPC at P.S. New Usmanpur, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 15.01.2013, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for a period of six months.The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was granted to the appellant.CRL A 229/2013 Page 1 of 14"That on 27.01.08 on receipt of DD no. 23A HC Jagbir Singh along with Ct.Mehboob Ali reached the spot i.e. gali no. 20, H. no. R/118, Brahmpuri, Delhi where he came to know that the injured had already been removed to GTB hospital by PCR van.HC Jagbir Singh along with Ct.Mehboob Ali reached GTB hospital and collected MLC no. C-377/08 of injured Noorjahan and the MLC showed the alleged history of assault and patient was declared fit for statement.Statement of Noorjahan w/o Anis r/o H. no. R-118, Gali no. 20, Brahmpuri, Delhi aged 30 years was recorded wherein she disclosed that due to strained relationship with her husband i.e. accused Anis she had been living along with her children at her parental home i.e at Jhuggi no. 7, near S Block, Patel nagar.On 27.01.08 she had come to Aggarwal Electronics to pay the installment of washing machine at D-23/5, Chauhan Banger, Seelampur, Delhi.When she came out of the shop after making payment her husband i.e. accused Anis met her there.He took her to his home at H. no. R-118, Gali no. 20, Brahmpuri, Delhi.At about 8.00 PM he started abusing her and told her that he had married another woman and she should take away all her clothes and belongings.He further threatened her by saying that "mai tujhe saal bher se apne maa baap ke sath rehne ka maja chakhata hoon.Aur abhi tera kaam tamam ker deta hoon" (I will teach you a lesson for staying with your parents for the past 1 year.I will kill you).He took out a knife from the pocket of his pants and attacked her.She raised alarm for help.The accused fled away from the spot.She was removed to GTB hospital in a PCR and she wanted that legal action be initiated against accused Anis.HC Jagbir Singh put his endorsement on the rukka and got the FIR registered u/s 307 IPC.Further investigation was handed over to SI Naval Singh who got the spot photographed, prepared site plan at the instance of complainant.He also collected the blood which was lying at the spot by cutting vinyl floor covering on which the blood had fallen.He also seized Salwar, kurta and bra of the injured which were having bloodstains.He CRL A 229/2013 Page 2 of 14 recorded supplementary statement of the complainant, also took into possession photocopy of her Nikahnama and photographs.His disclosure statement was recorded.He could not get the knife recovered.The exhibits were sent to FSL and after completing other necessary formalities charge sheet was filed against the accused u/s 307 IPC."CRL A 229/2013 Page 3 of 14The chronological sequence of the events surrounding the incident was noted by the trial court as under:-"Dates Events At 8.00 PM The injured Noorjahan was attacked with on 27.01.08 the knife by her estranged husband accused Mohd Anis.At 8.43 p.m. DD no. 23A was received that 'gali no. 21 on 27.1.08 Brahmpuri Usmanpur main road per ek aurat ko ooske husband ne chaaku maar diya".At 9.20 p.m. The injured was examined at GTB hospital on 27.1.2008 vide MLC Ex. Pw-13/A, as per which nature of injuries received by her was simple.At 00.20 hrs FIR Ex.PW3/A was registered.on 28.01.2008 On 28.1.08 Site plan Ex. PW-14/A was prepared.At 7.00 PM Accused was arrested from old Delhi on 07.02.08 Railway Station parking TSR vide Ex. PW-4/A and B.On 25.7.08 FSL report Ex. PW-15/A and B was prepared which showed blood on pieces of plastic mat (Exhibit '1'), lady's shirt (Exhibit '3a'), brassier (Exhibit '3b') and Salwar (Exhibit '3c').The blood was of 'B' group on Ex. 3b and 3c."TESTIMONY OF THE INJURED:She deposed that on the day of the incident she had gone to one "Aggarwal shop" in Brahmpuri, CRL A 229/2013 Page 4 of 14 Seelampur to pay the instalment of the Washing Machine.The appellant (her husband) used to live in the neighbourhood at H. No. R-118, Gali No.20, Brahmpuri.He met her outside the said Aggarwal shop and asked her to come to his house and remove her belongings as the appellant had got married to another lady.The complainant went along with the appellant where she was assaulted with a knife in her stomach and chest.She further deposed that although she had no quarrel with the appellant at that time or even prior, the appellant had said that he will get her killed.She further deposed that when she raised the alarm, the neighbours came inside the house to intervene.Thereafter, the appellant ran away along with the knife.She also deposed that her statement (Ex.CRL A 229/2013 Page 4 of 14During the cross-examination, the complainant stated that she remained with the appellant for 4/5 years after the marriage.She further stated that the appellant met her at the shop of "washing machines" where she had gone to pay the installment for the washing machine.She stated that the incident had happened at 8:00 pm.She also stated that 2/3 months prior to the incident, she had stayed at her maternal house.Another suggestion was given to the witness that CRL A 229/2013 Page 5 of 14 the appellant used to request her to join the matrimonial home and to look after the children but the complainant did not come, the said suggestion was denied.CRL A 229/2013 Page 5 of 14Although he was declared hostile yet in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on the day of the incident, he met the complainant at the place of the incident at 9:30 pm.He also deposed that the complainant was injured and bleeding from her hand.She was saying "mar gaya mar gaya".The injured had made a call to the police and was taken to GTB Hospital.During the cross-examination by the learned APP for the State, the witness admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of the clothes (Ex.PW-1/A).However, in his examination-in-chief, he had stated that his signatures were taken on the blank papers.During the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, the witness stated that the complainant had met him at a distance of 50-60 yards.She deposed that while she was returning from her mother's house at about 9:30 pm, she saw the police officials in front of the house of the complainant.She came to know that some quarrel had taken place with the complainant.The complainant was not present there.The facts of the prosecution case, as noted by the trial court, are:CRL A 229/2013 Page 2 of 14After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.During the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses.Two independent witnesses, who were the neighbours i.e., Babloo and Rihana, were examined as PW-1 and PW-6 respectively.Dr. V. Shankar Narayanan, Sr.The other witnesses who were examined related to various stages of investigation, the nature and purpose of their examination was noted by the trial court as under:-"The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials.PW5 Ct.Noorjahan took the injured to hospital.Doctor handed over preserved blood sample of the injured to her which IO seized vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. PW-9 Ct. Mainpal and PW-10 HC Jasbir Singh MHC(M) are formal witnesses.PW-11 Mohd Aslam is photographer who proved photographs mark C-1 to C-5 as Ex. Pw-11/A (collectively) and the negatives of the same are Ex. PW-11/B (collectively).PW-12 HC Jagbir Singh was the first IO who reached at the spot on receipt of DD no. 23A Ex. PW-3/C. He went to GTB hospital, recorded statement of injured Ex. PW-2/A and made endorsement on the same vide Ex. PW-12/A. PW-14 SI Naval Singh is the IO of the case to whom the investigation was CRL A 229/2013 Page 3 of 14 marked.He prepared site plan Ex. Pw-14/A. He recorded statement of Babloo and Rihana vide Ex. Pw-14/C and Pw-- 14/D. He proved the FSL report as Ex. PW-14/X and Y. PW-8 HC Netra Pal Singh joined investigation with SI Naval Singh on 07.02.08 when the accused was arrested."A suggestion was given that the injuries were self-inflicted to falsely implicate the accused, which was denied.In the cross-examination, a suggestion was given that after inflicting injuries on herself, the complainant had called the police after coming down stairs.She did not recollect the date.CRL A 229/2013 Page 6 of 14The complainant was taken to GTB hospital by the PCR officials, where she was medically examined on 27.01.2008 at 9:20 pm with the alleged history of assault.The MLC recorded that the complainant was brought by HC Vikram.The following injuries were noted on her person:-"(i) Incised wound of 2 x 1 cm and 1 x 1 cm on right side of abdomen.(ii) Incised wound of 1 x 1 cm on episternum.(iii) Incised wound of 2 x 1 cm and of 1 x 1 cm on right breast.(iv) Incised would of 1 x 1 cm and 1 x 1 cm on left side of umbilicus."The nature of injuries was opined as simple.Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, CMO, GTB Hospital, Delhi appeared as PW-13 and proved the said MLC.He identified the signatures of Dr. Ashar, who had prepared the MLC.During the investigation, the Investigating Officer had seized pieces of plastic mat from the house of the appellant as well as clothes of the complainant, i.e. lady's shirt, salwar and a bra having brown stains.As per the result of FSL analysis, blood was detected on the piece of the plastic mat and the clothes of the complainant.Although, as per the serological report, the blood of group 'B' was noted on the salwar and CRL A 229/2013 Page 7 of 14 the bra, but no grouping could be obtained on the plastic mat and the lady's shirt.CRL A 229/2013 Page 7 of 14I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the case records.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the statements made by the complainant are full of improvements and contradictions; that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses as to the place of incident; that the injuries were self-inflicted as is apparent from the size and the nature of the injuries; that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about the place of arrest of the accused; that the leading questions ought not to have been permitted to be asked to PW1 and lastly that the knife, the alleged weapon of offence was not recovered.Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Jagdish Vs.The State, reported as 1987(12) DRJ 136, Manoj Kumar Vs.The State, reported as 114(2004) DLT 511, Sajjan Kumar Vs.State, reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 618 and Gula and Ors.He also placed reliance on the Medico- Legal Aspects of Wounds, 'Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd edition.Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment.She contended that the incident was first reported vide DD No.23A (Ex.PW-3/C) which mentions that the place of the incident was the house of the appellant.From a perusal of the suggestions given in the cross-examination as well as examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it CRL A 229/2013 Page 8 of 14 stands proved that the complainant was not residing with the appellant at his H.No. R-118, Gali No.20, Brahmpuri, Delhi.On that day, she had gone to one "Aggarwal shop" in Brahmpuri, Seelampur where the appellant met her.CRL A 229/2013 Page 8 of 14From the testimony of Babloo, an independent witness, although declared hostile, it stands proved that he had seen the complainant outside the house of the appellant on 27.01.2008 at 9:30 pm.He had accompanied the complainant to the hospital.The complainant was examined in the hospital at about 9:20 pm, the time recorded in the MLC.From the house of the appellant, a plastic mat (Exhibit-1) was seized having brownish stains.PW-11 proved the photographs (Ex. PW- 11/A) taken at the house of the appellant which showed the presence of blood on the first floor of the house.Although in the FSL result, no grouping could be obtained, however, human blood was found on it.From a combined reading of the testimony of the complainant, the neighbor Babloo and the MLC, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove that the complainant got injured at the house of the appellant on 27.01.2018 at about 9-9:30 pm.It also stands proved that the complainant was not living with the appellant and was staying at her parental home.Learned counsel for the appellant has doubted the presence of the complainant at the place of incident.However, neither in the cross- examination nor during his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his own presence at the place of incident.The CRL A 229/2013 Page 9 of 14 presence of the complainant at the place of incident, as noted above, was corroborated by the independent witness, Babloo.CRL A 229/2013 Page 9 of 14As the complainant was not staying with the appellant, she had no motive to cause injuries on herself to falsely implicate the appellant.The onus was on the appellant to prove that the injuries of the complainant were self-inflicted.Not a single question was put to the expert witness, who had proved the MLC during the trial, as to whether the injuries were self-inflicted.In Sajjan Kumar (supra), the injuries were appearing on the hand of the appellant himself and not on the complainant.In that view, the decision was rendered holding injuries on the hand of the appellant were self-inflicted.Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that there are discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant and the witnesses as to CRL A 229/2013 Page 10 of 14 the exact place of the incident.Whereas the complainant deposed that the injuries were caused inside the house, PW-1 in his cross examination conducted on behalf of the appellant, deposed that he saw the complainant at a distance of 50-60 yards.Considering the nature of the evidence that has come on record, the inconsistency, as pointed out, is not material in nature.CRL A 229/2013 Page 10 of 14The testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal as it guarantees her presence at the scene of the crime.State of Haryana reported as AIR 2011 SC 2552 as under:-The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence.Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."The testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded completely.The part of the evidence which is cogent and credible can be relied upon.Reference in this regard is made on the decision rendered in Himanshu @ Chintu Vs.State of NCT of Delhi reported as (2011) 2 CRL A 229/2013 Page 11 of 14 SCC 36 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chana Bhai Vs.CRL A 229/2013 Page 11 of 14The testimony of the complainant, an injured is credible and trustworthy.Her presence at the spot is proved by the testimony of an independent witness.The MLC corroborates the testimony of the complainant about the incident as well as the timings.In Sarju Prasad Vs.State of Bihar reported as AIR 1965 SC 843, it was held as under:-It is also true, that the injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body but the fact remains that no vital organ of the body was injured thereby.Again, we do not know how big the chhura was and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was sufficiently for to penetrate the abdomen deep enough to cause an injury to a vital organ which would in the ordinary course of nature be fatal.The chhura could not be recovered but the prosecution should at least have elicited from the witnesses particulars about its size.We are, therefore, unable to say with anything near certainty that the appellant had such intention or knowledge.Incidentally we may point out that Shankar Prasad does not say that after he released the wrist of Sushil the appellant inflicted or even tried to inflict any further injury on him."The Supreme Court in Jage Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana reported as (2015) 11 SCC 366, while affirming the conviction of Jage CRL A 229/2013 Page 12 of 14 Ram for having caused grievous injury on the injured, under Section 325 IPC, held as under:-CRL A 229/2013 Page 12 of 14For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused.The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness.One fact that stands out, that out of 3 incised wounds, two were skin deep.Only 1 was deep and penetrating.CRL A 229/2013 Page 13 of 14In the light of the evidence that has come on record, the nature of the injuries and the fact that no vital organ of the body was injured and also that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant had the intention as required in the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.At the same time, it has been proved on record that the appellant had nevertheless, caused injuries to the complainant.A perusal of the MLC shows that the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon however, the same were opined to be simple in nature.The conviction of the accused under 307 IPC is set aside.Instead, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.The appellant is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months.The fine of Rs. 5000/- has also been paid.A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court.Trial court record be sent back.(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE AUGUST 27th, 2019 na CRL A 229/2013 Page 14 of 14CRL A 229/2013 Page 14 of 14

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

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

A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.According to the prosecution, respondent no.1 committed offencesunder Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 (in short 'SecretsAct') and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC')read with the aforesaid provisions.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate byhis order dated 16.8.1999 took cognizance and issued processes against theaccused persons including the respondent no.1 herein.Respondent no.1approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') for passing an order against thecognizance taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.The High Courtquashed the proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that there has beenunnecessary delay in the proceedings.A largenumber of documents were to be exhibited.There was no unusual delay.But the High Court did not accept the same.It was noted that merely because about 100 witnesses spread allover the India were to be examined, that cannot be a relevant groundjustifying the delay.

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

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

Heard finally.It is further submitted on the strength of order dated 27.08.15 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14429/15 and related FIR of Crime No.527/15, registered at PS-Shahpura that this second report is also filed against the applicant within 30 minutes which goes to show that applicant is falsely implicated in this case.Applicant is in custody since 08.08.15 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that aforesaid Crime No. 527/15 is related with the offence punishable under Sections 343,294,323, 354, 354 (A) (i) (II) and 506 of the IPC, and M.Cr.This repeat application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed .

['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 8.4.1988 passed by Sri P.P. Gupta, then learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 1988, Resham Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors.The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that Smt. Resham Devi had filed a complaint case, i.e. Complaint Case No. 211 of 1987, against the revisionists under Sections 395, 427, 147, 504, 506, 323 and 324 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after taking evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was of the view that no case against the accused is made out.He, therefore, rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with that order the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 58 of 1988 before Sessions Court.This revision was heard and decided by Sri P.P. Gupta, then learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh.He was of the view that the conclusion of the Magistrate was erroneous.He, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and issued a direction to the Magistrate to summon the accused persons under Sections 395, 427, 147, 504, 506, 323 and 324 I.P.C. Aggrieved with that order the accused filed this revision before this Court.None appeared for the revisionists at the time of hearing of the revision even after revision of the cause list.The learned A.G.A. Was present for the State and thelearned Counsel for the complainant O.P. No. 2 was also present.I, therefore, heard both of them and perused the record.This approach was erroneous and the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue any such direction to the Magistrate.The positive findings on the points whether there was sufficient evidence against the accused for summoning them or not and for what offences they were to be summoned were to be recorded by the Magistrate and not by the Sessions Judge.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicant will mark his presence on every Monday Wednesday & Friday before the Police Station Jigna, District Datia between 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM till filing of the charge- sheet and he would not move in the vicinity and locality of area of the complainant.With consent heard finally.At best allegations under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC can be attributable over the applicant.The investigation is pending and applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and would make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Officer.He further undertakes not to coercion, inducement, pressure and threat over the complainant and her family members.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquitted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be and would not move in the vicinity of the complainant;Any non-compliance shall be immediately informed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jigna, District Datia to this Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge AK/-ANAND KUMAR 2018.10.30 17:29:43 +05'30'

['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.In her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she states that in the drunken condition, the applicant entered into her house and established physical relationship with her.All of a sudden, her jeth(brother-in-law) saw her in compromising position with the applicant and thereafter, he locked up the door from outside and called the neighbours.This by itself shows that only when, her jeth has seen the incident, everything has spilled over.She is a major girl.The entire gamut of scenario indicates that she was spending her quality time with the applicant.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Satendra, involved in case crime no.24 of 2019, under Sections 452, 376 IPC, Police Station-Sahpau, District-Hathras be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

of gold to the petitioner.2. To appreciate the nub of the dispute, it is essential to state the bare minimum facts chronologically:2.1 Based on source information, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “the CBI”) registered an FIR in Crime No.24 of 2012 on 13.06.2012 for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in 2/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 short “the PC Act”), against the officials of Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India (in short “MMTC”), Chennai and Surana Corporation Limited (in short “Surana”), on the allegation that MMTC had shown undue favour to Surana, who were importing gold and silver.2.2 After registration of the FIR, the CBI searched the office building of Surana at New No.161 (Old No.79), NSC Bose Road, Chennai and prepared a search list showing that they had seized 400.47 kgs.of gold.The seized gold in the form of bars and ornaments were kept in the safes and vaults of Surana under the lock and seal of the CBI in the presence of mahazar witnesses.2.3 According to the CBI, they have submitted the keys of the locker to the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai (in short “the Special Court”).However, in their counter, they have not stated the date, on which, they have handed over the keys to the Special Court and that is why, this Court is unable to state with certainty that they have handed over the keys.2.14 Surana had borrowed monies from various banks viz., State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), Bank of India, Standard Chartered Bank and Central Bank of India and had defaulted in repayment.It is stated that a sum of Rs.1,160 crores was due from Surana to various banks.C.Ramasubramaniam as Interim Resolution Professional to take charge and manage the assets of Surana.In view thereof, for the 1st respondent having already withdrew the criminal case filed before CBI Court, the respondent shall deliver the custody of the asset to the liquidator within one week hereof and the liquidator shall take all precautions to keep the gold in the safe custody of SBI.To complete this process smoothly, the liquidator shall do paper work in compliance with law.At the time of delivery of this gold to SBI by the CBI, Bank of Baroda, 11/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 Punjab National Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and Central Bank of India shall be present at the time of handing over this gold by CBI to SBI in the presence of Resolution Professional.To the great shock and surprise of all, the total gold that was found, weighed only 296.606 kgs.and not 400.47 kgs.of gold and they had kept the seized gold in the safe vaults, sealed them in the presence of the independent witnesses and produced the 72 keys of the vaults and safes in 13/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 the Special Court; in the presence of the officials of the banks and Surana, the vaults and safes were inspected from 27.02.2020 to 29.02.2020 and at that time, the seals that were affixed on the vaults were found to be intact; therefore, the CBI is not liable for the shortage of gold and if at all the banks need a remedy, the remedy is not a writ petition, but, elsewhere.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, took this Court through the search list dated 20.06.2012 and submitted that the gold chains were weighed not individually, but collectively; but, in the inventory that was prepared on 27.02.2020 to 29.02.2020 in the presence of bank officials, each item of gold was weighed individually with the help of sophisticated machines and that is why, there is a discrepancy in weight.In short, the contention of the CBI is that they seized only actually 296.606 kgs. of gold, but, had mistakenly shown in the inventory as 400.47 kgs. of gold.14/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020He requested this Court to give a direction to the CBI to register an FIR for theft and conduct investigation.He even suggested that this Court could direct the CBI of the neighbouring State or the National Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation.of gold, as it would amount to putting the cart before the horse.As this exercise necessarily involves an investigation into several disputed questions of fact, which obviously cannot be undertaken in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to meet the ends of justice, the following directions are issued:➢ The petitioner/Liquidator shall give a petition narrating the entire facts to the CB-CID, Metro Wing, Chennai;11.12.2020 nsd/cad 21/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 P.N.PRAKASH,J.The Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation SPE-CB ACB 3rd Floor, Shastri Bhawan No.26, Haddows Road Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006 [email protected] Superintendent of Police CB-CID (Metro) Egmore Chennai 600 008The Deputy General Manager State Bank of India Overseas Branch Chennai – 600 001 W.P.No.14030 of 2020 11.12.2020This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to hand over the remaining 103.864 kgs.3/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 2.4 During the course of investigation in Crime No.24 of 2012, the CBI found that the gold that was seized by them did not have a bearing on that case, but, they found that the said gold was imported in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), inasmuch as, the officials of the Export Processing Zone had given Nominated Agency Certificate (NAC) to Surana illegally, on the strength of which, the latter had imported gold and silver.2.5 On these allegations, the CBI registered a fresh case in Crime No.39 of 2013 on 16.09.2013 for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, against seven accused, including the partners of Surana.2.6 After registering the second FIR, the CBI gave an application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.5647 of 2013 in Crime No.39 of 2013 in the Special Court, requesting the Court to transfer the 400.47 kgs.At this juncture, it may be pertinent to state that there was no physical inventorisation by the Court, because, the gold was kept in the vaults of Surana and there was only transfer on paper from one case to the other.2.8 In the meanwhile, the CBI completed the investigation in Crime No.24 of 2012 and filed a final report in C.C.No.37 of 2013 in the IX Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, against the officials of MMTC and Surana.2.9 The CBI completed the investigation in Crime No.39 of 2013 and filed a closure report, holding that the accused had not committed any offence, but, by issuing the Nominated Agency Certificate to Surana, they have only violated certain circulars, for which, departmental action was recommended against the officials.However, coming to the gold in 5/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 question, the CBI, in their closure report in Crime No.39 of 2013 that was filed in the Special Court, have stated as follows:Thus, as there is no adequate evidence forthcoming in support of the allegation to o for successful prosecution against the accused persons it is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass:(i) Appropriate orders pertaining to disposal of case property i.e.400.47 kgs of Bullion and Jewellery items, as aforesaid, subject to the outcome of the action taken by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 12(2)(8) & (9) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and as amended by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2010 and(ii) Order to close the case in RC MA1 2013 A 0039, and thus render justice.” 2.10 The Special Court, by order dated 26.02.2015, accepted the closure report filed by the CBI in Crime No.39 of 2013 and passed the following order:In the result,(a) this petition is allowed.(b) it is ordered to close the FIR filed in RC MA1 2013 A 0039 dated 19.06.2013 on the file of the petitioner/complainant.(c) Further, an order is passed granting permission to the petitioner/complainant to produce the case properties namely 400.47 kgs. of Bullion and Jewellery 6/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 items before the appropriate authority viz., Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Department of Commerce, Government of India, New Delhi.” 2.11 Thus, the gold that was seized by the CBI stood transferred on paper to the Director General of Foreign Trade (in short “the DGFT”) by virtue of the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Special Court.Aggrieved by this, Surana filed Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2015 before this Court and contended that the gold should not have been handed over to the DGFT without hearing them.2.12 This Court allowed Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2015 on 14.07.2015 with the following directions:In the circumstances, the order of the learned VIII Additional Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.828 of 2015 in RCMA1 2013 A 0039 dated 26.02.2015 so far as clause 8(c), directing producing of the gold bullions weighing 400.47 kgs.To the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, is set aside.The trial Court will give reasonable opportunity to all the parties, permit them to file their counter, etc., if any and hear all the parties and pass orders in accordance with law at an early date.All the parties shall appear before the VIII Additional Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Chennai, on 03.08.2015.” 7/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 2.13 Now, this Court should advert to the happenings in a parallel story.The NCLT, by order dated 05.10.2018, appointed one Mr.2.15 Now, let us for a moment shift to the happenings on the criminal side.Pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2015 passed by this Court, the Special Court issued notice to Surana in Crl.M.P.No.828 of 2015 relating to return of gold.8/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 2.16 On coming to know that the gold belonging to Surana is available, the State Bank of India filed Crl.M.P.No.5916 of 2015 in the Special Court, asking for the gold.Surana filed Crl.M.P.No.7885 of 2015 in the Special Court, for return of the gold to them.Thus, all of them, like the famous character Colorado played by the late Omar Sharif in the Hollywood blockbuster, Mackenna's Gold, went on a gold hunting expedition to the Special Court.Like Colorado entering into an agreement with Monkey, the apache, to share the spoils of gold, the State Bank of India and Surana entered into an agreement and filed a compromise memo before the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.5916 of 2015, requesting the Court to hand over the gold weighing 400.47 kgs.to the State Bank of India for settlement of the dues to the Banks.2.17 The Special Court accepted the joint compromise memo and passed the order dated 12.12.2017, handing over the gold to the State Bank of India being the leader of the consortium of six banks, to whom, Surana owed money.C.Ramasubramaniam, Interim Resolution Professional, 9/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 moved the NCLT to give a direction to the CBI to hand over the gold to the State Bank of India as directed by the Special Court, so that, he would be able to complete the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process without any further delay.The CBI opposed the prayer stating that the gold vested with DGFT albeit the order passed by the Special Court.2.18 The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, not wanting to be left out in the great bullion chase, filed Crl.R.C.No.687 of 2019 in this Court, challenging the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Special Court and prayed for the return of gold to them.This Court heard the State Bank of India, CBI and Surana in Crl.R.C.No.687 of 2019 and passed final orders on 16.07.2019, the operative portion of which, is as under:Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that NCLT is the appropriate Forum to decide the rival claims of the parties in respect of bullion.Since now that the FIR has been closed and further criminal proceedings have been terminated, this Court is also of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases/VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.5916/2015 dated 12.12.2017 has to be set aside.http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed an the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases/VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.5916/2015 in RC MAI 2013A 0039 dated 12.12.2017 is set aside.The petitioner shall approach NCLT and NCLT shall decide the Bullion/gold afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned.However, a direction is issued to CBI to hand over the custody of 400.47 Kgs of Bullion/gold to the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, and the 1st respondent herein viz., SBI, shall not dispose of the property, viz., 400.47 Kgs of Bullion/Gold, till the issue is decided by NCLT.” 2.19 Now, the scene shifts to the NCLT.The NCLT, by order dated 27.12.2019, rejected the request of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and directed that 400.47 kgs.of gold be handed over to the Interim Resolution Professional-cum-Liquidator in the presence of the officials of the State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), Bank of India, Standard Chartered Bank and Central Bank of India.The operative portion of the said order is as under:as projected by the CBI in their search list.Thus, there was a shortage of 103.864 kgs.of gold, for which, the CBI was not able to properly account for.Under such circumstances, the Interim Resolution Professional-cum-Liquidator, has filed the present writ petition for a direction to the CBI to hand over 103.864 kgs.of gold.Heard Mr.Lokesh, learned counsel representing M/s. India Law LLP, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/Liquidator, Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the first 12/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 respondent/CBI and Mr.P.Elayarajkumar, learned counsel representing M/s. Ramalingam & Associates, learned counsel on record for the second respondent/State Bank of India.The petitioner/Liquidator and the second respondent/State Bank of India are on the same page and their adversary is the first respondent/CBI.The petitioner and the State Bank of India produced unimpeachable documents to show that the CBI had seized 400.47 kgs.of gold, but, on actual verification, what was found was only 296.606 kgs.of gold and therefore, the CBI should have to return the balance of 103.864 kgs. of gold.The CBI has filed a counter signed by S.Manikavel, Inspector of Police, CBI, in which, it is stated that the CBI had used the weighing machine that was available in the office of Surana and the total weight showed by the machine was 400.47 kgs.The panchanama (search list) that was prepared by the CBI in the presence of the independent witnesses at the time of seizure shows that the gold weighed 400.47 kgs.Had the gold been physically entrusted to the Special Court by the CBI as material objects, the Property Clerk would have proceeded on the weight of the gold mentioned in the panchanama and would have made the entry in the property register as 400.47 kgs.; subsequently, while passing orders either under Section 451 Cr.P.C. or Section 452 Cr.P.C., if it had been found that the gold weighed only 296.606 kgs., the CBI would have cried foul from the roof top and demanded the scalp of the Special Judge and his Property Clerk.This Court explained to the learned Special Public Prosecutor that Caesar's wife should be beyond suspicion, to establish which, investigation by a totally different agency is the panacea.If their hands are clean, like Sita, they may come out brighter, if not, 1 (2010) 3 SCC 571 2 AIR 1956 SC 217 18/22http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 they would have to face the music.Be it noted, in NDPS Act cases, weight of the contraband determines the quantum of punishment.Without intending to hypothesize or speculate, the facts, as unfurled supra, bring out three distinct possibilities on the fate of the gold which require investigation:➢ First, the alleged shortfall of 103.97 kgs.of gold could be a genuine mistake as contended by the CBI, or ➢ Secondly, the CBI officials, in collusion, with the panchas and others, may have illegally dealt with the gold while maintaining the weight of the gold as 400 kgs.in the seizure mahazar, as a shortfall therein would have made Surana cry foul.➢ On such petition being filed by the petitioner/Liquidator, the CB-CID shall register a regular FIR for theft and entrust the investigation of the case to an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police in CB-CID;➢ All the stakeholders, including the CBI officials, shall assist the CB-CID in the investigation of the case;http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.14030 of 2020 ➢ The investigation shall be completed within six months from the date of registration of the FIR; and ➢ Be it a charge sheet or a closure report, the same shall be filed before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai and copy furnished to the petitioner, who is the Liquidator appointed by the NCLT.With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.Costs made easy.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 10.06.2020, the accused persons waylaid the petitioner’s father and attacked him indiscriminately by using stone and iron rod.Therefore, his father sustained grievous injury on his throat, neck and head.Due to this attack, petitioner’s father could not be able to eat and speak, since his throat got ruptured by the accused persons.Even then on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.364 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 2/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.12239 of 2020 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.There is an ample materials available to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC.The 2nd respondent failed to register the case for the offence under Section 307 IPC as against the accused persons.3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.4.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also on perusal of records, it shows that the petitioner’s father sustained grievous injuries on his throat, neck and head, due to which he lost his speech.Therefore, to attract offence, there is material available to register the case under Section 307 IPC.Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to alter the offence under Section 307 and 320 of IPC along with other offences and investigate the case.Further the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file final report within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.3/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.12239 of 20205.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

RespondentsNo. 4 to 6 impleaded as such vide this Court's order dated 29th August,2007 respectively are Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book,Oxford University Press, India, the publisher through its ConstitutedAttorney Mr. Manzar Sayed Khan and Mr. Vinod Hansraj Goyal,proprietor of Rashtriya Printing Press, Delhi, the printer of the book.4.For the purpose of appreciation of the questions raised, the foundationalfacts may be noticed.These are:On 28th May, 2003, respondent No. 5, the publisher entered into anagreement with Oxford University Press, U.S.A. for publishing in India apaper-bound book entitled "Shivaji - Hindu King in Islamic India" 2 authored by Prof. James W. Laine (respondent No.4), a Professor ofReligious Studies, Macalester College, U.S.A. The said book wasoriginally published by Oxford University Press, Inc., U.S.A. As per theterms of the agreement, respondent No.5 agreed to reprint the bookwithout any changes or deletions.In all, 803 copies of the book werepublished i.e. 488 copies in June and 315 copies in October, 2003 andwas released in July 2003 and 215 copies were sold in the month of Julyitself.On 10th November 2003, the publisher (respondent No.5) receiveda letter from four historians whereby the publisher and the author hadbeen asked to retract the objectionable statement complained of andtender an apology.Mr. Manzar Sayed Khan, expressed regrets for thesaid statement and informed the objectors that instructions had beenissued to all his offices in India to immediately withdraw all copies of thebook from circulation.After withdrawal of the book from circulation, amob at Pune blackened the face of a Sanskrit Scholar Shri ShashikantBahulkar whose name appeared in the acknowledgement of the book,having helped the author, Prof. James W. Laine, by providing him withsome information during his visit to Pune.This incident was widelyreported in the press.On 28th December, 2003, the author Prof. James W.Laine sent a fax, apologising for the mistake, if any, committed in 3 writing the passage and stated that he only was responsible for the saidstatement written in the book, and the publisher was not at all responsiblefor the same.On 5th January, 2004, a mob of 100 to 125 personsallegedly belonging to the Sambhaji Brigade ransacked BhandarkarOriental Research Institute (BORI), Pune and destroyed a large numberof books and rare manuscripts.This incident was also widely reported inthe press.And Whereas, the said author has in his said Book, made several derogatory references specified in the Schedule appended hereto regarding Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, in particular about his parentage and the Bhosale family to which he belonged;And Whereas, publication of the said Book containing the said derogatory references is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups and has disturbed the public tranquillity;D.K. JAIN, J.:Leave granted.By the impugned judgment, passed in an application under Section96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short "the Code") readwith Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has set aside and quashed notification dated 20th December, 2006, issued in the nameof Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code, directing forfeiture of every copy ofthe book captioned as "Shivaji - Hindu King in Islamic India" written byone Prof. James W. Laine.3.The three writ petitioners, who are respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein,are respectively stated to be a well known lawyer and a public activist inthe Ambedkarite movement, intended to mobilize the deprived sectionsof the society; (ii) a well-known film maker, whose documentaries arestated to be known the world over for their artistic finesse, conveyingdemocratic and secular message and (iii) a social activist.On 7th January, 2004, respondent No.4, the author in an interview,explained the reason for writing the book and expressed deep anguish atthe destruction of rare manuscripts and books in BORI, Pune.Four daysafter the alleged incident i.e. on 9th January, 2004, the State ofMaharashtra, the appellant herein, registered a first information report(for short "FIR") at Deccan Police Station, Pune, against respondents No.4 to 6 i.e. Prof. James W. Laine, the author, Mr. Manzar Sayed Khan,the publisher and Mr. Vinod Hansraj Goyal, the printer of the book underSections 153, 153-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short"the IPC").On 15th January, 2004, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code, the Government of Maharashtraissued a notification declaring that every copy of the aforementionedbook shall be forfeited to the Government.The said notification was 4 challenged in the Bombay High Court by respondents No.1 to 3 herein.However, during the pendency of the petition, this notification waswithdrawn and another notification dated 20th December, 2006 wasissued.The notification reads as follows:No. BAP-2004/422/C.R.113/2004/XXXIV.The appeal is dismissedaccordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The gist of the prosecution case is thus :P.W.1 Yashodabai Padghan is in cultivating possession of Class-E land bearing Survey 42, admeasuring 5 Acres situated in Kajlamba.P.W.1 and her husband P.W.2 had constructed a hut on the said agricultural land and were residing therein since the standing crop needed protection.Accused 2 Tulshiram instigated the other accused to set hut on fire.The cattle brought by accused Dnyaneshwar, Dilip and Jagan were driven in the standing crop of soyaben and accused Bharat and Dilip assaulted P.W.1 by a Neem stick.P.W.1 waited for her husband to arrive, who returned at 5- 00 p.m. or thereabout.A written report (Exhibit 22) was lodged by P.W.1 at Ansing Police Station at 6-15 p.m. or thereabout.Concededly, the only eyewitness is the complainant herself.She has deposed that at 10-00 a.m. on the day of the incident the accused came near her hut, accused Rameshwar poured kerosene around the hut and accused Ganesh set the hut afire.The other accused drove the cattle in the soyabean crop and damaged the crop.Accused Dilip inflicted a stick blow on the leg.P.W.1 states that she and her husband suffered loss of Rs.10,000/- since the articles stored in the hut were destroyed.ORAL JUDGMENT :The appellants seek to assail the judgment and order dated 20-1-2006 rendered by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial 18/2005, by and under which the appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Sections 143, 436, 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).The sentence awarded is simple imprisonment for three months and to payment of fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for three months and to payment of fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::The household articles needed for the day to day living were in the said hut.P.W.2 Kashiram had gone to Washim to purchase grocery.The accused had brought a five litre can of kerosene.Accused 1 Rama poured kerosene around the hut which was set on fire by accused 3 Ganesh by igniting a matchstick.On the same day P.W.1 Yashodabai::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 4 apeal31.06 was referred for medical examination.The spot panchanama was recorded on 25-8-2004 (Exhibit 27).The accused were arrested and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Cass, Washim, who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 143, 436, 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.The defence is of total denial and false implication.The motive for false implication is stated to be the action initiated against the complainant and her husband for removal of the encroachment on the Class-E land, which concededly is Government land.The defence examined three witnesses namely Keshao Aochar, Rama Gaikwad and Shaikh Deewan.Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.The learned Counsel for the accused Shri R.L. Khapre::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 5 apeal31.06 submits that the investigation is not only unfair but borders on dishonesty.Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel would submit that the evidence on record indicates that the very authenticity of the first information report (Exhibit 22) is suspect.The fact that the prosecution has not come forward with any explanation whatsoever for not registering the offence till 24-8-2004, would suggest that sanha entry taken in the police station at 8.15 p.m. on 10-8-2004 was not with reference to first information report (Exhibit 22) and, was in every probability with reference to a limited complaint of P.W.1 having suffered simple hurt.The learned Counsel Shri R.L. Khapre would submit that since the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is non-cognizable, the police did not, and justifiably so take cognizance of the first information report.The registration of offence under Sections 435, 427, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC on 24-8-2004, without any explanation forth coming for the delayed registration of offence, would suggest false implication or over implication at the behest of the complainant, is the submission.The existence of the hut is not proved, is the submission of the learned Counsel Shri R.L. Khapre.The evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent with injury report (Exhibit 38) and the testimony of P.W.1 is not confidence inspiring, is the submission.The learned Counsel would submit that::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 6 apeal31.06 the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and au contraire the defence of the accused of false implication is more than probabalised on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::P.W.1 then states that after her husband returned at 5-00 p.m., the report was lodged at Police Station Ansing.She proves the oral report (Exhibit 22).She states that previously she and her husband instituted civil suit since the possession of the land was being disturbed and secured an injunction.She proves the copy of the judgment (Exhibit 24) of the civil Court.In the cross-examination,::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 7 apeal31.06 P.W.1 states that after the incident, she immediately went to the residence of police patil and narrated the incident to him.She states that she was advised by the police patil to lodge the report after her husband returns from Washim.P.W.1 then states that from the residence of police patil she returned to the field and was in the field till her husband returned.She states that she went to Ansing at 6-00 p.m. and lodged the report.P.W.1 states that the report was typed in the police station courtyard and that she narrated the instructions to the typist.She is not in a position to state to whom the copies of the report were sent.In the next breath, she states that the copies of the report were sent to the Superintendent of Police and the Tahsildar.She states that she went to the tahsil office the next day, however, the officials of the tahsil office did not visit the spot.She states that two police officials came to the spot on the next day and prepared panchanama.She further states that the police recorded the statements of the witnesses on the next day of the incident.She admits that the accused had lodged the complaint with the tahsil office seeking removal of the encroachment.She denies the suggestion that the talathi had visited the field on 03-8-2004 and prepared the panchanama.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::She further states in the cross-examination that the::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 8 apeal31.06 accused had brought 200 to 300 cattle in the field.She saw the cattle from distance of 5 to 50 meters approaching the field from Washim- Kalamba Road.She states that since nobody was around, she did not call for help.She states that the accused were in the field for one hour.The accused were around the hut, the cattle destroyed the soyabean and tur crops, however, she neither called out seeking help nor did she go to the village, other than for visiting the residence of the police patil.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::She states that the hut was situated on the western side corner of the land.She states that police made enquiries from her twice and the second enquiry was after fifteen days of the incident.P.W.1 states that her statement and that of her husband P.W.2 was recorded on the next day of the incident and the statements of Sheshrao Kamble and Kisan Kamble were recorded after fifteen days of the incident.She asserts that her statement and that of her husband was not recorded subsequently.In the cross-examination, it is brought on record that the cattle did not enter the neighbouring and adjoining fields and entered only in her field.She, however, admits that in the past she did file a report against the::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 9 apeal31.06 previous sarpanch Niranjan Ugale and her husband P.W.2 lodged the report against the tahsildar Bal Sakhare alleging that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were abused by the said sarpanch and tahsildar.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::Kashiram Padghan, the husband of the complainant (PW 2) has deposed that on the day of the incident at 8.30 a.m. he went to Washim to purchase grocery and returned at 5.00 pm.He found the hut burnt.The incident was narrated to him by his wife PWHe states that the total loss caused was between Rs.7,000/- to 80,000/-.In the cross-examination, it is brought on record that the specific role attributed to the accused, on the basis of information received by PW1, is an omission.PW 2 admits that the incident occurred in rainy season.He states that he reached Aansing Police Station at 6.00 p.m. alongwith PW 1 who lodged the report.PW 2 states that the report was drafted by advocate Shri Ingle of Washim.PW 2 states that he and PW 1 reached Washim at 5.00 p.m. and the report was typed as per the instructions given by PW 1 at Washim.He claims ignorance of the complaint made by the accused to the tahsildar against PW 1 and PWHe denies the suggestion that the talathi inspected the field on 8.9.2004 and prepared panchanama.The suggestion that the accused::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 10 apeal31.06 are falsely implicated since they were complaining to the tahsildar, is denied.It is elicited that since the police did not initiate any action for 15 days, report was lodged with Superintendent of Police.He states that the police came for inquiry after one month of lodging of report.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::PW 3 Sheshrao Kamble who is examined to prove the spot panchanama Exh. 27 did not support the prosecution, although, he is one of the plaintiffs in the civil suit instituted seeking injunction.In the cross-examination on behalf of he prosecution, nothing is elicited to assist the prosecution.PW 4 Kisan Kamble, who was also a plaintiff in the civil suit, did not support the prosecution.However, he denies having gone to the field of PW 2 and states that his signature was obtained by the police in the village.PW 5 Ramkrushna Manwar is the police patil of the village who deposed that PW 1 came to him at 11.00 a.m. and complained::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 11 apeal31.06 that her crop was damaged.PW 5 states that he accompanied PW 1 and noticed damage to the crop.However, he states that he is not aware of the existence of hut in the field and denies that PW 1 disclosed the names of persons responsible for damaging the crop.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW 5 to take the case of the prosecution any further.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::PW 6 Pandit Rathod, then attached to Police Station Ansing as ASI recorded the First Information Report.In the cross-examination, it is elicited that there is no facility of typing in the police station.PW 7 Panjabrao Ingle is one of the Investigating Officers.His deposition is that it was when he recorded the spot panchanama Exh. 27, he noticed that the hut was burn and crops were damaged.He recorded the statement of PW1, PW 2 and the police Patil - Ramkrushna (PW 5).PW 7 states that it was after recording of the statements of the witnesses that he realized that offence punishable under section 436 of the IPC is made out and he brought this fact to the notice of the police station officer.It was thereafter that offence::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 12 apeal31.06 under section 436 of the IPC was additionally registered, is the deposition.He states that although he recorded statements of 25 persons other than PW 1, PW 2 and the police patil, he did not record statements of the neighbouring field owners.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::PW 8 Dr. Sudhakar Gunaghe who examined PW 1 Yashodabai has deposed that he noticed pain and tenderness over the left knee joint and right knee joint.The injuries could be caused to labours working in the field, is what elicited in the cross-examination.PW 9 - Maroti Aoghale then attached to Police Station Ansing as PSI has filed the charge sheet.DW 1 states that when he prepared the report, he did not notice a hut.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::13 apeal31.06 In the cross-examination, DW 1 states that he submitted the report since the Sarpanch had applied for the same.DW 1 states that he visited the field on 4.8.2004 in the morning.He denies the suggestion that he used to send reports at the dictates of the Sarpanch.DW 1 has denied the suggestion that he prepared a false report without inspecting the land.DW 2 Rama Gaikwad is examined to prove that none of the accused took any cattle from the cattle in his possession.DW 3 Sheikh Avesh is examined to prove that PW 2 Kashiram resides in front of his house since beginning.DW 3 has deposed that he used to see Kashiram and family daily and he did not shift to any other residence.Analysis of the ocular evidence on record would reveal that from the perspective of the prosecution, the material witnesses are PW 1 Yashodabai and PW 2 Kashiram.Column 4 of the printed First Information Report states that information was written.Column 8 of the printed First Information Report states that the reasons for delay in reporting by complainant / informant is "after inspecting the spot of occurrence".In the teeth of the evidence on record, the reason recorded for delayed registration of the offence is clearly false.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::The learned counsel for accused Shri R.L. Khapre is more than justified in attacking the authenticity of the report produced on record and the fairness of the investigation.The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 as regards the lodging of the report is too inconsistent to be reconciled.This evidence is totally inconsistent::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 15 apeal31.06 with the testimony of her husband PW 2 who claims to have reached Washim at 5.00 p.m., which is a physical impossibility since he returned to his village at 5.00 p.m. and got the written report drafted from advocate Shri Ingle at Washim and then to have come to Ansing Police Station to lodge the report.It is already noticed supra that according to the printed First Information Report, the information was received from the complainant on 24.8.2004 and the explanation for delayed report is recorded as "after inspecting the spot of occurrence".The fact that the contents of the First Information Report Exh. 23 are falsified by the irrefutable position on record that there was no inspection of the scene of occurrence prior to 25.8.2004, must put the Court on guard and the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 must be scrutinized closely and with extreme caution in the light of the submission of the learned counsel Shri R.L. Khapre that the very authenticity of the report is suspect.The inconsistencies and discrepancies inter se in the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, the failure of the prosecution to explain as to what transpired between 10.8.2004 to 24.8.2004, and the ex facie falsehood in the printed First Information Report Exh. 23 cumulatively satisfies the conscious of the Court that::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 16 apeal31.06 the defence has created sufficient doubt about the veracity and indeed the authenticity of the report of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::The motive for false implication or at any rate for over implication is brought on record by the defence.It is not in dispute that PW 1 and PW 2 are encroachers on government land.It is further not in dispute that the accused were attempting to clear the encroachment and to the said end were lodging complaints with the concerned officials.The obvious motive to falsely implicate or over implicate the accused is an additional circumstance to test the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 with extreme caution.The witnesses to the spot panchanama PW 3 Sheshrao and PW 4 Kisan did not support the prosecution.It is only PW 7 - Investigating Officer who has proved the spot panchanama.The learned counsel for the accused Shri R.L. Khapre has invited my attention to two glaringly significant aspects.The first aspect is that while PW 1 states that the hut was situated on the western side corner::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 17 apeal31.06 of the field, the spot panchanama records that the hut is situated adjacent to the northern embankment (Dhura).The second aspect is that DW 1 talathi who inspected the encroachment on 4.8.2004 states that he did not notice a hut.Apart from the fact that the witnesses to the spot panchanama did not support the prosecution and none of the prosecution witnesses other than PW 1 and PW 2 and the Investigating Officer testify as to the existence of the hut, in the submission of Shri R.L. Khapre, PW 1 and PW 2 who reside in a house in the village, are highly unlikely have been residing in the hut in the rainy season.The learned counsel would further submit that the spot panchanama per se is suspect in view of the household articles and the condition thereof as is recorded in the spot panchanama, which is concededly prepared after 15 days of the incident, and that too in the rainy season.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::Concededly, the only eye witness is PW 1 herself.The police patil PW 5 has deposed that although PW 1 did approach him at 11.00 a.m. on the day of the incident, she made a limited complaint that her crops were damaged.The police patil has deposed that he did accompany PW 1 to the field in her possession but then he did not notice any hut.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination on behalf of the::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 ::: 18 apeal31.06 prosecution of the police patil who was declared hostile, to assist the prosecution.I have already observed that the evidence as regards the lodging of the report on 10.8.2004 is marred by serious infirmities, in the teeth of evidence on record, it would be extremely unsafe and hazardous to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, only on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 Yashodabai.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::It is trite law, that conviction can not be based on suspicion, howsoever, grave the suspicion may be.The prosecution has not bridged the gulf between suspicion and proof by cogent and unimpeachable evidence.The accused deserve to be given benefit of doubt which I am inclined to do.In the result, I pass following order:(i) The judgment and order impugned is set aside and the accused are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 143, 436, 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded to them.(iii) The appeal is allowed.JUDGER.S. Belkhede, P.A.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 21:18:09 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

sm Rejected CRM No.4097 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.05.2017 in connection with Tarakeswar Police Station Case No.235 of 2016 dated 25.07.2016 under sections 326A/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code And In Re:- Sk.Nuro @ Sk.Nur Islam... Petitioner Mr.Pradip Roy ... for the petitioner Mr.Binoy Panda... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for about 292 days.The charge-sheet has been submitted and May 25, 2017 is the date fixed for taking up the matter for consideration of the question of framing charge.This is a case of acid attack.There are two victims and one of them has subsequently died sustaining acid burn injury.The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently contends that in the injury report, the petitioner's name has not been mentioned, although he is a local man.On the other-hand, the learned advocate for the State submits that within few hours of the incident, the FIR was lodged and the victims also in their statements recorded under section 164 CrPC implicated the petitioner in the commission of the offence and by another, who was present at the scene of occurrence.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

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

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

P. 290/2011 Page 1 of 9The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was sub-contractor of M/s. Gem International which was itself a sub-contractor of M/s. Swiss Timing Ltd. (in short SLT).The Petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s. Gem International on the 29 th June, 2010 for laying of cables and related civil works for the TSR contract for the 17 stadiums.The Petitioner was never into picture when the Organizing Committee entered into agreement with the STL.The Petitioner entered belatedly because the work had to be completed in time as it was lagging behind and due to torrential rains extra work force, materials etc. were required.Despite the Petitioner neither being named in FIR nor having any connection with either M/s. STL or M/s. Gem International the premises of the Petitioner at Hyderabad were raided on 7th February, 2011 and documents were sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which were immediately handed over to the CBI.The Respondents officers intensively interrogated the Petitioner at Hyderabad and their queries were satisfactorily answered.On 10th February, 2011 CBI sent a fax message to the office of the Petitioner directing him to furnish certain more documents and to bring some more witnesses to Delhi.P. 290/2011 Page 2 of 9No address or whereabouts of place in Madhya Pradesh were furnished.The said fax Crl.By this petition the Petitioner seek setting aside of the order dated 15th June, 2011 as also the order dated 23rd May, 2011 and quashing of initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C in R.C. No. DAI-2010-A-0044 under Crl.P. 290/2011 Page 1 of 9 Section 420/467/468/471 IPC read with 120-B IPC and 13 (1) (d) read with13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short PC Act).As per the oral instructions, on 11th February, 2011 the Petitioner appeared Crl.P. 290/2011 Page 2 of 9 before the CBI officers and was subjected to a gruelling interrogation till late hours.The Petitioner had to leave for Hyderabad in early hours of 13th February, 2011 as his wife was seriously ill.Petitioner was unable to furnish the said documents.He informed the CBI about his inability.However, as the condition of the Petitioners wife was still very bad, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Investigating Officer to defer the enquiry dates.Since there was Crl.On 29th March, 2011 the learned Trial Court issued non-bailable and search warrants against the Petitioner.Even on 31st March, 2011 the CBI conducted search at the residential as well as office premises of the Petitioner and it was clearly disclosed that the Petitioner was at work site at Madhya Pradesh.Reliance is placed on Jayant Vishnu Thakur Vs.P. 290/2011 Page 4 of 9P. 290/2011 Page 4 of 9Thereafter, despite notices admittedly received he did not appear on 13th February, 2011 and left for Hyderabad without informing the CBI.It is contended that the falsity of the excuses made by the Petitioner was evident from the fact that on the one hand Petitioner claimed that he was unable to appear before the Investigating agency on account of Wifes illness, however admittedly on 31st March, 2011 when the CBI team searched the residential office of the Petitioner, he was not available and was purportedly in Madhya Pradesh on work.No address or whereabouts of Madhya Pradesh were furnished.The stand of the CBI was clearly spelt out and is recorded in the order.Thereafter application for issuance of non-bailable warrants was filed on 29th March, 2011 which was allowed.The Petitioner after 12th February, 2011 evaded the process of investigation and, thus, there is no infirmity in the order.During investigation clear allegations have emerged against the Petitioner and the learned Trial Court conscious of Crl.P. 290/2011 Page 5 of 9 those allegations issued non-bailable warrants.Thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed.P. 290/2011 Page 5 of 9I have heard learned counsel for the parties.P. 290/2011 Page 8 of 9The petition and application are dismissed being devoid of merit.

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

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

P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased.P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased.All of them were living together in a house situate in the Harijan Street, Vennaputtur village, Bhapanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.The accused Marudhupandian was also living in the same street.About twenty days prior to the occurrence, which took place on 15-8-1982, P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu, who is pangali of the deceased Chinniyan had been to a brick kiln, taking food to his younger brother.When he returned home during that night, he saw one Karunanithi seducing the farmer's wife by name Amsu.P.W. 5 caught Karunanithi red handed and made a shout.On hearing the shot, his junior paternal uncle Ganesan came there and both of them entangled Karunanithi physically.Thereafter, Karunanithi's brothers Thiyagarajan, Raja, Srinivasan and his junior paternal uncle Rajagopal came there and took him away saying that they would enquired the matter on the next morning.P.W. 5 made a complaint to the Panchayatdhars and asked them to enquire into the matter.Thus, the said Sekar and Karunanithi got serious with the family of the deceased Chinniyan.They preferred a false complaint to the police against P.W. 4 Kalyani, the son of the deceased, and one Shanmugham, Karuppiah and Govindaraj.Since them, the accused Marudhupandiyan was inimical towards the deceased Chinniyan.On 15-8-1982, at 9.00 a.m., the deceased, along with his two wives and three other woman folk, went to his filed situate behind his house and engaged in transplantation work.At that time he caught two rats from the ridges of his field and whereupon he asked his first wife, P.W. 1 Ravanammal, to go along with him to their home and prepare sauce.Accordingly, P.W. 1 and the deceased went home, P.W. 1 engaged in the kitchen work while the deceased was sleeping near the threshold of the backyard of their house.At about 3.00 p.m., when P.W. 1 went near the deceased to take water from the mud pot which was kept beside him, she noticed the accused entering their house through the western lane and through the backyard.There was a sickle in his hand.On seeing the accused moving fast and nearing her husband, P.W. 1 shouted at him asking as to why he was running like that.But, brushing aside the words, the accused started cutting the deceased with the sickle on his right forehead.The deceased twisted and cried 'Ye, Appa'.P.W. 1 also raised an alarm.The accused again cut the deceased on his forehead along with the head.The next two cuts fell on the chest and fingers of the deceased.On hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 1, P.W. 8 Dhanapalan, the son of the younger brother of the deceased who was coming to the house of the deceased through the front door, in order to tap today from the coconut trees behind the house, rushed into the house and saw the accused cutting the deceased.P.W. 8 gave a chase to him by raising alarm.P.W. 2 Karunanithi, resident of Thirukkargavoor, who had come to his father-in-law's house at Vennaputtur at that time was eating food on being served by his wife.On hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 8, he came out of the house and saw the accused running towards west, P.W. 8 chasing him by raising noise (Vernacular matter omitted.) when P.W. 2 and his wife attempted to intercept the accused, the accused wriggled out and ran towards west.P.W. 9 Munusami, who is also a resident of Harijan Street, on hearing the noise, came out of his house and saw the accused came running in the front with an aruval in his hand, being chased by P.Ws. 2, 8 and one Maharani, who asked P.W. 9 to catch the accused by saying that he was running after cutting Chinniyan.When P.W. 9 asked the accused to stop, the accused threatened him by showing the aruval.P.W. 9 got afraid and retreated.The accused ran through a lane leading to Vennar, towards north.In the meanwhile P.W. 1 saw her husband who has sustained cut injuries bleeding profusely.She wiped out the blood from his body and feeded water to him.But, Chinniyan died.P.W. 4, Kalyani, the son of the deceased, who had been to Papanasam on the day of the occurrence, returned home by about 4.30 p.m. On that day.He heard about the occurrence and saw his father lying dead having sustained cut injuries.P.Ws. 2, 8 and 9 went to Kalanjeri and P.Ws. 8 told P.W. 3 Samba-Vaidyanathan about the occurrence and asked him to give a phone message to Ammapet Police.Thereupon, P.W. 3 went to the post office and informed the Ammapet Police through phone.The Police asked him to send some body to prefer a complaint.But, P.W. 3 replied that there was nobody to go over there and asked the police to go to the scene of occurrence.Then, they waited till 4.45 p.m. But the police did not arrive.P.W. 3 again phoned up to the Ammapet police by 4.45 p.m. At that time, P.W. 4 also arrived there.P.W. 4 asked P.W. 8 as to how the occurrence took place.P.W. 4 asked P.W. 8 to go to Ammapet Police Station and prefer the complaint.Thereafter, P.W. 3 contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural, Thanjavur, over phone who in turn promised to do the needful.Ex. P.-15 is the three telephone receipts issued to P.W. 3 for his phoning up to Ammapet Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur.On 15-8-1982 at 6.00 p.m., P.W. 8 appeared before P.W. 12 Meenakshisundaram, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at Ammapet Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 complaint to him.In the meanwhile P.W. 12 had also received phone message from Kalanjeri about the occurrence and was preparing to leave for the scene of occurrence.On receiving Ex. P-1, P.W. 12 registered a case in Cr. No. 146/82 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, prepared Express First Information Report Ex. P. 6 and sent Ex. P-6 along with Ex. P-1 and its copies to court and higher officials and the Inspector of Police.P.W. 14 Amalanthan, the then Inspector of Police, Papanasam circle, received the copy of Ex. P-6 at about 11.45 p.m. on 15-8-1982 and immediately proceeded to Vennaputtur village and reached the scene of occurrence and stayed there since it was night.On 16-8-1982 at 6.30 a.m., P.W. 14 inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P-13 rough sketch.He also prepared observation mahazar Ex. P-2 at 6-45 a.m., He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 7.15 a.m. and 11-30 a.m. in the presence of panchyatdars and examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 and one Maharani, Ex. P-14 is the inquest report prepared by him.At 11.30 a.m. he entrusted the body of the deceased to P.W. 10 Kunju, Police Constable No. 1917, along with the requisition Ex. P-11 for post-mortem examination.He them recovered the blood stained earth M.O. 4 and sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex. P-3 mahazar, in the presence of P.W. 6 Paramasivam and one Samy Ayyah.He also examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 on that day.There was a cut of 1 cm.in the arch of the arota.Accordingly, P.W. 3 went to the post office and contacted Ammapet Police over phone by informing of the occurrence that Maruthupandian had cut Chinniyan and run away, for which the police replaced that he should send somebody to give a written complaint.P.W. 3 stated that there was nobody to go over to the police station and give a written complaint and asked the police to come to the scene of occurrence immediately.According to P.W. 3, the Ammapet Police arrived at the scene of occurrence about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence.Ex. P15 (series) is three receipts issued by the post office to P.W. 3 for having made three phone calls.JUDGMENT Arumugham, J.The accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1984 on the file of the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur at Thanjavur has filed this Criminal Appeal, against the conviction and Sentence passed on 20-3-1985, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 15-8-1982, at about 3.00 p.m., at Vennaputtur Harijan Street, he intentionally caused the death of one Chinniyan by cutting him with a sickle on his head and other parts of his body and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.When P.W. 8 questioned the accused as to why he was cutting the deceased, the accused threatened him with the same fate, by showing the sickle, and stating so, the accused started running through the backyard and thereafter, ran towards West.On 16-8-1982 at 12.20 p.m. P.W. 13 Dr. Kuppuswamy, the then Medical Officer Government Hospital, Papanasam, received the requisitien Ex. P-11, and commenced post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased at 2.25 p.m., on that day.At that time, the body was cold and rigor mortis passed off in all the four limbs.On examination, P.W. 13 found the following injuries on the body of the deceased.External injuries :-An incised wound of 4 x 1 cm.and bone deep with cut in the bone over the left side of the forehead extending from the left eye-brow to hair line of the scalp situated vertically.An abrasion of 2 cm.x 1/2 cm.over the middle of the forehead with surrounding contusion situated vertically.An incised wound 2.5 cm.x 1 cm.exposing the fractured end of shaft of ulna over the back of middlethird of right forearm.An incised wound of 4 cm.x 1 cm.and communicating with the thoracic cavity present over the right side of the front of chest 3 cm.below the medial end of right collar bone.The injury was horizontally situated.The lateral end of the wound was sharply angled and at the medial end of the wound, there was certain amount of raggedness present.(a) An incised injury of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.over the palmar aspect of distal phalanx of left thumb.(b) An incised injury of 2 cm.x 3/4 cm.exposing the dislocated metacarpo phalanged joint of the left index finger.(c) An incised injury of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.exposing the tendonc present over the palmar aspect of the middle of proximal phalanx of middle finger of left hand.(d) An incised wound of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.and exposing the tendons over the palmar aspect of middle phalanx of ring finger of left hand.(e) An incised wound of 1 1/2 cm.x 1/2 cm.exposing the tendons of distal inter phalangeal of left little finger of left hand.Internal Injuries :-On dissection of injury No. 4, wound in the front of right side chest, 600 ml. of clotted blood present in thoracic cavity.Stomach contained 250 gms.partially digested rice food.Right lung was found shrunken.Bladder empty.According to P.W. 13, all the above injuries were ante-mortem and these could have been caused by cutting with a sharp edged weapon like M.O. 1 aruval.All the injuries mentioned in injury No. 5 could have been caused by a single cut.Injury No. 5 could have been caused when the victim tried to ward off cuts with aruval and while warding off the cut made by the aruval, it could have passed through the head after cutting the forehead.Injury No. 4 with its corresponding internal injury is fatal in nature.Further, according to the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him, about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.Ex. P-12 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.After post-mortem examination was over, P.W. 10 removed M.O. 2 Dhoti and M.O. 3 waistcord from the body of the deceased and handed then over at the police station and the dead body to its relatives.On 17-8-1982, P.W. 14 examined P.W. 5 and some others.On 25-8-1982 at 6-30 a.m. he arrested the accused near Ammapettai Railway station in the presence of P.W. 7 Kathayyan and one Selvaraj and examined him.At that time, the accused voluntarily gave a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P-4, in which the accused undertook to point out and produce the aruval if taken.Accordingly he took P.Ws. 7 and 14 to Vennar river at Vannaputhur and from a pit near the bathing ghat, and produced the aruval M.O. 1 before P.W. 14 who recovered the same under mahazar Ex. P-5, attested by P.W. 7 and another.On the same day, P.W. 14 examined P.W. 7, P.W. 13 and others.On 9-9-1982, P.W. 14 sent Ex. P-7 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Papanasam to send the bloodstained articles for chemical analysis.Ex. P-9 is the report of the Chemical Examiner, Madras which shows that M.Os. 2, 3 and 4 were stained with blood.He did not examine any witness on his behalf.On assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution, the statement of the accused and the rival contentions, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for his life.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.(d) that the complaint Ex. P-1, said to have been given by P.W. 8 to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 12, is inadmissible in evidence as it was hit by the bar provided under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the phone message given by P.W. 3 to the Ammapet Police Station prior to the lodging of Ex. P-1 complaint would all the way amount to be a First Information Report in this case and that, therefore, Ex. P-1 is directly hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Controverting every one of the said contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Shanmughavelayutham submitted that there was no infirmity or unreasonableness inherent with the findings given by the learned trial Judge as was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and that therefore, he persuaded us to sustain the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant herein.Pertinent at this stage for us to refer once again to the injuries found by P.W. 13 on the body of the deceased during autopsy.An incised wound of 4 x 1 cm.and bone deep with cut in the bone over the left side of the forehead extending from the left eye-brow to hair line of the scalp situated vertically.An abrasion of 2 cm.x 1/2 cm.over the middle of the forehead with (sic) surrounding contusion situated vertically.(3) An incised wound 2.5 cm.x 1 cm.exposing the fractured end of shaft of ulna over the back of middlethird of right forearm.(4) An incised wound of 4 cm.x 1 cm.and communicating with the thoracic cavity present over the right side of the front of chest 3 cm.below the medial and of right collar bone.The injury was horizontally situated.The lateral end of the wound was sharply angled and at the medial end of the wound, there was certain amount of raggedness present.(5)(a) An incised injury of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.over the palmar aspect of distal phalanx of left thumb.(b) An incised injury of 2 cm.x 3/4 cm.exposing the dislocated metacarpo phalanged joint of the left index finger.(c) An incised injury of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.exposing the tendons present over the palmar aspect of the middle of proximal phalanx of middle finger of left hand.(d) An incised wound of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.and exposing the tendons over the palmar aspect of middle phalanx of ring finger of left hand.(e) An incised wound of 1 1/2 cm.x 1/2 cm.exposing the tendons of distal inter phalangeal of left little finger of left hand.On dissection of injury No. 4, P.W. 13 had found 600 ml. of clotted blood on the front side of the chest in the thoracic cavity.There had also been a cut of 1 cm.in the arch of the arota.According to P.W. 13, injury No. 5 in its entirety could have been caused by a single cut with a weapon like M.O. 1 aruval when the victim to ward off the cut and that injury No. 2 is possible to have been caused when the victim sustained it by warding off, by the tip portion of the aruval.Further, according to P.W. 13, the presence of the partially digested food in the stomach of the deceased would mean that he should have taken his food only five or six hours prior to his death and that margin of error in calculating the time might be two hours this way or otherwise.He would further opine that the deceased would appear to have died about 20 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination.It has to be noted that though P.W. 13 had been cross-examined at length on behalf of the appellant/accused, nothing tangible was brought out but for the fact that his evidence clearly lends every support and corroboration to the fact that on 15-8-1982 at 3.00 p.m., the deceased had been slained to death by perpetrating the homicidal violence with an aruval as alleged by the prosecution.Considering the evidence on the above referred to score and aspects, the learned trial Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion and finding about the manner in which the deceased had been attacked in the place and at the time as was projected by the prosecution while recording the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused.As regards the complicity of the appellant/accused for the charge of murder tried against him, it was the finding of the learned trial Judge that it was the accused and accused alone who caused the death of the deceased Chinniyan by attacking him with M.O. 1 aruval at about 3.00 p.m. on 15-8-82 in his house.All the them had been living together in a house situate in the Harijan Street, in Vennaputtur village at the time of the occurrence.It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that on the morning of the day of occurrence, herself, her sister Solaiammal her husband viz., the deceased and some other womenfolk were engaged in transplantation work in their field situate on the back side of their house, that at that time her husband caught two rats from the ridges of their field and asked her to go along with him to their house for preparing food, that accordingly she and her husband went home and that she got engaged in the kitchen work while her husband was sleeping near the threshold of the backyard of their house.It is her further evidence that when she went to take water from the mud pot which had been placed beside her husband she noticed the appellant/accused entering their house through the backyard with M.O. 1 aruval in his hand, that when she shouted at him asking why he was running like that he started cutting her husband on his right forehand which her husband had kept on his head while he was sleeping, that she raised an alarm and her husband also shouted 'Ey, Appa', that at that time the accused again cut her husband on his forehead and then-upon his chest and left hand, that when herself and her husband raised hue and cry.P.W. 8 Dhanapalan, who was coming to their house to tap toddy from the coconut trees, rushed into their house and saw the accused cutting her husband with the aruval, that when P.W. 8 asked the accused to stop cutting, the accused threatened P.W. 8 with the same fate if he neared him and stating so, the accused took his heels through the backyard of their house and then towards west, followed by P.W. 8 chasing him.P.W. 1 has further deposed that when she saw her husband after the accused had fled away, he was found in the pool of blood, that when she fed watr to him he breathed his last and that thereafter, on hearing the noise, her sister Solaiammal and others rushed to the scene of occurrence from the field where they had been working.P.W. 1 also identifies the dhoti M.O. 2 and the waist chord M.O. 3 as had been worn by her husband.She further identifies the aruval M.O. 1 as had been used by the appellant for cutting the deceased.P.W. 8 Dhanapalan is the brother's son of the deceased.He has deposed that at the time of occurrence, when he was coming infront of the house of the deceased he heard the noise 'Aiyo, Appa' from the house of the deceased, that whereupon he rushed into the house and found the accused cutting the deceased with M.O. 1 aruval on his head and chest, that when he asked the accused to stop cutting, the accused threatened him by showing the aruval and saying so, the accused ran outside the house through the backyard and then towards west, that by raising hue and cry he also ran behind the accused and at that time his senior paternal uncle's daughter Maharani and her husband P.W. 2 Karunanithi came infront of the accused and tried to intercept him, that the accused also threatened them by showing the aruval as a result of which they had retreated and that P.W. 9 Munusamy who is also a resident of the same locality attempted to catch the accused, but failed, as he was also threatened by the accused and that the accused had, thereafter, run through a lane leading to the river, towards north.It is further evidence of P.W. 8 that himself, P.W. 2 Karunanithi and his wife chased the accused to some distance and then returned back to the house of the deceased and found him dead, and that thereafter, he along with P.Ws. 2 and 9 went to Kalancheri, informed P.W. 3 about the occurrence and asked him to phone up to Ammapet Police Station.P.W. 2 Karunanithi is a resident of Thirukkarugavur and he married one Maharani, the daughter of Murugan, who is also cousin of the deceased and whose house was situated in the same street on the western side of the house of the deceased.According to P.W. 2, he had been at Vennaputtur on the date of occurrence in connection with the field work of his father-in-law and at about 3.00 p.m., when he was taking food on being served by her wife Maharani he and his wife heard the noise raised by P.W. 8 and came out of their house.When P.W. 2 and his wife tried to intercept the appellant/accused, he threatened them by showing the aruval in his hand and ran towards west.Then, P.W. 9 Munusamy attempted to catch the accused who was also threatened by the accused by showing the aruval and the accused had run towards north.It is significant to note that he is totally a stranger, but a resident of the same locality who saw the accused came running with the aruval M.O. 1 in his hand and on his having attempted to intercept the accused he had been threatened by the accused by showing the aruval in his hand.It has to be seen that these witnesses had been examined by the Inspector of Police P.W. 14, on the next day of the date of occurrence.All the above four witnesses had withstood the meticulous cross-examination done on behalf of the appellant/accused.In spite of such cross-examination at a considerable length nothing was brought out to suspect or discredit the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 and the res jestae narration of P.Ws. 2 and 9, by the defence.It is true that P.W. 1 is the first wife of the deceased.Being the wife of the deceased she had been engaged in the transplantation work along with her husband and others in their field situate on the backside of their house and on being called upon by her husband she had gone to her house along with her husband where the occurrence had taken place in the day light at 3.00 p.m. The evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard gives no room for any suspicion.It is seen that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the deceased and P.W. 1 alone had been present at the time of occurrence, inside the house, when her husband was sleeping.P.W. 8 states that at the time of occurrence he had been going in front of the house of the deceased for the purpose of tapping toddy from the coconut trees and on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased and P.W. 1 he rushed inside the house and saw the accused cutting the deceased with aruval M.O. 1, that when he asked the accused to stop cutting, the accused threatened him with the same fate if he neared him, by showing the aruval and that stating so, the accused ran out of the house through the backyard and then towards west.As observed by the learned trial Judge, on analysing the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 and the res gestae evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 9 there is no reason available in the established circumstances to disbelieve the versions of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 as they are totally convincing, natural, cogent and with every legal credibility.While saying so, we do not at all have an iota of hesitation to hold that the evidence of these witnesses has to be accepted and relied upon.Further, even assuming that P.W. 2 is one of the cousin brothers of the deceased, he happens to be a person belonging to another village and has no nexus with the appellant accused to speak against him.Similarly, P.W. 9, a resident of the village where the occurrence had taken place, is totally unconnected with the accused and had no blood relationship with him.He had no reason whatsoever to depose against the accused claiming to have seen the accused came running along the street with M.O. 1 aruval in his hand, at the time of occurrence.Thus, in our view, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 would reveal the complicity of the accused in attacking the deceased with M.O. 1 aruval and causing his death, as claimed by the prosecution and that their evidence has to be accepted in full.For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to persuade ourselves to digest the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused with regard to the proof offered by the prosecution regarding the complicity of the appellant herein, through the above said witnesses and that therefore, we are not inclined to countenance the same.Coming to the motive aspects of the prosecution case, we have to take note of the contention made on behalf of the appellant/accused, by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, that even assuming that the motive for the occurrence as spoken to by P.Ws. 4 and 8 is true, that would provide no immediate proximity or nexus for the appellant to get himself involved in the crime of committing the murder of the deceased.In this context, we have to refer to the evidence of P.W. 4 Kalyani, P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu and P.W. 8 Dhanapalam.P.W. 8 is none other than the younger brother's son of the deceased and the brother of P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu.According to this witness, one Amsu, the wife of P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu, was molested by one Karunanithi, son of Periyasamy, who was a pangali of the accused, and thereupon, the said Karunanithi was caught red handed and tied, but he had an escape.With regard to the said incident a complaint was made to the panchayatdars and it was pending for panchayat.The above incident, according to P.W. 8, had taken place 20 days prior to the occurrence.Subsequently, one week prior to the occurrence, the accused party had preferred a complaint before the police alleging that one Sekar, son of Thangaraj was beaten by one Shanmugham, P.W. 4 Kalyani and one Govindaraj, who were all belonging to the deceased party.Thus, there had been bitter enmity between the accused party and the deceased party.The above said narration of the facts by P.W. 8 is fully supported by the evidence of P.W. 4 Kalyani, the son of the deceased.According to P.W. 4 there had been past enmity between his family and the family of the accused which was further aggravated by the incident of molestation of the wife of P.W. 5 by Karunanithi, belonging to the accused party and it reached its climax when a false complaint was given by the accused party against himself, Shanmugham and Govindarajan.Further, it is the evidence of P.W. 5 that about 20 days prior to the occurrence, when he was returning to his house at about 11.00 p.m. in the night after giving food to his younger brother, he saw his wife Amsu being molested by one Karunanithi, son of Periyasamy, that he caught the said Karunanithi redhanded and some of the relatives of Karunanithi had come and took him away after saying that they would enquire into the matter on the next morning.This evidence of P.W. 5 would clearly demonstrate the first incident which lead to the further aggravation of the past enmity between the two families of the accused party and the deceased party, as spoken to by P.Ws. 4 and 8 and provides extensive support to their evidence with regard to the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased.This would mean that in the complaint Ex. P-1 also, which was lodged immediately after the occurrence by P.W. 3 as prepared by P.W. 4, the motive aspect has been narrated.Though these witnesses viz. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 8 have been subjected to rigorous cross-examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit their legal credibility and incontrovertible testimonies.In the instant case, we could follow that the prosecution has come forward with adequate evidence for the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased and thereby get himself involved in the crime.Further, this is a case where the prosecution has not only relied on the evidence of res gestae witnesses on the established circumstances spelt out clearly by P.Ws. 2 and 9 but also the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 in bringing home the guilt and complicity of the appellant herein.In such established circumstances and in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above, the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence for the motive of the accused for committing the crime assumes no significance in this case.The time was 4.00 p.m. then.Thereafter, P.W. 3 waited for half-an-hour and on getting no police, he again phoned up to the Ammapet Police Station and then to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur.When P.W. 3 contacted the Ammapet Police Station over phone, P.W. 4 Kalyani came there, P.W. 3 asked him to prepare a complaint and send it to the police as was required by them.Accordingly, P.W. 4 prepared the written complaint on the occurrence being narrated by P.W. 8 and send the same to the Ammapet Police Station.On a perusal of Ex. P-15 (series), we are able to see that the first phone call has been made through phone connection No. 283, between 16.00 hours and 16.03 hours, for the duration of three minutes, the second call has been made between 16.43 hours and 16.46 hours for the duration of three minutes and the third phone call has been made between 17.18 hours and 17.20 hours for the duration of two minutes for phone No. 932, situated at Thanjavur.All these phone calls have been made from the Public Call Office, Kalancheri and the receipts have been issued by the postal authorities.Further, it is the evidence of P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, that at about 6.00 p.m. on 15-8-1982, when he was in charge of the Ammapet Police Station he received an information about the occurrence in this case, from Kalanchery over phone and when he was about to leave for the scene of occurrence, P.W. 8, the author of Ex. P-1 appeared before him in the police station and gave Ex. P-1 written complaint to him, which he registered under the Ammapet Police Station Cr.That apart, on materials were made available to substantiate this contention.It is seen from the initiate put by the learned Magistrate on Exs.P1 and P6 that these documents had reached Court at Papanasam at about 11.55 p.m. on that day.It is also seen that since 15-8-1982 happened to be a national holiday (Independence Day) the date seal of the Court has been put on 16-8-1982 in these documents.It is the claim of P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 that the distance between Ammapet Police Station and Papanasam Town, where the Magistrate's Court is situated, is about 20 Kms.and that there was no frequent bus service in between the said two points.P.W. 14 the Investigating Officer would claim that there were two buses running between the said two places one in the morning and the other in the evening alone and that too, it would take at least one hour to cover the said distance.There was no serious controversy or dispute over the claim made by P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 about the distance between Ammapet Police Station and Papanasam town and the time of registering the complaint Ex. P1 and the time of receipt of Exs.P1 and P6 in the Court as relied on by the prosecution.It has to be seen that the occurrence in this case has taken place at 3.00 p.m. on 15-8-1982 and after having attempted to get the police to the scene of occurrence through phone and having failed in their attempt, the prosecution witnesses had thereafter given Ex. P1 written complaint in the Ammapet Police Station at 6.00 p.m. on that day, which situate at a distance of about 12 Km.from the scene of occurrence.Thereafter, Ex. P6 had been prepared and sent to Court which had reached the Court at 11.55 p.m. on the same day at Papanasam.Coming to the investigation done in this case, though nothing was canvassed before us pointing out any laches or defects except stating that all the documents including the First Information Report have been prepared only on the next day of the occurrence and not on the date of occurrence as claimed by the prosecution, nothing was brought out to substantive the said contention made on behalf of the appellant.On the contrary, a close scrutiny of the evidence of the investigating staff viz. P.Ws. 12 and 14, the Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police respectively, and P.W. 10 the post-mortem constable coupled with all other material evidence would clearly show that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and that there are no material latches warranting any comment.On the above score, the learned trial Judge has dealt with each and every one of the above aspects in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion in recording the judgment of the conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

THIS is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.647/2015 registered at Police Station Mhow, District Indore for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-A of IPC read with Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Indore.On 12.09.2014 prosecutrix's brothers Sikandar and Altaf have -: 2 :- beaten the applicant's brother Sudhir, then Sudhir lodged a report at Police Station Mhow and criminal case against the brothers of prosecutrix was registered.In counter blast, the prosecutrix has lodged a report against the applicant.Due to this dispute, the prosecutrix has again lodged a false report against the applicant.The offence is not punishable by life imprisonment or death sentence.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be released on bail.-: 2 :-On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the Non-applicant/State and learned counsel for the complainant/objector oppose the prayer.They submit that the applicant has committed an offence with prosecutrix on 12.09.2014 and immediately prosecutrix has lodged the report against the applicant.After trial, the applicant has been convicted by Special Judge for the offence under -: 3 :- Sections 354-A, 354-B and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Against this conviction, the applicant has filed appeal before this Court and his jail sentence was suspended by this Court.Thereafter he again use criminal force to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix, therefore, she has lodged the report.In such circumstances if the applicant is released on bail, he will tamper the evidence.Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the application.-: 3 :-I have considered the submissions of both the parties.Thus, the application is hereby dismissed.However, the applicant may renew the prayer after recording of evidence of prosecutrix in the Trial Court.-: 4 :-[ Jarat Kumar Jain ] JUDGE (AKS)

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.15 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner, by allowing this criminal original petition.PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.44 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner, by allowing this criminal original petition.These petitions have been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime Nos.15 of 2020 registered for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506(i) of IPC and Crime No.44 of 2020 registered for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondents police registered the cases in Crime No.15 of 2020 registered for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506(i) of IPC and Crime No.44 of 2020 registered forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.O.P.Nos.2400 & 2436 of 2020 offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondents police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.Nos.2400 & 2436 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, the respondent police in both the petitions are directed to complete the investigation in Crime Nos.15 of 2020 and 44 of 2020 and file final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.06.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lokThe Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058The Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.2400 & 2436 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts that led to the filing of the appeal are as follows:-P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Venkatachalam.A1 to A3 and the deceased Venkatachalam are neighbours.There were pathway dispute between them.Due to the quarrel on the previous day at 2.30 p.m. with regard to parking of cycle in the pathway, at the time of occurrence on 2.3.1996 at 8.30 a.m., in Kammalar Street, Palacode, the appellant/A2 and also A1 stopped the deceased Venkatachalam when he was taking the cycle from his house through the pathway, which made the deceased to park the cycle inside the house and to sit in front of the door entrance (thrw;go)of the house.A1 to A4 scolded P.W.1 and the deceased.A1 caught the hands of the deceased from behind and A2 stabbed the deceased on the chest with "Kuthoosi" (M.O.2) four or five times.A3 and A4 beat the deceased with hands on his chest.When P.W.1 intervened, she was also beaten.Then the deceased Venkatachalam tried to bring iron rod from behind the house and while bringing the iron rod, the deceased swooned and fell down.Then all the accused run away taking the "Kuthoosi".The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2 Danalakshmi and P.W.3 Bakyalakshmi.(5) A stab injury over the front of chest in the left costal margin 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.The accident register issued by the Doctor P.W.6 is Ex.The injured deceased was admitted as inpatient in the hospital.P.W.6 also issued intimation memo Ex.P-7 on 2.3.1996 to the police.The deceased died at 9.15 a.m. due to injuries sustained at the time of occurrence.(c) Doctor P.W.6 also examined A1, who came to the hospital and found the following injuries:(1) An abrasion in right thumb 2 cms x 1 cm in the dorsal aspect.(2) A diffuse contusion over the dorsum of right hand at left base of right thumb 2 cms x 2 cms.Page 0824 The accident register extract issued by doctor P.W.6 is Ex.Doctor P.W.6 referred A1 to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri for taking X-Ray.P.W.11 went to the scene of occurrence at 3.30 p.m., prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.W.11 recovered bloodstained mud (M.O.5), sample mud (M.O.6), broken bangles (M.O.1) of P.W.1 under mahazar Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.5 Rangan and one Shanmuganathan.P.W.11 made arrangement to take photos at the scene of occurrence.P.W.9 took photos.P.W.11 recorded confession statement of A2 in the presence of P.W.4 and one Shanmuganathan, the admissible portion is Ex.A2 took P.W.11 and the witnesses to his house and produced "Kuthoosi" M.O.2 and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-5 in the presence of the above witnesses.M.O.2 is of the length of 18 c.m. and the blade portion of which is 8 c.m.and the handle is 5 c.m. breadth and 3 c.m. length.He recorded the statement of A1, Ex.P-19 and on return to the police station registered the same in Crime No.149 of 1996 under Section 324 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.He sent the statement of A1 Ex.P-19 and the F.I.R. Ex.P-20 to the Court.JUDGMENT S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.The appellant is the second accused in S.C.No.30 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.As per the judgment dated 29.10.1998 made in the above case, A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C.On hearing noise of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.4 Ankuraj, Pattabi and Kumaran came to the occurrence and took the deceased to the Palacode Government Hospital.P.W.1 also accompanied them and the deceased died within half an hour in the hospital after he was admitted.(b) P.W.6 Dr. M.T. Murugesan, attached to Palacode Government Hospital examined the injured deceased and found the following injuries:-(1) A stab injury over the front of right chest 2" away from nipple 1 cm x 1 cm x deep to chest.(2) A stab injury over the front of chest in midline 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.(3) A stab injury over the right chest in the costal margin 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.(4) A stab injury over the front of left chest in the cardiac region 4" above and inner to nipple 1 cm x 1 cm x deep to chest.Doctor P.W.6 has opined that the injuries caused to A1 were simple in nature.(d) P.W.1 on the death of her husband in the hospital, went to the police station and gave the complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station, who registered the same in Crime No.148 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. Printed F.I.R. is Ex.He went to the Government Hospital, Palacode and conducted inquest in front of the mortuary on the dead body of the deceased.Inquest report is Ex.P.W.11 examined witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and also Kumaran and Pattabiraman and recorded their statements.He sent the accused for remand.He also sent requisition to the Court to send the material objects to the Chemical Examination.He also sent requisition Ex.P-9 to the doctor to conduct post-mortem.(f) Dr. M. Rajendran P.W.7 conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 3.30 p.m. on 2.3.1996 and found the following injuries:-(1) A punctured wound over right side of chest 5 cms below nipple 1 cm x 1 cm x 5 cms.(2) A punctured wound over front of chest over midline 1 cm x 1 cm x 2 cms.(3) A punctured wound over left side of chest 4th intercostal space 10 cms from midline.(4) A punctured wound right costal margin 1 cm x 1 cm x 5 cms.(5) A punctured wound over left side of chest left costal margin 1 cm x 1 cm x 3 cms.The post-mortem certificate issued by Doctor P.W.7 is Ex.Doctor P.W.7 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organ heart 6 to 7 hours prior to autopsy.(g) On transfer of P.W.11, further investigation was taken up by P.W.12, Inspect of Polacode Police Station and on completion of investigation P.W.12 filed charge-sheet under Sections 341, 302 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. In respect of Crime No.149 of 1996 registered on the basis of the statement of A1, P.W.12 referred the same as mistake of fact.Chemical report is Ex.P-13 and Serological report is Ex.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence found against the accused, they denied the offence and stated that false case has been foisted against them.The learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapurai, in considering such evidence let in as such and on finding that no case has been made out against A1, A3 and A4 acquitted the said accused in respect of the charges levelled against them.As regards the self-defence put-forth for the appellant/A2, learned Government Advocate submitted that the right of private defence as claimed by A2 is not extended, in that at the time of occurrence, the deceased after getting the stab in the chest by A2 and while trying to bring the iron rod from behind the house, swooned and fell down and at that time the iron rod touched A1 and caused the injuries to A1 and as such, there was no apprehension to A2 for causing the death or any other harm and therefore, the apprehension as claimed by A2 being not reasonable, the attack made by A2 with "Kuthoosi" cannot be said to be by way of self-defence.Further, the weapon "Kuthoosi" (M.O.2) used by A1 is of the length of 18 c.m. and the blade portion of which is 8 c.m.and the handle is 5 c.m. breadth and 3 c.m. length.As per the case of prosecution, the occurrence took place on 2.3.1996 at 8.30 a.m. at Kammalar Street, Palacode in front of the house of the deceased Venkatachalam due to pathway dispute leading to the house from Kammalar Street and through the house of A1 situated on the South of the deceased and which pathway is exclusively claimed by the accused.After trial, A1, A3 and A4 have been acquitted.The other witness P.W.3 who has been examined as ocular witness turned hostile.After the occurrence the injured deceased was taken to Palacode Government Hospital by P.W.4 Ankuraj and two others where the injured deceased was given treatment by Doctor P.W.6 and also issued accident register extract Ex.P-6 and after half an hour the injured deceased died in the hospital.P.W.1 went to the police station and gave the complaint Ex.P-1, in which, the occurrence is clearly stated that at the time of occurrence A2 stabbed the deceased with "Kuthoosi"(M.O.2) on the chest four or five times and A3 and A4 beat the deceased with their hands and when P.W.1 intervened two blows fell on her and her bangles are broken and she has got injuries.When the deceased went behind the house and brought the iron rod and while bringing the iron rod, the deceased swooned and fell down.In her evidence P.W.1 has stated that when the deceased brought the iron rod, he swooned and fell down, at that time the iron rod touched A1 and all the accused had run away taking M.O.2 Kuthoosi.Therefore, the claim made by A2 that by way of self-defence A2 attacked the deceased with M.O.2 Kuthoosi four or five times on the chest of the deceased has no force within Page 0827 the meaning of Section 100 I.P.C., in that there is no apprehension for voluntarily causing the death or any other harm by the deceased and as per the evidence, the deceased only brought the iron rod from behind the house and while returning with iron rod he swooned and fell down and incidentally the iron rod touched A1, father of A2 and resulting injuries to A1 and further that the said incident occurred after the deceased was attacked by A2 with M.O.2 Kuthoosi four or five times on the chest.Immediately after occurrence, the deceased was taken to the Palacode Government Hospital where the deceased was examined by Doctor P.W.6 and the Doctor was also informed by the persons, who took the deceased to the hospital that the deceased was attacked by four known persons at the time of occurrence.Merely because P.Ws.1 and 2 are relatives to the deceased, P.W.1 being the wife and P.W.2 being the brother's wife of P.W.1, it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 are self interested.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 tallies with F.I.R. and medical evidence.The weapon, Kuthoosi(M.O.2) with which A2 attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence has also been recovered under mahazar Ex.P-5 by P.W.11 on the basis of the confession made by A2, the admissible portion is Ex.As per serological report Ex.The learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri considering the facts that A2 attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence with M.O.2 Kuthoosi four or five times on the chest fully aware of the fact that such attack would result in the death of the deceased and with intention to cause death of the deceased and accordingly, rightly found the appellant/A2 guilty under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and such finding does not call for any interference.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A written FIR was lodged at P.S. P1-Puliyanthope on 9.10.2001 by one Jaffar Sait alleging that his brother Rizwan Sait was missing since around 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.2001 and on the basis of same a case was registered.On 15.10.2001 Haroon Sait (brother of Rizwan Sait) filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High Court of Madras being H.C.P. No.1458 of 2001, wherein besides the State and Inspector of Police, P.S. P1-Puliyanthope, R. Sathish, Miss Joy Immaculate and Miss Nithya were arrayed as respondents no.3 to 5 and a prayer was made that a writ of habeas corpus be issued directing the respondents to produce his brother Rizwan Sait, who is illegally detained by respondents no.3 to 5 and to set him at liberty.It was averred in the writ petition that Rizwan Sait lends money on interest to various businessmen including the shopping business complex of Spencers Plaza, Chennai.Respondents no.3 to 5 and their friends, namely, Vijay and Ranjit had taken money from Rizwan Sait.Miss Joy Immaculate had conducted a fashion show at Music Academy and in that connection she had borrowed more than Rs.50,000/- and her sister Miss Nithya, who was running a business in the name and style of Fashion World at Spencers Plaza, had also borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/. Joy Immaculate and her sister Nithya did not repay the interest and when Rizwan Sait went to the latter's shop, R. Sathish undertook to clear off their dues.At about 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.2001 R. Sathish came to the writ petitioner's house and thereafter his brother Rizwan Sait left along with him in a Maruti car.While leaving, he had said that he was going to Chittur (A.P.) and would return back in the night.However, as Rizwan Sait did not come back till the morning of 8.10.2001, they started looking for him and went to the shop of Nithya and asked her to give the address of R. Sathish, which she refused to do.However, in the morning of 9.10.2001, R. Sathish himself came to their house and said that their programme of going to Chittur was cancelled and accordingly Rizwan Sait had returned back to his house on the morning of 7.10.2001 itself.A photocopy of a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 2.9.2001 issued by Miss Nithya was found in the cupboard of Rizwan Sait.In the Habeas Corpus Petition Haroon Sait raised a suspicion that respondents no.3 to 5 have done some foul play with his brother who had advanced money to them.An unidentified dead body was found at Kanagavallipuram and on the report of Village Administrative Officer a case was registered with the concerned police station.After autopsy in the Government Hospital, Tiruvellore, the dead body was buried.One Deva @ Dev Raj was arrested by Inspector of P1-Puliyanthope Police Station.He confessed to the police about the commission of crime and showed the place where Rizwan Sait was murdered.JUDGMENT(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.3143-3144 of 2002)G.P. MATHUR,J.1. Leave granted.These appeals have been preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment and order dated 11.4.2002 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras by which the criminal revision petition preferred by the respondent N.M.T. Joy Immaculate was allowed and the revision was disposed of with certain directions.It was thereafter ascertained that the unidentified dead body found on 10.10.2001 at Tiruvellore Taluka was that of Rizwan Sait.Thereafter, the case registered on 9.10.2001 at P.S. P1-Puliyanthope was altered to Section 363, 302 IPC.The Investigating Officer made an application before the concerned Magistrate on 31.10.2001 for giving Sathish on police remand.It is alleged that he made some sort of a confession to the police and on the basis of the statement made by him, some incriminating articles were recovered.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer moved an application before the concerned Magistrate for grant of police remand of Joy Immaculate, which was opposed by her.It was directed that she would be detained in All Women Police Station and would be interrogated at the office of the Asst.Commissioner of Police, in the presence of the women Inspector of Police.It was further directed that during the period of police custody, the accused should not be harassed physically or psychologically and should be produced before the Court, in the same condition.According to the prosecution, Joy Immaculate made some confessional statements before the Investigating Officer and on her pointing out the wrist watch and shirt of the deceased and also the nylon rope used in the commission of murder were recovered.Thereafter, on 7.11.2001 she was produced before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded her to judicial custody.Two weeks thereafter, Joy Immaculate filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. being Crl.R.C. No.1569 of 2001, wherein it was prayed that the order dated 6.11.2001 passed by Vth Metropolitan Magistrate granting police custody be set aside as the same is against the principles laid down in Section 167 Cr.P.C and that the Court may pass such other and further orders as it may deem fit and proper.In the revision petition, accused Joy Immaculate filed an affidavit making serious allegations against the police personnel to the effect that she was interrogated and detained at the police station on 18th and then from 20th to 24th October, 2001 and also referred to certain telegrams which were sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court in this connection.Affidavits in reply were filed by the concerned police personnel.The High Court by the impugned order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals disposed of the revision petition by issuing several directions and directions no.(a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) are being reproduced below :(a) The order granting police custody in respect of the petitioner passed by the learned Magistrate is ex facie illegal.(d) The petitioner had been wrongfully and illegally detained in P4 Police Station for four days and she was harassed and tortured by the Police personnel.(g) The Commissioner of Police is also directed to take immediate departmental action against the P1 Inspector of Police, P4 Inspector of Police and other Police Personnel who were responsible for the illegal detention and other obscene acts committed on the petitioner at P4 Police Station.(h) The Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, the victim for her illegal detention in the P4 Police Station by the police personnel who committed the acts of molestation, obscene violation and teasing on the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.The prayer made by the accused for transfer of investigation to C.B.C.I.D. or C.B.I. was declined and the Commissioner of Police was directed to constitute a special team of investigating agency headed by an Assistant Commissioner of Police to continue the investigation of the case.A direction was also issued to the State Government to issue circulars to all the police stations that woman accused/witness should not be brought to the police station and they must be inquired only by the woman police at the place where they reside.We have heard Shri Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellant State of Tamil Nadu and also learned counsel appearing for respondent (accused Joy Immaculate) and have examined the record.The learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 6.11.2001 had granted police remand for one day of the accused Joy Immaculate in exercise of powers conferred by Section 167 Cr.P.C. She was given in police custody on the same day and was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7.11.2001 and thereafter she was sent to judicial custody.The order had exhausted itself as the police custody was actually given.The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petition against which a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the same on the objection raised by the accused based upon Section 197 Cr.P.C. and also Section 161(1) Bombay Police Act, which creates a bar of limitation of one year.There is absolutely no occasion for the High Court to record any finding regarding the conduct of the investigation or the records on which the prosecution places reliance, in a revision petition preferred against an order granting police remand and that too solely on the basis of the affidavits filed by the rival parties.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/5/09 at about 10 p.m., at Village Radhapur, respondent, with an intention to kill Mohan Kushwaha (since dead) caused grievous injuries on his head with an Axe, due to which, on 7/6/09, during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries thus caused and in order to cause disappearance of the corresponding evidence, respondent threw the Axe used in the offence in a Jungle and burnt the blood stained clothes.Accordingly Morgue Intimation No.327/09 was recorded at Police Station Kampu and the matter was forwarded to the concerned Police Station where Crime No.77/09 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.First Information Report (Ex.P/1) was lodged against unknown person.To complete the chain of events and to prove the evidence of oral dying declaration, prosecution examined Manoj (PW1), Hemant (PW4), sons of deceased, but both were disbelieved by the trial Court due to material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in their statements.Second set of evidence adduced to complete the chain viz. seizure of the weapon of offence, also did not inspire confidence, as seizure of Axe was not proved by cogent and reliable evidence and further there was no evidence on record to connect the Axe with the offence.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

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

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

i) The Applicant be released on cash bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, fora period of six weeks;::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2019 03:44:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2019 03:44:33 :::P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more local sureties inthe like amount;iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, on the firstSaturday of every month, between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., till theconclusion of the trial;iv) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence andmobile contact number immediately after being released and/or changeof residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the trial Courtas well as to the concerned Police Station, in writing;v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt toinfluence/contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned withthe case;vi) The Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial and shallattend the trial Court on every date of hearing, unless exempted by the trial ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2019 03:44:33 ::: 5/5 901-ba.749.2019.docCourt;::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2019 03:44:33 :::

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.45/2014 Page 5 of 60Since the parties in the two petitions are substantially the same, and same and similar issues arise in the two cases, common arguments were addressed in both the matters and, consequently, both are being disposed of by this common judgment.The case of the petitioners in both these petitions is that in May 2012, the CAG submitted its report on Coal Block allocation to the Government of India, and the same was placed by the Government in the Parliament.The said report became a topic of general debate and discussion.The Press Trust of India (PTI) and ANI published news regarding allocation of coal blocks.In this regard, he CRL.M.C. No.2565/2013 & TRP.The Crl.The background in which Cr.While the said complaint was still at the stage of recording the pre-summoning evidence in the Court of Sh.The petitioner claimed that the subject matter of both the cases viz. the complaint case and the FIR are the same.Initially, the said application was not taken up for consideration by the learned M.M. on 16.01.2013, and the recording of pre-summoning evidence continued.A criminal Revision being Cr.No. 16/13 was preferred by the petitioner CRL.M.C. No.2565/2013 & TRP.M.C. No.4259/2006, Cr.M.A. No.7268/2006 in support of his conclusions.Thereafter, a transfer petition, being Transfer Petition No.19/2014, was preferred under Section 408 Cr.P.C. before the learned District and Sessions Judge for the same purpose.This petition was also dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2014 by the learned District and Sessions Judge by holding the same to be premature.However, liberty was granted to move the same at the appropriate stage.Hence, the present transfer petition.No.45/2014 Page 24 of 60 petitioner thereafter waited till the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, and then filed another application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, the petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the complainant.The statement is a patent misrepresentation of what transpired on 16.01.2013 before the Trial Court.Order dated 16.01.2013 clearly shows that the counsel for the petitioner did not appear on time.The learned Additional Sessions Judge entertained the revision petition, and there was no challenge to the order of the Ld.The learned ASJ had entertained the criminal revision and dismissed the same.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.:At the outset, we notice and record that the appellant has not questioned that Geeta had died unnatural and homicidal death as a result of a bullet injury.The said fact even otherwise has been duly proved and established beyond doubt from the testimony of Dr. K. Goel (PW-12), who had conducted the post-mortem on the body of Geeta and had found one lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins of the size 2.4 cm x 1.1 cm oval shape with contused abrasions at margin with blackening around it.Marked tattooing was seen all over left face, left forehead and nose and around the mouth and over right side of the face near the nose and the mouth.Post-mortem report records and Dr. K. Goel (PW-12) has deposed CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 2 of 16 about the entry wound of the fire arm and stated that no external injury, i.e., exit wound was seen upon examination.On exploration, it was observed that the deceased had suffered communitted fracture on the left side of maxilla with multiple broken teeth inside oral cavity and the injury tract led towards cervical column.One bullet was found embedded between the second and third cervical vertebrae in left lateral.The injury had caused massive bruising and clots around and upto the depth of the canal.Spinal cord was extensively lacerated.A bullet was recovered and sealed.The firearm injury and spinal injury were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The post-mortem report was marked Exhibit PW-12/A. It may be noted that the dead body was received in the mortuary as deposed by PW-12 on 18th October, 2007 at 8.15 A.M.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 2 of 16There is other material/evidence to show that the deceased had died a homicidal death as a result of fire arm injury at about 1.30 A.M. in Jhuggi No. A-103, Jailorwala Bagh, Ashok Vihar Phase-II, Delhi, but we are not separately elucidating and referring to the said evidence in the above paragraph to avoid prolixity and repetition.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 3 of 16Suresh (PW-3), it has been correctly submitted, did oscillate in his court deposition and the question is whether a part of Court deposition can be relied to sustain appellant's conviction? In his examination-in-chief PW3 has stated that he and his wife used to sell fruits in trains and on the fateful night appellant-Vijay Pal along with two others had called out to his wife Geeta as "bhabhi".Thereafter, appellant-Vijay Pal and others started quarrelling with her.Geeta asked them to leave the spot.He along with his wife moved to Jhuggi No. A-103, to avoid any altercation, but the appellant and others followed them.PW3 has deposed that the appellant with others had then warned Geeta that they would return to kill her.PW-3 in his CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 4 of 16 examination-in-chief testified that the appellant had fired at his wife and the bullet had hit her on the left cheek.PW-3 was threatened and warned.However, PW3 made a phone call to the police.Suresh (PW3) was not a chance witness whose presence at the spot was unnatural and unbecoming.His presence with his wife, deceased Geeta, late at night past the midnight hour was natural and normal.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 11 of 16Constable Satish Kumar (PW-2) and Hukam Singh (PW-7) were first to reach the place of occurrence, i.e., Jhuggi No. A-103 on 18th October, 2007 at about 3 A.M. after receiving a call that a woman had been shot at the said location.PW-2 has mentioned that soon thereafter, Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW-15) reached and on the statement (Ex.PW3/A) made by Suresh (PW-3), Inspector Bahadur Singh prepared the rukka and PW-2 (Constable Satish Kumar) took the rukka (Ex.PW15/A) from the spot to the Police Station for the purpose of registration of the FIR (Ex.PW4/D).The FIR specifically named the appellant CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 12 of 16 Vijay Pal as a perpetrator, who had fired and had inflicted the fatal gun shot injury.Interestingly, Suresh (PW-3) was not controverted and questioned and it was not suggested that PW-3 did not know appellant- Vijay Pal.Appellant-Vijay Pal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that on the date of incident, Jaggi, a liquor vendor had picked up quarrel with him and at his instance he had been implicated in this false case.There was no exit wound.As per the prosecution version, Satish, who has been acquitted by the trial court was apprehended and arrested vide memo Exhibit PW-7/A on 18th October, 2007 at 6 P.M. Karan @ Gaura was arrested on 19th October, 2007 at 5.30 P.M. vide arrest memo Exhibit PW-10/A and the appellant-Vijay Pal was arrested on 13th November, 2007 at about 4 P.M. vide arrest memo Exhibit PW-10/E. Thus, the appellant-Vijay Pal was arrested, nearly 25 days after the occurrence and was the last one to be arrested.PW-15 Inspector Bahadur Singh (Investigating Officer) has CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 13 of 16 deposed that upon interrogation appellant-Vijay Pal had made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-10/G) on 13th November, 2007 itself and then had led them to Holambi Kalan Railway Station, from where he had taken out a desi katta from the bushes near the railway line and a telephone pole.The katta had one used shell of cartridge.Sketch of the said katta (Exhibit PW- 10/H) was prepared.Deshi katta was taken into possession after taking measurements etc. vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-10/I).Site plan Exhibit (PW-10/J) as to the place of recovery was also prepared.Identical statement of the said recovery etc. has been made by Constable Sudhir Kumar (PW-10), who was present with PW-15 at that time.Till 13th November, 2007 the weapon of offence involved in the occurrence was untraced and was unknown.Satish and Karan @ Gaura, who were arrested on 18th and 19th October, 2007, apparently had no knowledge and did not make any disclosure statement resulting in recovery of the weapon of offence.The weapon of offence was recovered after arrest of the appellant Vijay Pal and his disclosure statement lead to the recovery.Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State.Appellant-Vijay Pal has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 20th July, 2010, for murder of Geeta.By order on sentence dated 22nd July, 2010, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offences under Section 302 as well as 449 IPC.For the offence under Section 506 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven year with fine of Rs.5,000/-.The sentences are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been granted.In default of payment of fine, the CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 1 of 16 appellant has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on each count.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 1 of 16By the impugned judgment, the trial court had acquitted Karan @ Gaura and Satish, who were also tried.We record that the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal and the decision to this extent has attained finality.In short and brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant- Vijay Pal had shot with a desi katta (firearm) and killed Geeta at about 01:30 hours on 18th October, 2007 in Jhuggi No. A-103, Jailorwala Bagh, Ashok Vihar Phase-II, Delhi, in the presence of her husband Suresh (PW3).In order to show and establish that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime, prosecution primarily relies upon oral testimony of purported CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 3 of 16 eyewitness Suresh (PW-3), husband of Geeta.In order to appreciate his testimony, we shall be also referring to the statements of police officers Hukam Singh (PW-7), Satish Kumar (PW-2) and Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW-15).In addition, we will be referring to the forensic report Exhibit PW14/A given by Puneet Puri (PW-14) relating to the weapon of offence and the bullet recovered from the body of Geeta.Police came to Jhuggi No. A-103, where PW3 narrated the facts, which were recorded in Exhibit PW- 3/A. Said statement was signed by PW-3 at point X. Blood samples and other evidence like blanket, shawl etc. were taken into possession and Geeta's body was removed to Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangirpur for post- mortem and subsequently handed over to Suresh (PW-3).CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 4 of 16However, in the examination-in-chief Suresh (PW-3) had deposed:"My wife has already died.I have small children and there is no certainty of my wife (sic life), therefore, I request the court that accused persons may be pardoned."9. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has drawn our attention to cross-examination of PW-3 wherein he accepted that the appellant and other accused persons had not quarrelled with him or his wife prior to the incident, but the quarrel had taken place as the appellant and others had woken up Geeta by calling out bhabhi-bhabhi in spite of the fact that the door of the jhuggi was closed.Our attention was CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 5 of 16 also drawn to cross-examination after re-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor wherein PW-3 has stated that it was correct that due to darkness he could not see who had fired at his wife.It was highlighted that PW3 did not affirm and support the version given by him in the examination-in-chief.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 5 of 16At this stage and before we examine and opine on the so-called contradiction in the testimony of PW-3 as to whether the appellant had fired the weapon, we would like to refer to the cross-examination of PW-3 on another aspect.PW-3 has stated that Jhuggi No. A-103 belonged to one Jaggi, who was not present at the time of the occurrence but came subsequently and the said Jaggi used to sell liquor in the locality and that he (PW3), used to keep stock of liquor belonging to Jaggi because he was scared of him (Jaggi).Even in his own house, he used to keep liquor.PW-3 was re-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor after he had oscillated by making reference to Jaggi etc. in his cross-examination and, PW3, in his re-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor had again categorically asserted that he had seen appellant-Vijay Pal firing at his wife.The appellant along with others were shouting before they came CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 6 of 16 to Jhuggi No. A-103 and he had identified the voice.But as recorded above, on cross-examination on behalf of Vijay Pal, PW-3 had contradicted himself and stated that due to darkness he could not see who had fired at his wife.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 6 of 16We have already quoted statement made by PW-3 in his examination-in-chief to the effect that his wife died and he had small children and his life was uncertain, accordingly, PW-3 had prayed that the appellant and others may be pardoned.We are inclined to accept and believe statement of Suresh (PW-3) to the effect that appellant-Vijay Pal had fired and killed Geeta, which was emphatically affirmed by him in categorical terms in examination-in-chief and then again in the re- examination by the Public Prosecutor.Due to these considerations, "see through" examination, of the witnesses' statements and evidence garnered, is required in the present case.We have referred to contemporaneous documentary records in form of DD entries/FIR, call data records etc. We have postulated the statement of witnesses with the contemporaneous record to reach an ineluctable conclusion.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 10 of 16Suresh (PW-3) was found and was present at the spot, by the said police officers.Constable Hukam Singh (PW-7) has similarly deposed on recording of the statement of Suresh (PW-3), the tehrir and registration of FIR.PW7 had reached the spot at about 3 A.M. Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW-15) has stated that at 3:05 A.M. on 18th October, 2007, he learnt about contents of DD entry No. 6A and reached at the location/jhuggi, where Geeta lying dead in a cot with blood all over.Suresh (PW-3) was present and on the basis of his statement (Exhibit PW-3/A), tehrir (Exhibit PW-15/A) was prepared and the FIR was registered.Thus from the beginning and at the first instance, Suresh (PW3) had specifically and without hesitation named the appellant Vijay Pal, as the person who fired the shot.Thereupon, the bullet which had been recovered from the body of the deceased by Dr. K. Goel (PW-12) along with the weapon of offence and the empty cartridge were sent for forensic examination.The said examination was conducted by Puneet Puri (PW-14), Senior Scientific Assistant, Ballistics, FSL Rohini.His report is marked Exhibit PW-14/A. PW-14 in his report as CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 14 of 16 well as in his court deposition has stated that he had received two sealed parcels one with the seal of BS and the other with the seal of KGBJRM Hospital mortuary.The first parcel had a country made pistol of .315 inch bore and one 8 mm/.315 inch cartridge.The country made pistol was found to be in working order and test fire was conducted by using two 8 mm/.315 inch cartridge from the lab stock.PW-14 and the FSL report Exhibit PW-14/A prove beyond doubt that the bullet found in the body of the deceased Geeta was fired from the pistol F1, which was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by Vijay Pal marked Exhibit PW-10/G, which had resulted in recovery of the said pistol vide memo Exhibit PW-10/I. This country made pistol F1, it has been established, was used to fire the bullet Exhibit EB1, to kill Geeta.CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 13 of 16CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 14 of 16In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the prosecution version by relying upon the examination in chief of Suresh (PW3) that CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 15 of 16 appellant Vijay Pal had fired and killed his wife Geeta.The said version mentioned in the complaint (Ex. PW3/A) which formed basis of the FIR (Ex. PW4/D) stands duly corroborated with the subsequent recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. desi katta (F1) after disclosure statement (Ex. PW10/G).The recovery was made on 13th November, 2007 after the appellant was arrested on the same day at about 4.00 PM.Bullet (EB1) recovered from the body of the deceased had the same marking as the test fired bullets (TB1 & TB2).CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 15 of 16The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 as well as 449 IPC is, therefore, upheld.The conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is also upheld.We do not also see any reason to interfere in the order of sentence or modify the same.The appeal is accordingly dismissed .(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE JULY 30th, 2014 VKR/kkb CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 16 of 16CRL.A. No. 980/2010 Page 16 of 16

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the grounds of detention, reference has been made to 4 adverse cases and one ground case.After reciting the substances of the allegation in such ground case, the detaining authority has observed as follows:Rajini is in remand in J9 Thuraipakkam P.S. Crime No.672/2006 and he has moved a bail petition before the Principal District and Sessins Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.Moreover, the detention order is passed on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.If the detaining authority would have been made aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody in connection with another serious offence, it is not for us to guess as to whether the detaining authority would have come to the very same conclusion regarding the possibility of being enlarged on bail since such aspect depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.In such view of the matter, we are constrained to quash the order of detention notwithstanding the seriousness of allegations in the adverse case as well as in the ground case.Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly allowed.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.The Superintendent, Central Prison, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.[PRV/9441]

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, who, at the time of incident was minor, was abducted by the respondents on 13.04.2014 at around 10.30 A.M. from the village Naharmal and thereafter taken to different places, where she was subjected to forcible intercourse.As per prosecution, a missing person report was lodged by complainant Fhattu at Police Station, Pipalod, wherein it was stated that on 13.04.2014, prosecutrix, who is his niece was at home, when he and his mother had gone out to work, but when they returned, the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18510/2016 (State of M.P. Vs.Kebalram and another) prosecutrix was no where to be seen.On searching in the village, he was informed that at 10.30 A.M., the prosecutrix was seen with some unknown persons, who lured the prosecutrix and abducted her.On the basis of this report, FIR Ex. P-9 under Sections 363 and 366 of the IP.C. was registered, pursuant to which the criminal law was set into motion.The prosecutrix was recovered and medically examined and her statement was recorded.Sections 363, 366, 506, 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2016 and respondent No.2 from the charge under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, giving them the benefit of doubt.After completion of the investigation, challan was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, who made over the case to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa.The respondent No.1 was charged under Sections 363, 3663, 596, 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2016, whereas respondent No.2 was charged under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code.The respondents abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, specially of prosecutrix herself found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted the respondents.The trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident.The documentary evidence filed in this 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18510/2016 (State of M.P. Vs.Kebalram and another) regard has been found to be shaky and not believed by the learned trial Judge.The father of the prosecutrix has admitted that it was made later by the Sarpanch of the village, hence, the trial Court has rightly not relied upon it.Dr. Rashmi Kaushal (P.W.-10), who examined the prosecutrix has found her age to be between 18 to 19 years.She has not given any opinion with regard to committal of rape.Moreover, the prosecutrix herself has admitted in para 18 that she is 18 years of age.She has further admitted that wherever she went with the respondent No.1, it was on her own free will and wish.She has stated that they stayed at different places, i.e., Neemsethi, Gandari, Manjrol and Chakarda.She has admitted that while travelling through bus, she did not tell the other passengers that she was kidnapped nor asked for their help, nor informed any of the village woman, where she was staying.She has further admitted that she met some policemen while she was travelling to Chakrada, but she did not inform the police person that she had been kidnapped.She has also stated that she has come back on her own free will.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Accordingly, this M.Cr.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for State in all Appeals.JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR.[Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 1The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2001 at about 07:30 PM, DD No. 26 was recorded regarding information received from HC Jagdish about a stabbing incident at Shahabad Kankarkhera.Again DD No.29 was recorded regarding admission of one Vijender to Bhagawan Mahavir Hospital with the history of stabbing.Thereafter at about 08:15 PM DD No.32 was recorded on receipt of the information from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital regarding death of injured Vijender.On receipt of this, SI Umed Singh (PW-17) with Ct.Bhim Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Vijender.PW-17 Umed Singh recorded the statement of the brother of the deceased, Ravinder Singh (PW-1), whom he met at the hospital.According to PW-1, in the morning a quarrel had taken place between the deceased, Ravi, Soni, Bonny and Amar Singh.It was resolved then due to intervention of some people around.Ravi had threatened the deceased at that time.In the evening when PW-1 and his brother, Shailender were going towards Kankarkhera drain, to ease themselves, they heard cries for help; they both rushed to the spot and saw that Vicky and Neeraj had caught hold of Vijender and Ravi was stabbing him with a knife; Soni was shouting "maro saale ko isme bahut akad hai".PW-1 further stated that he and PW-3 managed to overpower Neeraj and Vicky, however Ravi and Soni managed to escape.On the basis of PW-1s statement, a rukka (Ex.PW-17/A) was prepared and FIR No. 378 of 2001 was registered with PS Bawana.The investigation was handed over to the SHO.The SHO got the spot photographed and on the pointing out of PW-1 got the site plan prepared.The blood stained earth and earth control were seized.The SHO interrogated the accused Neeraj and Vicky and recorded their disclosure statements; the accused were arrested on 09.10.2001 at about 05:30AM by arrest memos Ex.PW-17/C and Ex.The quarrel was settled with the intervention of neighbours and others around.However, according to the account of PW-1, Ravi swore to look out for the deceased.PW-1 deposed that on 08.10.2001 at about 08:00 AM a quarrel took place between the deceased (Vijender) and Ravi, Soni, Bobby and Amar Singh; the matter was settled due to the intervention of local people but Ravi threatened the deceased that he will "see" him later.Thereafter in the evening at about 07:00PM the witness and his brother Shailender (PW-3) were going towards Kankarkhera drain to urinate when they heard the deceased shouting bachao bachao.PW-1 further stated to the police that he and PW-3 managed to overpower Neeraj and Vicky however Ravi and Soni managed to escape.He further stated that his uncle Jagdish (PW-5) was passing from there and on hearing the noise, he too came to the spot and he (PW-5) and PW-3 took the accused Neeraj and Vicky to the police station.PW-1 further stated that he took his injured brother to Nanaks (PW-13s) house in the village from where Nanak informed the police and they took Vijender to Shahbad on a motorcycle.From Shahbad they hired a Maruti Van and took Vijender to Bhagwan [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 6 Mahavir Hospital where Vijender was declared brought dead.On the basis of PW- 1s statement, the rukka (Ex.PW-17/A) was prepared and an FIR bearing no. 378/ 2001 was registered with PS Bawana.The investigation was handed over to the SHO.The SHO got the spot photographed and on the pointing out of PW-1 got the site plan prepared.The blood stained earth and earth control were seized.The SHO interrogated the accused Neeraj and Vicky and recorded their disclosure statements; the accused were arrested on 09.10.2001 at about 05:30AM by arrest memos Ex.PW-17/C and Ex.PW-17/B.Further on 10.10.2001, PW-1 met the SHO on Kankarkhera Road and informed him that accused Soni was present in the village.He further stated that he took the deceased to Nanaks house; it took 10-15 minutes.He further stated that he had instructed PW-3 and PW-5 to take the accused persons to the police post.In his further cross-examination, he denied that his brother Vijender was lying injured in the field and the accused Vicky and Neeraj brought injured Vijender to his (PW-1s) house.He denied that his mother informed the police by telephone at that time and that all the family members took Vijender to the hospital.He further denied that accused Vicky and Neeraj had been implicated in this case on mere suspicion.He stated that they raised an alarm when they were [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 8 running towards Vijender; they were at a distance of about 7 to 8 paces from Vijender when they saw him being stabbed.He further stated that he took Vijender to Nanaks house in the chowk and not to his own house.The appellants appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 2-12-2009 in SC No. 41/01 whereby they were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with other sentences.PW-17/B. Ravi and Soni were arrested subsequently, the next day.The police conducted the investigation, after [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 2 which, on the basis of the report, the accused were charged with committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.They denied guilt, and claimed trial.The prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses and relied on several exhibits such as post mortem report, FSL report etc. The defense also examined two witnesses.After considering all these and the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court held the appellants guilty.The Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt and that this Court should acquit them of all charges.The Counsel submitted that in DDs No.26, 29 and 32 the information was only regarding a stabbing incident and the names of the accused were not mentioned.The Counsel submitted that had there actually been eye-witnesses then the name of the accused persons would have appeared in the DDs.Furthermore the MLC, Ex.However the name of only one accused Ravi is mentioned; the other accused are not mentioned.It was also pointed out that the person whose Maruti Van was hired to take the deceased to the hospital was not examined.The Appellants Counsel argued that PW-1 and PW-3 have contradicted each other on material aspects which go to the root of the case and therefore their testimony should be discarded.He submitted that PW-1 and PW-3 contradicted each other as to whether PW-1 was wearing a T-shirt or a vest.Further PW-1 stated that his statement was recorded on the bench whereas PW-3 stated that PW- 1s statement was recorded on the scooter.The Ld. Counsel further submitted that both the witnesses admitted that there was no electricity at the spot and therefore it would not have been possible for them to see the deceased being stabbed.Further [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 3 there was full grown Jawar crop in the field and therefore it is highly unlikely that they would have seen the incident taking place.It was submitted that the accused, Neeraj and Vicky in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC stated that they were going home from their work-place when they found deceased lying in an injured condition in the field; they (Neeraj and Vicky) brought him to the village chowk and informed his family members.The mother of the deceased dialed 100 number and at about 08:30 PM, the police came to the house of Neeraj and Vicky and took them to the police station.To support their story, they have examined two defense witnesses.DW-1, Baljeet deposed that he knew accused Neeraj and Vicky as well the deceased and his family as they were his neighbours.He deposed that about 6-7 days after 2nd October at about 7/7:30 PM, he heard some noise and came out of his house and saw accused Neeraj and Vicky bringing deceased Vijender to the village chowk.He further deposed that immediately the mother of the deceased, his brothers Ravinder and Shailender and uncle Jagdish also reached the chowk.Nanak (PW-13) took the deceased along with Ravinder (PW-1) on his motorcycle to the hospital.He further deposed that after about an hour and a half, the police came to the village and took Neeraj and Vicky away.He further stated that on inquiry, he came to know from Neeraj and Vicky that he was brought from a field where he was lying in an injured condition.He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the accused.Counsel submitted that DW-2 Om Narain deposed that on 08.10.2001 he had gone to the shop of Bhure Lal for getting his scooter painted and at about 8 PM a gypsy with 3 police officials came there.He further deposed that accused Ravi was painting his scooter at that time and accused Soni was carrying out painting work [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 4 on a four wheeler.He further deposed that the police officials took the accused persons away after getting their clothes changed.He denied the suggestion that he had cooked up the story.The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deposition of the two defense witnesses proves that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have been arrested on mere suspicion.These circumstances, coupled with the fact that the names of the attackers were identified at the earliest point, ruled out the possibility of false implication.However they spotted a boy coming on foot about a half kilometer before the village and on the pointing out of PW-1 accused Soni was apprehended.Accused Soni upon interrogation disclosed that co-accused Ravi was hiding in Parhladpur.Thereafter, the accused Ravi made a disclosure statement and got the weapon of offence i.e. a knife recovered from the bushes; the knife was seized and a sketch of the knife was prepared.The police also seized the blood stained clothes accused Ravi was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence.In cross-examination PW-1 stated that they had no enmity with the accused persons.He also stated that his house was "pucca" but there was no toilet due to which all the family members used to go outside to ease themselves.He further stated that he spotted Vijender from a distance of about 40-50 paces when he along with Shailender (PW-3) was easing himself; they were sitting before the pulliya in the agricultural field and no crop [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 7 had come up at that time.He stated that he heard the noises when he was about to sit.He further stated that the faces of the accused were towards them (PW-1 and PW-3) and they saw Vicky and Neeraj holding Vijender.He further stated that he saw accused Ravi attacking Vijender with a knife when he (PW-1) was running towards the deceased.He stated that when he reached the spot, the deceased was about to fall however he supported him and also caught hold of accused Neeraj; he pulled the collar of Neeraj from behind.He further stated that PW-3 caught hold of accused Vicky; the other two accused ran away.He admitted that as per his visibility, the deceased was stabbed four times.He further admitted that there was no electricity on the road but as it was dawn some natural light was available.He admitted that he alongwith Nanak (PW-13) went to Shahbad on Nanaks motorcycle and from Shahbad they took a van belonging to Shyam Sunder and reached the hospital; the police arrived at the hospital after about half an hour.He stated that the police recorded his statement and from the hospital he alongwith the SHO and the police staff went to the spot in the police car; from the spot they went to the PS where he saw accused Neeraj and Vicky.He further stated that they had left his house at about 06:45 PM and the incident took place at about 7 PM; it took him 15 minutes to reach the chowk from the spot.On reaching the chowk Nanak (PW-13) took out his motorcycle.Blood had fallen on the way to the chowk.He admitted that they reached the hospital at about 8 PM.From the hospital he went to the police post and from the police post he went to the spot.In his further cross-examination he stated that when he reached the spot, accused Ravi and Soni were running away as they heard his cries.He further stated that he informed the police about accused Sonis presence in the village on 10.10.2001 and he was apprehended at about 8/8:30 AM.The accused Soni disclosed about accused Ravis whereabouts and Ravi was apprehended from village Pralhad.He admitted that at the time of the incident Jawar crop was fully grown.He further admitted that after the incident his brother was not able to speak to him due to the injuries and Vijender was not able to tell who had caused the injures.18. PW-3 Shailender who is an eye-witness to the incident has fully corroborated PW-1s version.Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length but the defense was not able to shake their account.Both the witnesses clearly saw accused Neeraj and Vicky holding the deceased and Ravi stabbing the deceased while accused Soni was shouting maar saale ko'.The MLC, Ex.PW-14/A also records the name of accused Ravi.Even PW-5 has deposed that when he reached the spot he saw injured Vijender in a serious condition and accused Neeraj and Vicky were in his custody.The Ld. APP submitted that they have proved the [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 9 accused persons guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Courts decision should not be interfered with.19. PW-10 Dr. RK Punia, the doctor who conducted the post mortem of Vijender and prepared the post mortem report Ex.PW-10 /A has deposed that in his opinion the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury to the heart.He further deposed that on 08.11.2001 he received a request from the SHO along with a parcel of a weapon.He gave an opinion Ex.PW-10/D that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem could have been caused by the knife examined by him.Therefore, PW-10s deposition also corroborates with the eye-witness account.The injured Vijeder was taken to the hospital, at 8:30 PM (Ex PW-14/A).The rukka was recorded at 11-20 PM (Ex PW-17/A), the FIR registered at 12:20 AM (Ex. PW-2/A).These circumstances, coupled with the fact that the names of the attackers were identified at the earliest point, in the rukka, recorded at 11-20 PM, improbibilizes false implication of the accused.[Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 10The testimony of witnesses is corroborated by the post mortem report, which says that the deceased had been inflicted four sharp edged injuries; two on the face, and two on the chest.One of the chest injuries was deep enough to penetrate to the heart.The post mortem report and the testimony of PW-10 proved that the knife injury which penetrated the heart was the cause of death.PW-17/B and Ex. PW-17/C are arrest memos in respect of Vicky and Neeraj, who were nabbed at the spot; the police showed their arrest at 5-30 AM.This fact, together with the timing of the FIR and the rukka, in the opinion of the Court, provide external corroboration to the prosecution witnesses version.He clearly was waiting for an opportunity to get even with him.The knife, wielded by him, and the nature of injuries inflicted on a vital part of the body, i.e the chest, which was deep enough to cause the fatality, rule out the applicability of explanation to Section 300 fourth exception, IPC.The intention here was to clearly kill Vijender, and the appellant Ravi succeeded in doing it.The other three accused were unarmed.

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

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

The father of the petitioner had instituted a criminal complaint (CC no. 616570/2016) on 07.02.1992, inter alia, against the respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.On the basis of pre-summoning evidence, the respondent was summoned as accused.Since the case arose out of a private complaint, it involving an offence triable as a warrant case, pre-charge evidence was led.On conclusion of the said exercise, the Metropolitan Magistrate considered as to whether charge was made out on the evidence that had been adduced.By order dated 06.11.2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate answered the said issue in the negative and, thus, dismissed the complaint discharging the respondent under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).M.C. No. 1998/2019 Page 1 of 5The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the record has been perused with his assistance.This Court, however, is not impressed with the contentions raised here and finds no error, impropriety or illegality in the view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate, as affirmed by the revisional court.The brief reasons may be set out hereinafter.The controversy before the court through the above-mentioned criminal complaint essentially pertained to a property described as municipal no.W-73, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi.The property, it appears, was held in the name of Motian Devi Lamba, she having gone abroad and settled in London (U.K.).It appears that the petitioner's father (the complainant) was interested in purchasing the said property and had come across the respondent in such context, he (the respondent) having offered to arrange the sale of the property by Motian Devi Lamba (the owner).It appears that the respondent had Crl.M.C. No. 1998/2019 Page 2 of 5 acted upon some authorization in his favour by the owner of the property.He entered into certain transaction wherein an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs was paid to him by the complainant in four instalments three by cheqeues and one by bank draft.A receipt-cum-agreement was executed, (copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A-5), it having been adduced in the evidence before the inquiry magistrate.As per the said document, the property was to be formally transferred by a regular sale deed to be executed by Motian Devi Lamba, possibly through her attorney, subject to certain clearances being arranged.The document does not make it clear as to whose responsibility it was to arrange such clearances.M.C. No. 1998/2019 Page 2 of 5But then, criminality was attributed to the subject transaction by the complainant stating, inter alia, that the respondent had falsely represented to him at the time of taking over the money and executing the afore-mentioned receipt, that Motian Devi Lamba was the exclusive owner.

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

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

DATED : 7th JUNE 2019P.C:-1 The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner housed inYerwada Central Prison has addressed a communication to thisCourt on the basis of which the present Writ Petition isregistered.The communication addressed alleges that theprisoner was falsely implicated in Crime No.779 of 2017 for theoffences punishable under Sections 395, 341, 35, 504, 506 ofthe IPC and under Section 3(i)(ii), 3(4) of MCOC Act. Theallegation levelled in the complaint is that the police officers ofSatara Police Station, District Satara allegedly made a demandof Rs.15 lakhs of bribe from the prisoner and since he refusedto fulfill the said demand, an offence under the MCOC wasinvoked against him and he was falsely implicated in the saidcrime.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 04:21:38 :::allegations therein.With the aforesaid direction, Writ Petition isdisposed of.(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 04:21:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 04:21:38 :::

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

R.SUBBIAH, J., All the above applications have arisen out of the orders dated 06.06.2014 & 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Master, by which the learned Master has directed the Registry to delete the names of the applicants herein viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi, from the Execution Petition No.48 of 1997 and not to print the name of the counsel for the applicants in the cause list and dismissing all the memos filed by the applicants to implead them as co-petitioners in the Execution Petition.2.The prayers made in each of the application are as follows_In respect of the order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the learned Master Application No.6809 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants praying to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 06.06.2014 passed in E.P.No.48 of 1997 by the learned Master of this Court, whereby the learned Master has directed the Registry to delete the names of the applicants herein viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi, from the Execution Petition No.48 of 1997 and not to print the name of the counsel for the applicants in the cause list.Application No.6948 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants praying to stay the operation of the order dated 27.08.2014 passed in E.P.No.48 of 1997 on the file of the learned Master of this Court.In respect of E.P.No.48 of 1997 Application No.6949 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants praying to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.48 of 1997 in C.S.No.43 of 1962 on the file of the learned Master of this Court, pending disposal of the applications filed by the applicants.3.The un-numbered applications in A.D.No.38355 of 2007, A.D.No.29500 of 2014, A.D.No.30779 of 2014, A.D.No.30964 of 2014, & A.D.No.40981 of 2014, which were filed by the applicants, have also been posted and heard under the caption 'For Maintainability'.The prayers made in the said un-numbered applications are as follows_ A.D.No.38355 of 2007 has been filed by the applicants seeking to implead the applicants and Mrs.A.D.No.29500 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants seeking to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.48 of 1997 in C.S.No.43 of 1962 on the file of the learned Master.A.D.No.30779 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants seeking to permit them to file appeal against the order passed in E.P.No.48 of 1997 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the learned Master and to set aside the same.A.D.No.30964 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants seeking to pass an order withdrawing the proceedings in E.P.No.48 of 1997 from the file of the learned Master and to transfer the same to the file of this Court for adjudication in accordance with law.4.To decide the issues involved in the above applications, it would be appropriate to extract the facts of the case.The facts of the case, in brief, is as follows:-4-1.One S.V.Ramakrishnan being the 1st plaintiff, associating with his son S.V.Matha Prasad (2nd plaintiff & petitioner in E.P.No.48 of 1997), had filed the Civil Suit No.43 of 1962 for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.03.1959 as against one Mrs.Rajaby Fathima Buhari and A.M.B.Buhari in the year 1962, for the relief of reconveyance of the properties as set out in the suit schedule and for delivery of possession, besides for payment of income from 23.03.1962 and cost of the suit.The said suit was decreed on 10.11.1965 as prayed for.4-2.Aggrieved over the order dated 10.05.1972 passed by the Division Bench in O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 1966, the 1st plaintiff S.V.Ramakrishnan by himself had filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Since his son S.V.Matha Prasad did not join in the appeal along with him, the appellant S.V.Ramakrishnan had shown his son S.V.Matha Prasad as a respondent in the said SLP.4-3.In the said appeal, the 2nd plaintiff in the suit viz., S.V.Matha Prasath S/o.S.V.Ramakrishnan, through his first wife, has been arrayed as 3rd respondent.Even after the demise of his father S.V.Ramakrishnan, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasath has not taken any step to transpose himself as appellant in the said appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.While allowing the said Civil Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has restored the decree passed in C.S.No.43 of 1962 dated 10.11.1965 passed by the learned Singe Judge of this Court and directed the respondents therein or their successors in interest to convey the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint, within one month from 17.04.1995, failing which it would be open to the Trial Judge (Single Judge) to execute the required document.The relevant portion of the decree passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.224 of 1974 reads as follows_ 1.That the Judgment and Order dated 10th May, 1972 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 1966, be and is hereby set aside and the Judgment and Decree for specific performance dated 10th November, 1965 passed by the Single Judge of the said High Court in Original Suit No.43 of 1962 be and is hereby restored.2.It is hereby directed that the respondents herein or their successors-in-interest would reconvey the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint within a period of one month from this the 17th April, 1995, failing which it would be open to the trial judge (Single Judge) of the aforesaid High Court to execute the required document(s). 4-5.Thereafter, after two years from the date of passing the decree in the said Civil Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad has filed an Execution Petition No.48 of 1997 in C.S.No.43 of 1962 on 03.03.1997 before this Court.In the said Execution Petition, he has not mentioned about the death of his father S.V.Ramakrishnan, who was the 1st plaintiff in the Original Suit.In fact, along with the said Execution Petition, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad had filed an affidavit and in the said affidavit, he had himself claimed that he is the only legal heir of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan and claimed reconveyance and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property as the decree holder in his favour alone.4-6.In the Execution Petition, the judgment debtors being the 2nd defendant A.M.Buhari and Legal Representatives of the 1st defendant Mrs.Rajabu Fathima Buhari have filed a counter affidavit jointly sworn to on 25.01.1998, in response to the affidavit filed by S.V.Matha Prasad.That apart, in the said counter affidavit, they have also brought one more fact in para 10(3) of their counter, which reads as follows_ The appeal was actually prosecuted by some third parties i.e., 1)Lalchand Mehraj and Chimandas Mensaraj who had filed applications before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to implead them as party appellants 5 and 6 on the basis of the assignment deeds executed by all the legal heirs of the only appellant S.V.Ramakrishna Mudaliar and the said application was also allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such the present petitioner has no locus standi to file the execution petition. 4-7.The said assignees viz., 1)Lalchand Menghraj and 2)Chimandas Menghraj have filed two applications before the learned Master in Application Nos.2005 & 2006 of 1998 to get impleaded in E.P.No.48 of 1997 and for reopening of E.P.No.48 of 1997 respectively, as third party applicants.In the said Applications in A.Nos.2005 & 2006 of 1998, a common order was passed by the learned Master on 19.04.1999, directing the said third party applicants (assignees) to file assignment deeds executed by all the legal heirs of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishna, besides directing issuance of notice to other six legal heirs of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishna, by recording a finding to the effect that their impleadment is absolutely necessary for the purpose of putting them on notice and deciding their claims as well.4-8.Aggrieved over the order dated 19.04.1999 passed by the learned Master in Application Nos.2005 & 2006 of 1998, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad filed appeals in the nature of applications as envisaged under the Scheme of Order 14 Rule 12 of O.S.Rules in Application Nos.1106 to 1108 of 2000 before the learned Single Judge of this Court and the said applications were allowed by the learned Single Judge on 03.07.2000, setting aside the order passed by the learned Master in A.Nos.2005 & 2006 of 1998, and directing the learned Master to execute reconveyance of the property in favour of the decree holder S.V.Matha Prasad (2nd plaintiff / 1st respondent herein) and deliver possession of the property within one month.But, the said applications were heard by the learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the other legal heirs of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan.4-9.In such circumstances, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Master resorted to pass an order on 07.07.2000 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, directing the Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.48 of 1997 to execute the deed of reconveyance to the decree holder and deliver possession of the properties within in one month from 07.07.2000 to the decree holder S.V.Matha Prasad.4-10.Hence, challenging the order dated 07.07.2000 passed by the learned Master, the applicants herein viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi, who have been substituted as appellants in the Civil Appeal No.224 of 1974 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have filed appeals in the form of applications, as the co-decree holders, in Application Nos.2872 & 2873 of 2000 before the learned Single Judge of this Court, challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 07.07.2000 passed by the learned Master in E.P.No.48 of 1997, ordering reconveyance and delivery of possession to S.V.Matha Prasad.In the said applications, after hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by order dated 24.08.2000 set aside the order passed by the learned Master.The relevant portion of the order dated 24.08.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows_ 9.Learned counsel for the 1st respondent further stated that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners cannot be considered as legal heirs of the deceased and as such, the order passed by the learned Master is proper and correct.I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.Admittedly, the first respondent herein was the third respondent in the Apex Court and he did not oppose the application filed by the petitioners in CMP.No.7242 of 1981 for impleading themselves as parties in the appeal viz., the appellants.The silence on the Part of the first respondent herein as early as 1981 would only indicate that he had waived his right to raise the objection in respect of the status of the petitioners at the earliest point of time.Now, what could not be achieved by the first respondent in the Apex Court is trying to make use of the same and want to enrich himself as if he is the only legal heir of the deceased entitled to re-conveyance of the property from the judgment debtors.When once the petitioners have been impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased in the Apex Court and they have prosecuted the appeal and succeeded, they are also entitled to get the fruits of the decree.Now, it appears, there is no dispute inter se between the petitioners on one side and the first respondent on the other side after the demise of the said Ramakrishna Mudaliar.The petitioners represent the second wife and children of the deceased, whereas the first respondent represents the son of the deceased through the first wife.The suit was filed by Ramakrishna Mudaliar for specific performance and the decree passed by the Apex Court can be enjoyed by the petitioners as well as the first respondent.Now, one cannot exclude the other.The dispute with reference to the shares of the first parties in the property can be solved by the parties concerned separately.Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Master directing re-conveyance of the property exclusively to the first respondent is not proper and correct.The petitioners are also legal heirs of the deceased as they were already brought on record as early as 1981 and the re-conveyance should be ordered in favour of the petitioners also.Hence, these points are answered accordingly.The judgment debtors are directed to execute the re-conveyance of the property in favour of the petitioners as well as the first respondent, the dispute, if any between the petitioners as well as the first respondent, relating to their respective shares in the property is left open to be decided separately.These applications are ordered accordingly.Thus, the learned Single Judge, after unraveling the truth behind the suit to the effect that the applicants herein viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi, are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.224 of 1974 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of the order passed in the LR petition filed by them in C.M.P.No.7282 of 1981 dated 15.12.1981 and that they only prosecuted the said civil appeal and succeeded in the appeal and the 2nd plaintiff in the suit viz., S.V.Matha Prasad was only the third respondent in the said Civil Appeal and that the applicants herein are the legal heirs of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishna Mudaliar along with S.V.Matha Prasad, held that the reconveynace should be given in favour of the applicants herein along with the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad, 4-11.Aggrieved over the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2000 in Application Nos.2872 & 2873 of 2000, the 2nd plaintiff/execution petitioner viz., S.V.Matha Prasad has filed a Letters Patent Appeal in O.S.A.No.372 of 2000 before the Division Bench of this Court.The Division Bench had examined the claims of S.V.Mathaprasad and rejected his claims by order dated 11.04.2001, thereby confirmed the order made in Application Nos.2872 & 2873 of 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in entirety.However, while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench had given independent directions to the Executing Court with reference to the Execution Petition, whereby joining the applicants herein viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi, who represented as LRs of late S.V.Ramakrishnan before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as co-petitioners, and directing execution of reconveyance in favour of them as well along with S.V.Matha Prasad.The relevant portion of the decree passed by the Division Bench in O.S.A.No.372 of 2000, dated 11.04.2001 reads as follows_ 1.that the execution petition shall now proceed with the co-plaintiff  son by his first wife, as also the legal representatives of the deceased father who had been on record in the Supreme Court namely the second wife and her children as co-petitioners in the execution petition; and2)that the reconveyance shall be in favour of all of them. Further, in the said order, the Division Bench has observed that after execution of reconveyance, if there are any disputes interse as among the children as regards the extent to which they are entitled to share the property, that is a matter which can be agitated separately.The order dated 17.04.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows_ Delay Condoned.The special leave petition is dismissed.As against the said order dated 25.09.2007 made in Application Nos.4467 to 4470 of 2007, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.5820  5823 of 2008 and in that proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order on 02.05.2008, which reads as follows_ Delay condoned.Issue Notice.Subsequently, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad had moved a clarification applications before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the interim order of stay granted earlier on 02.05.2008 and on 16.08.2011, by filing I.A.Nos.5 to 8 of 2014, which were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24.02.2014 in the following manner_ Pendency of this appeals as also the orders dated 02.05.2008 and 16.08.2011 shall not stand in the way of the Executing Court proceeding in E.P.No.48 of 1997 in accordance with law. 4-14.Thereafter only, the present impugned orders dated 06.06.2014 and 27.08.2014 have been passed by the learned Master of this Court, directing the registry to delete the names of the applicants from the execution petition and not to print the names of the counsel for the applicants in the cause list and dismissing all the memos filed by the applicants.The details of the memos filed by the applicants are as follows_ Dated SR.No.20.11.2002 31466 23.02.2007 7373 19.06.2012 15647 17.06.2013 16265 07.01.2014 856 05.03.2014 8470 11.03.2014 9400 15.04.2014 14694 10.06.2014 20029 19.06.2014 21445But, no order was passed in the said Memos.Since no action was taken up, the learned counsel for the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad was compelled to move a Contempt Petition in Cont.But, the said Contempt Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 28.08.2006; however liberty was granted to the 2nd plaintiff to approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this court for proper remedy.The Registrar-Vigilance had conducted an enquiry and by his report dated 31.01.2007, held that the complaint of tampering stood proved.Pursuant to the same, disciplinary action was taken against the concerned staff of Original Side Section of this Court viz., Mrs.T.R.Indira, who had carried out the amendment, by proceedings in Roc.5-4.Pursuant to the representation made by the 2nd plaintiff-S.V.Matha Prasad, the matter was listed before the learned Master on 06.06.2014; on that day, the learned Master has ordered to remove the name of the applicants herein from the cause title and not to print the name of the counsel for the applicants in the cause list and further directed the 2nd plaintiff to file a clean copy.The order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the learned Master reads as follows_ The Court received proceedings of Hon'ble Registrar General in Roc.II (RG) dt 29.04.2014, and this Court learnt that departmental proceeding had been initiated against the staff member for tampering of records for the reason that S.V.R.Saroja and 4 others were inserted in the cause list and staff member responsible for the same has also been departmentally punished.Whose names were inserted have to be deleted.Hence, I hereby order to delete the name of S.V.R.Saroja and 4 others,whose names were inserted in this Execution Petition as petitioners also.As on date S.V.R.Saroja and 3 others are not arrayed as parties in this Execution Petition.In this circumstances, Registry need not print the name of Counsel M/s.S.Mehalatha J.Sudha.The applicants herein brought to the notice of then learned Master as to the memos already filed before him by them in EP, when the matter was listed.When EP was listed before the Master on 13.08.2014, attention of the Master was drawn as to non-listing of the memos filed by the applicants and non-printing of the name of the counsel for the applicants in the cause list in spite of the orders dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Master.But, without listing the memos filed by the applicants and without printing the name of the counsel for the appellants in the cause list, the Master has shown simply as orders on memos in the cause list on 27.08.2014 and signed the order, which was already prepared, on 27.08.2014 at 2.15 pm, rejecting all the memos filed by the applicants right from the year 2002 to implead them as co-petitioners.6-3.Since by order dated 27.08.2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997 the learned Master has dismissed all the memos filed by the applicants to implead them as co-petitioners, the applicants have filed the application (un-numbered) in A.D.No.30779 of 2014 seeking to permit them to file appeal against the order passed in E.P.No.48 of 1997 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the learned Master and to set aside the same.In the said application, by order dated 17.09.2014, the learned Master has ordered to forward the criminal complaint against the applicants herein to the competent Jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate Court for trial for the alleged offence punishable under Section 466 r/w 120(b) IPC.According to the applicants, the learned Master has no power to pass an order in the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and as per the Original Side Rules, only the Court can pass an order in the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.7-1.Heard the submissions made by Mr.8.Though very many contentions have been raised on both sides, on considering the factual aspects of this Court, the issues that has to be decided in this case, fall under a narrow campus.The points which fall for consideration in this case are as follows_ (1)Whether the order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the learned Master in E.P.No.48 of 1997, deleting the name of the counsel for the applicants from the cause list, is legally sustainable?(2)Whether the rejection order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Master on the memos, which were filed by the applicants seeking to implead them in the Execution petition as co-petitioners on the strength of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders of the Devision Bench and Hon'ble Supreme Court, is correct?(3)Whether the applicants are entitled to be impleaded as co-petitioners in the Execution Petition?9-1 Point No.(1):- The applicants have been impleaded themselves in C.A.No.224 of 1974, after the demise of 1st plaintiff S.V.Ramakrishnan.Though the 1st respondent herein S.V.Matha Prasad was originally the 2nd plaintiff in the C.S.No.43 of 1962, he has not joined along with the 1st plaintiff S.V.Ramakrishnan, as appellant in the appeal in C.A.No.224 of 1974 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.After the demise of S.V.Ramakrishnan, the applicants herein substituted themselves as Legal Representatives of the 1st plaintiff late S.V.Ramakrishnan by filing an application (C.M.P.No.7242 of 1981) and prosecuted the Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The said Civil Appeal was allowed in favour of the applicants herein and the 1st respondent herein/2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad, who was shown as 3rd respondent in the said Civil Appeal.Subsequent to the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.224 of 1974, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad has filed E.P.No.48 of 1997 before this Court.But, in the Execution Petition, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad had suppressed the death of his father S.V.Ramakrishnan.Aggrieved over the same, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad (1st respondent herein) has filed an Appeal in O.S.A.No.372 of 2000 before the Division Bench of this Court.In the said OSA, the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order to the effect that the execution petition shall be proceeded with by the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad as well as by the applicants herein, who had been on record in the Supreme Court and that the reconveyance shall be in favour of all of them.The SLP filed by the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad against the order of the Devision Bench was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.9-3.But, even thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad (1st respondent herein) was reluctant in impleading the applicants herein as co-petitioners in the Execution Petition.However, in the meantime, the applicants themselves have filed a memo on 20.11.2002 based on the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to pass necessary orders to implead them in the Execution Petition.But, no order was passed in the said Memo.Thereafter, till 2014, several memos have been filed by the applicants.Thereafter, a vigilance enquiry was conducted with regard to tampering of records.Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein S.V.Matha Prasad by deleting the names of the applicants which were entered into the execution petition due to the interpolation committed by Mrs.T.R.Indira, staff of this Court, filed a clean copy of the EP and the EP was restored to its original form.9-5.According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein-S.V.Matha Prasad, since the tampering was proved in the enquiry proceedings, the name of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants ought to have been deleted in the cause list, but their names were coming in the cause list.Hence, a letter was given to the Deputy Registrar in Original Side of this Court on 26.02.2013 by the counsel for the 1st respondent herein-S.V.Matha Prasad.Based on the said proceedings, on 06.06.2014 the learned Master has passed the impugned orders deleting the names of the applicants from the Execution Petition and the name of the counsel from the cause list.Pursuant to the said order, first memo was filed by the applicants on 20.11.2002 intimating the order of the Division Bench passed in OSA.No.372 of 2000 as well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to implead them as co-petitioners in the EP.Based on the said letter only, order was passed to delete the name of the counsel for the applicants.But, on perusal of the records, I find that the alleged interpolation in EP was made only in the year 2006, whereas even much earlier to the alleged interpolation, on 20.11.2002 the applicants had intimated the learned Master that by virtue of order dated 11.04.2001 in O.S.A.No.372 of 2000, the Execution Petition filed by the 1st respondent herein has to be proceeded with by adding them as co-petitioners in Execution Petition.Infact, the said staff had deposed in the enquiry proceedings that the advocate appearing for assignees Lalchand Mehraj and Chimandas Mensaraj produced a letter dated 24.02.2004 and requested her to make the amendment as per Supreme Court Judgment.9-10.Further, even in the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.54 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent herein S.V.Matha Prasad before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no allegation against the applicants herein with regard to the alleged interpolation in EP.Basis for filing the contempt petition by the 1st respondent herein S.V.Matha Prasad before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also not on the allegation of tampering of the EP by the applicants herein.The only modification made regarding order dated 7/7/2000 was that the L.R's herein were also directed to take the decree along with the petitioner.As such the execution order dated 7/7/2000 has to be implemented by issuing process.The L.R's appeared and objected and claimed that they are also entitled to the decree.The Assignees appeared and got time for 2 weeks to produce a stay order.11.When the EP was listed again in Sep. 2004, the learned Master directed the petitioner to finish the SLP No.12237-12239 and come back.12.While so the learned Master in utter disregard to all the above said orders and in clear violation of the provisions of law has taken up the E.P.No.48 of 97 and another E.P.No.21 of 2004 filed by the Assignees herein for enquiry.The learned Master has allowed the Senior Counsel for Respondent-Assignees to argue the case once again and heard them regarding their right as per the assignment deeds.While the said SLP was dismissed on 17.03.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the order of the Division Bench as follows_ It is clarified that if any suit is filed inters the contending claimants to the ownership of the suit property, then the question of ownership, the number of owners and the extent of share shall be decided in that suit only.According to the 1st respondent herein, by way of above clarification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by modifying the order passed in O.S.A.No.372 of 2000 on 11.04.2001, directed the applicants to file a separate suit after reconveyance of the property to the 1st respondent S.V.Matha Prasad; but, floating the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.04.2003, the learned Master is proceeding with the EP with regard to reconveyance of the property to all the petitioners.In fact, in the year 2007, apart from the memos, an application was also filed by the applicants in A.D.No.38355 of of 2007 to implead them as co-petitioner; but, the said application was not numbered by the Registry.Only under such circumstances, the above referred impugned order dated 06.06.2014 was passed by the learned Master deleting the names of the applicants from the EP as well as the name of their counsel from the cause list.10-2.Thereafter, again on 16.06.2014 a letter given by the learned counsel for the applicants listing out the number of memos filed by the applicants, whereupon the learned Master has directed the Registry to post the memos and print the name of the learned counsel in the cause list.Thereafter, on 13.08.2014 the matter was listed before the learned Master, but the said memos filed by the applicants to implead them as co-petitioners were not listed.10-4.Further more, I also find that the applicants have also filed an application in A.D.No.38355 of 2007 to implead them as co-petitioner in Execution Petition by serving a copy on the learned counsel for the respondents herein, but the said application was not numbered by the Registry; but, without looking into these aspects, the learned Master has passed the impugned order that too without affording an opportunity to the applicants.Accordingly, the order dated 27.08.2014 is set aside.11-1.Point No.3:- Now the only question that falls for consideration is whether the applicants are entitled to be impleaded as co-petitioners in the EP.Further more, they have been substituted as appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Legal Representatives of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan in C.A.No.224 of 1997 only on the basis of the un-probated Will dated 15.07.1970 executed by the said deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan. Substitution of the applicants as legal representatives on the basis of the Will executed by the said S.V.Ramakrishnan does not confer any right on the applicants to join as co-petitioners in EP, because they cannot be termed as co-decree holders.In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has also made a detailed argument by inviting the attention of this Court to the definition for Legal Representatives under Section 2(11) of CPC and under Section 213 of Indian Succession Act. Further, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent by inviting the attention of this Court to Article 137 of Limitation Act, submitted that the time for impleadment is only within three years from when the right to apply accrues.Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the applicants ought to have impleaded themselves in the EP within three years from the date of filing the EP; therefore, at this juncture, they cannot be impleaded.Now, the 1st respondent cannot reagitate the same in the EP.Therefore, as per the order of the Division Bench which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants have to be impleaded as co-petitioners.Further, I find that though the applicants viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi were not parties in the Civil Suit and OSA, they got substituted themselves as appellants in the Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Further, in the complaint dated 25.09.2006 given by the 1st respondent before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court also, the 1st respondent has not made any direct allegation as against the applicants herein with regard to the tampering of EP and his entire allegation is only as against the assignees and not against the applicants herein.11-11.Therefore, considering all the above facts, in my considered opinion, the applicants are entitled to get impleaded as co-petitioners in the EP, since already they are on record by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Inspite of the fact that the application was filed by the applicants to implead themselves as co-petitioners, they were not impleaded as co-petitioners, since the said application was not numbered and listed before the Master.12(2).The learned Master is also directed to delete the other names, which were entered into the Execution Petition by way of interpolation and to direct the concerned parties to file application to get themselves impleaded in the Execution Petition; and on filing such application, the learned Master may pass appropriate orders thereafter.12(3).So far as the sister of the 1st respondent viz., Lalitha is concerned, since she is not a party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal, the learned Master can implead her in the Execution Petition on an application being filed by her to implead her as a party in the Execution Petition.In the said application, the learned Master by order dated 17.09.2014 directed the Registry to forward the criminal complaints against the applicants to the competent jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate with regard to tampering of records.Aggrieved over the same, the applicants filed an application (A.D.No.40981/2014), but the Registry has not numbered the application.Hence, the said application is posted before this Court under the caption 'For Maintainability'.Therefore, the present application filed under Order 14 Rule 12 of OS Rules in the form of judges summon under Order 14 Rule 8 of OS Rules in A.D.No.40981 of 2014 is maintainable.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants relied upon the decision reported in 100 LW 738 (Harikrishna Jhaver Vs.Ram Narayan Bhattad, Madras), wherein it has been held by this Court as follows_ for one thing, the Master's Court is also a Court within the meaning of the Rules of the High Court on the Original Side.Secondly, under the Original Side Rules, Order 14 Rule 8 the application for sanction to prosecute will have to be filed by a Judge's summons and not by a Master's summons and in these circumstances, the application filed before the learned Judge was in order.Therefore, from the above dictum it could be seen that the learned Master has passed an order exceeding his authority under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the appeal filed against the said order in A.D.No.40981 of 2014 is maintainable.I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants.Hence, Registry is directed to number the un-numbered application in A.D.No.40981 of 2014 and post the same before this Court, since the said application is very well maintainable.14.Un-numbered Application No.A.D.30964 of 2014:-2.It is hereby directed that the respondents herein or their successors-in-interest would reconvey the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint within a period of one month from this the 17th April, 1995, failing which it would be open to the trial judge (Single Judge) of the aforesaid High Court to execute the required document(s).The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the learned Single Judge to execute the required documents in respect of reconveyance of the suit property, an appliation has been filed to transfer the proceedings in E.P.No.48 of 1997; therefore, the un-numbered application in A.D.No.30964 of 2014 has to be numbered by the Registry.But, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Trial judge of this Court only to execute the required document in case the judgment debtors or their successors-in-interest failed to reconvey the property.Therefore, the Execution proceedings cannot be transferred to this Court.14-3.However, I am of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent can be considered only after the application is numbered.In the result, Application Nos.6809 to 6811 of 2014 are ordered accordingly.Application Nos.6948 & 6949 of 2014 are closed.Un-numbered application in A.D.No.38355 of 2007 and A.D.Nos.29500 & 30779 of 2014 are closed.A.D.No.30964 of 2014 and A.D.No.40981 of 2014 are ordered to be numbered.16.02.2015Internet : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoR.SUBBIAH, J., ssv A.Nos.6809 to 6811 of 2014andA.Nos.6948 & 6949 of 2014andA.D.No.30964, 30779, 29500, 40981 of 2014andA.D.No.38355 of 2007inE.P.No.48 of 1997inC.S.No.43 of 196216.02.2015

['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2 Cr.A Nos.2365/2007 &The prosecution case, in brief, is that both the appellants, i.e. the appellant Bhupendra @ Bhup Beldaar in Criminal Appeal No.2365/2007 and the appellant Pawan Raikwar in Criminal Appeal No.2596/2007 alongwith one Bunty assaulted the deceased Arvind on 23.05.2006 at around 8.30 P.M. at Govind Chowk, Raniganj, Panna with swords and bakka (hatchet) and inflicted as many as 35 injuries which ultimately resulted in his death.Though the prosecution examined P.W-1 Faiyaz Ahmed, P.W-2 Kanchhedi Lal Sen, P.W-7 Shailendra Singh, P.W-8 Santosh Raikwar and P.W-9 Sanjay Rai as the eye-witnesses, but P.W-1 Raiyaz Ahmed and P.W-2 Kanchhedi Lal Sen were declared hostile as they denied all knowledge of the incident.3 Cr.A Nos.2365/2007 &4 Cr.6 Cr.A Nos.2365/2007 &6 Cr.A Nos.2365/2007 &A Nos.2365/2007 &4 Cr.A Nos.2365/2007 &A Nos.2365/2007 &

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAINWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?A. No.542 /2009 Page 1 of 44This is also the case of the prosecution that on 3rd December, at about 11.15 p.m. when the informant along with his uncle deceased Sanjay Sharma was returning after attending a marriage reception, the appellants who are brothers, stopped the motorcycle being driven by the deceased, saying that they have been searching him since the previous day, and would teach him a lesson.This was followed by the appellants abusing him.The informant was dragged from the motorcycle and the appellant Tavinder gave knife blows on his left shoulder and CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 2 of 44 stomach.When deceased Sanjay Sharma tried to save him the appellant Navjeet held him whereas Tavinder gave a knife blow on his chest, as a result of which he fell on the ground.Thereafter Tavinder gave a number of knife blows to the deceased.In the meanwhile his uncle Babloo Sharma and the younger brothers of the deceased, namely, Lalit Sharma and Amit Sharma, who also were returning after attending the same marriage reception, stopped there on seeing them.When they raised alarm and rushed towards them, the appellant Tavinder fled away along with his knife, but, the appellant Navjeet was apprehended by Babloo and Lalit Sharma.A number of persons from the public also rushed there on hearing the alarm and Navjeet sustained some minor injuries when he was overpowered by them.The informant and Amit Sharma brought Sanjay Sharma to S.D.N. Hospital where he was declared brought dead.A. No.542 /2009 Page 2 of 44A. No.542 /2009 Page 3 of 44(a) There was a quarrel between the informant and the appellant Navjeet which constituted motive for the murder and the attempted murder;(b) The appellant Navjeet was apprehended on the spot;(c) An abrasion was found on the right side outer angle of the right eye of the appellant Tavinder when he was examined in the hospital on 5th December, 2005, which indicates his involvement in the incident.(e) The knife recovered at the instance of the appellant Tavinder was found stained with blood and it was opined by the doctor that injuries to the deceased were possible from that knife;A. No.542 /2009 Page 4 of 44 Ocular EvidenceA. No.542 /2009 Page 4 of 44The complainant Sagar Sharma came in the witness box as PW-1 and stated that on 2nd December, 2003 at about 9:30 p.m. he gave a Fifty Rupee note to the appellant Navjeet, who along with his brother and co- appellant Tavinder used to sell eggs, towards payment of four eggs.He, however, did not return the balance amount and started abusing him.The appellant Tavinder also abused him and pushed him.He then came back to his house.He further stated that on 3rd December, 2003 at about 11:15 p.m., he along with Sanjay Sharma, was returning on the motor cycle of Sanjay Sharma, after attending the wedding reception of his neighbor Sonu, held at Sanatam Dharam Shala Gali No.13, Shanti Mohalla.When they reached near house No.3938, Gali No.13 of Shanti Mohalla both the accused persons came in front of their motor cycle which was stopped by Sanjay Sharma.Navjeet caught hold of him(PW1) and dragged him from the motorcycle saying that he had been searching him and would teach him a lesson.He also started abusing him.A. No.542 /2009 Page 5 of 44 Tavinder gave a knife blow on his right chest and left shoulder.When Sanjay Sharma tried to save him, Navjeet caught hold of him (Sanjay Sharma) and Tavinder gave knife blow on his chest as a result of which he fell down.Tavinder then gave 5-6 blows to Sanjay Sharma.Jatinder Sharma alias Babloo, Lalit Sharma and Amit Sharma also reached there and caught hold of Navjeet, whereas Tavinder ran away from the spot.He along with Amit Sharma took Sanjay Sharma to S.D.N. Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.He further stated that Navjeet also sustained minor injuries when he was overpowered by Jitender Sharma and Lalit Sharma.He also identified Exhibit P1 as the knife which was used by Tavinder for causing injuries to him and to his uncle deceased Sanjay Sharma.A. No.542 /2009 Page 5 of 44PW-2 Jitender Sharma alias Babloo stated that on 3rd December, 2003 at about 11:20 p.m. when he was coming back after attending the reception ceremony of his friend Sonu held at Sanatam Dharam Shala Gali No.13, Shanti Mohalla along with his two small children and reached Gali No. 13, at Shanti Mohalla, he saw Tavinder giving knife blows to Sanjay Sharma and Navjeet quarreling CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 6 of 44 Sagar Sharma.He, Lalit Sharma, and Amit Sharma asked the accused persons as to why they were stabbing Sanjay Sharma, Tavinder then ran away with knife in his hand whereas Navjeet was apprehended by him with the help of Lalit Sharma and some persons from the public who had gathered on the spot.Police came to the spot and the accused Navjeet was handed over to the police.A. No.542 /2009 Page 6 of 446. PW-3 Lalit Sharma stated that when he along with Amit Sharma reached Gali No. 13 while returning from the wedding reception on foot, he saw Tavinder giving knife blows to Sanjay Sharma and Navjeet quarreling with Sagar Sharma.When he cried and asked them as to why they were beating Sanjay Sharma Tavinder ran away with knife whereas Navjeet was apprehended by him and Jitender Sharma.Amit Sharma and Sagar Sharma took Sanjay Sharma to S.D.N. Hospital whereas Navjeet was handed over to the police.7. PW-5 Amit Sharma corroborated the deposition of the informant Sagar Sharma and stated that when he reached Gali No.13, Shanti Mohalla along with his brother Lalit Sharma and PW-2 Jitender Sharma alias Babloo after CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 7 of 44 attending the wedding reception held at Shiv Mandir Dharam Shala, Shanti Mohalla, he saw Navjeet holding his brother Sanjay Sharma who was lying on the ground whereas Tavinder was stabbing him with a knife.When they cried and asked them not to beat their brother, Tavinder ran away with knife.He chased him but on account of darkness could not catch hold of him.He then came back to the spot.In the meanwhile his brother Lalit and Jitender had over powered Navjeet with the help of some persons from the public.He and Sagar Sharma then took Sanjay Sharma to S.D.N. Hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctors.The upper and outer angle was rounded and lower inner angle was acute.Incised punctured wound 1.2 x 0.5 cms present over back of lower half left side chest 8.2 cms below and inner to left scapula inferior angle, 3.8 cms to the CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 18 of 44 left of midline slightly obliquely placed with margins clean cut outer angle rounded and inner angle acute.Wound was muscle deep with depth of 0.4 cms.Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellants : Mr Avninder Singh For the Respondent : Mr Sanjay Lao, APP CORAM:-Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes V.K. JAIN, JThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th April, 2009 and Order on Sentence dated 30th April, 2009, whereby both the appellants were convicted under section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 thereof for committing murder of Sanjay CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 1 of 44 Sharma and attempting to commit murder of the informant Sagar Sharma and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo SI for 3 months each in default under section 302/34 of the IPC.Identical sentence was awarded to them under section 307 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof.The case of the prosecution against the appellants CRL.(d) The weapon used for committing the offence was recovered concealed in a park pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant Tavinder;A. No.542 /2009 Page 7 of 44In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant Navjeet alias Prince admitted that he used to sell eggs on a cart but denied that his brother Tavinder was also selling eggs with him.As regards the incident of 3rd December, 2003 he, while denying the case of the prosecution against him, stated that he was beaten by the deceased and several prosecution witnesses and not by the public, when he was going to the police station for making CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 8 of 44 enquiry about their complaint.He further stated that after giving beating to him they fled from the spot.He also stated that Tavinder had gone to seek help when he was beaten by the deceased and the prosecution witnesses.He claimed that no one was injured by him and his brother.A. No.542 /2009 Page 8 of 44The appellant Tavinder, however, admitted that he along with his brother co-appellant Navjeet alias Prince used to sell eggs at Shanti Mohalla on a cart.He also denied the case of the prosecution against him regarding the incident which took place on 3rd December, 2003 and stated that the deceased had suffered injuries somewhere else and had implicated him and his brother in the case.He claimed that his brother Navjeet was beaten by the deceased and prosecution witnesses when they were going to the police station to enquire about their complaint.He also claimed that he had gone to seek help when his brother was beaten by the deceased and the prosecution witnesses.He also denied having caused injuries to the deceased or to any other injured.PW-14 Dr. N.K. Tangri who was posted as CMO in CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 9 of 44 S.D.N. Hospital, Shahdara on 4th December, 2003 examined PW-1 Monu Sharma alias Sagar Sharma and found that he had a clean incised wound right side lower part of chest 8 mm x 2 mm deep up to subcutaneous deep.He also found 5 cm long abrasion over left upper arm which was skin deep.The injuries were noted by him on the MLC Exhibit PW14/B.A. No.542 /2009 Page 9 of 44The MLC of the informant Sagar Sharma coupled with his deposition in the court leaves no doubt that he was injured in the incident which took place in the night intervening 3/4th December, 2003 at Shanti Mohalla.Though, in his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC the appellant Tavinder claimed that the injuries by the deceased and the prosecution witnesses were sustained CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 10 of 44 in some other incident, he did not tell the court as to what that incident was, where it had taken place and who had caused injuries to the deceased and to the informant Sagar Sharma.There is absolutely no evidence of either the deceased or the informant having sustained injuries in some other incident.Therefore, we see no reason to disbelieve the injured Sagar Sharma who categorically and unequivocally stated that he was injured by the appellant Tavinder in the course of the same incident in which injuries were caused by him to the deceased Sanjay Sharma.A. No.542 /2009 Page 10 of 44Therefore, even if the testimony of PW-2 Jitender Sharma, PW-3 Lalit Sharma and PW-5 Amit Sharma is excluded from consideration, the deposition of CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 11 of 44 injured Sagar Sharma by itself is sufficient to prove the involvement of the appellants in the incident in which deceased Sanjay Sharma lost his life and the informant was injured.A. No.542 /2009 Page 11 of 44A perusal of the MLC of the deceased Exhibit PW 14/A and the MLC of the informant Exhibit PW-14/B shows that they were brought to the hospital by Amit Sharma s/o Ravinder Kumar Sharma, who had been examined as PW-5 in this case.He has fully corroborated the deposition of the informant from the stage he reached the spot.Since the deceased was brought to S.D.N. Hospital by the informant as well as PW-5 Amit Sharma as is evident from their MLC besides their oral deposition, we see no reason to disbelieve this witness.His testimony cannot be rejected merely because he happens to be the brother of the deceased.In fact, none of the appellants specifically claimed that this witness was not present at all when the incident took place.The testimony of PW-2 Jitender Sharma, PW-3 Lalit Sharma and PW-5 Amit Sharma was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that being relatives of the deceased they are interested witnesses and CRL.The only rule of caution the Court may adopt with respect to such a witness is to scrutinize his evidence with care and caution but, if on such scrutiny his evidence is found to be reliable, probable and trustworthy, conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of a witness who is related to the victim of the crime.In the case of Satish Narain (supra), initially the appellant did not have any weapon with him and he lifted it from the room of his mother during the course of the quarrel, whereas in the case before us the appellant Tavinder Singh was already armed with a knife when he met the deceased and the informant.There could be no good reason for the appellant Tavinder Singh to be carrying a knife with him late in the night.A. No.542 /2009 Page 18 of 44Incised penetrating wound 2.3 x 0.6 cms present over back of lower half left side chest 3.2 cms below and inner to injury no. 2, almost near midline with outer angle acute and inner angle rounded.Wound was muscle deep with depth of 0.5 cm.The blade of the knife recovered by the police at the instance of the appellant Tavinder Singh was found to be about 11cm long.The depth of injury No. 1 was found to be 9.5cm whereas the depth of injury No. 3 was found to be 8.6cm.This clearly shows that full force was applied by the appellant Tavinder while giving knife blows to the deceased, inasmuch as almost whole of the blade was thrust in his body.The injury No. 1 had cut through the skin, subcutaneous tissues, inter costal muscle of eight left inter costal muscle space, entered into left side chest cavity, then cut through the anterior wall of pericardialsac, produced a CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 19 of 44 cut 0.5 cm in length over anterior wall of right ventricle and ended in the cavity of the right ventricle.The third injury cut through the skin, subcutaneous tissues, inter costal muscle of seventh left inter costal muscle space, entered into left side chest cavity then cut through the plural layer of left lung lower lobe, then substance of lower lobe through just above the lower border producing a cut in the left dome of diaphragm and ended there, near its attachment with left costal cage border.He then assaulted the witness.In the meanwhile, another accused, the appellant before the Supreme Court, came from behind, held his head and threw him down.Accused person then assaulted PW-1 to PW-5, all of whom sustained various injures on their person.The appellant before the Supreme Court then hit the deceased at his head, with a crow bar causing serious injury.It was contended on behalf of the appellant that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, the allegations proved against CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 20 of 44 the appellant made out, the case under Section 304 Part II of IPC and, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC was bad in law.Rejecting the contention, Supreme Court observed that no one can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of injury caused.Noticing that the appellant had chosen a crow bar as the weapon of offence and a vital part of the body, i.e., head for causing injury which had caused multiple fractures of the skull and indicated the force applied while using the weapon, the only conclusion was that the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased.A. No.542 /2009 Page 20 of 44Considering the number of knife injuries given to the deceased, even after he had fallen on the ground on receiving the first stab injury, the force used while giving knife blows and the vital part chosen by the appellant Tavinder to give knife blows, we have no reasonable doubt in our mind that his intention was to commit murder of the deceased.If the accused gives repeated knife blows at vital CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 21 of 44 blows of the body, using full force for the purpose, even after the deceased has already fallen on the ground on receiving the first injury, it cannot be said that the accused did not take any undue advantage of the situation in which the deceased was placed at that time and did not act in cruel manner.A. No.542 /2009 Page 21 of 44In the case before the Supreme Court the accused had used a knife causing injury just below the stomach and the knife had gone 6cm deep, which the Supreme Court found indicative of the fact that blow was given with great force.It was noticed that the deceased was trying to pacify the party and no role was played by him in the exchange of words which was taking place at the spot.The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I of IPC noticing that only one blow was given to the deceased.The High Court, however, altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 to Section 302 of IPC.The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and alteration of the conviction to Section 302 of CRL.It was also held that for claiming exception a heavy burden lies upon the accused.Dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, his conviction CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 28 of 44"in a situation when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow:No independent witness was, however, joined in the seizure.When he came in the witness box as PW-1, Sagar Sharma clearly stated that not only was the disclosure statement was made by Tavinder in his CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 35 of 44 presence and bears his signature at point A, the knife concealed by him in the park, under the earth was also recovered in his presence and the seizure memo of the knife Ex PW 1/D bears his signature at point A. Thus we have evidence not only of police officials but, also of a public witness as regards the disclosure statement made by the appellant Tavinder and the recovery of the knife pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him.A. No.542 /2009 Page 35 of 44The ocular evidence produced by the prosecution finds corroboration from recovery of the knife Exhibit P-1 at the pointing out of the appellant Tavinder pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him while in police custody.A. No.542 /2009 Page 36 of 44 In his statement to the police, to the extent it is admissible in evidence, the appellant Tavinder stated that the knife was thrown by him in Pratap Park, Kanti Nagar which he could get recovered.This part of his statement is admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act, since pursuant to this statement the police discovered the fact that a knife was lying in Pratap Park, Kanti Nagar.A perusal of the report of CFSL Exhibit PW 21/G would show that human blood was found on the knife recovered by the appellants.A. No.542 /2009 Page 36 of 44Three possibilities arise from the statement made by the appellant Tavinder to the police and consequent recovery of knife by the police from the park.One possibility is that he himself had concealed the knife in the park.The second possibility is that he had seen someone concealing the knife there.A. No.542 /2009 Page 37 of 44 someone had informed him that the knife had been concealed in the park.The appellant Tavinder did not tell the Court as to how he had come to know that a knife had been concealed in the park under the earth.Though the park is a public place the knife was not lying in the open and had been concealed under the earth.In these circumstances, the inevitable inference is that the appellant Tavinder himself had concealed the knife at the place from where it was recovered by the police.There is no explanation from the appellant for concealing a knife stained with human blood, in a park.Considering the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution and the opinion of the doctors, the Court would be justified in inferring that it was the same knife which was used by him for causing injuries to the deceased and the informant.Therefore, recovery of a blood stained knife at the instance of the appellant Tavinder is an incriminating circumstance which corroborates the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution.The quarrel between the informant and the appellant Navjeet on 2nd December, 2003 is an admitted fact and is yet another circumstance incriminating to the appellants.It is also an admitted case that the appellant Navjeet was apprehended at the same spot, where this incident took place, and was handed over to police.As regards the charge under section 307 of the IPC, we find that the informant Sagar Sharma had sustained two injuries one of which was an abrasion over left upper arm 5 cm long and skin deep, whereas the other was a clean incised wound measuring 8 mm x 2 mm on the CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 39 of 44 right side of lower part of his chest.A perusal of his MLC Exhibit PW 14/B would show that the injury sustained by him was found to be simple.Considering the nature of the injuries caused to him, we find it difficult to hold that the appellants intended to commit his murder.Had that been the intention, as in the case of the deceased, the knife blow would have been given with substantial force and the appellant Tavinder may not have stopped at giving one knife blow to him.In our view, the appellants intended only to cause injuries to him using a knife, which is a sharp edged weapon and also an instrument of cutting and stabbing.Hence, the charges under section 307 of IPC does not stand established and the appellant Tavinder is liable to be convicted only under section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to the informant Monu alias Sagar Sharma.A. No.542 /2009 Page 39 of 44Coming to the role of the appellant Navjeet, it is an admitted case that no weapon was used by him either against the deceased or against the informant.However, PW-2 Jitender Sharma and PW-3 Lalit Sharma, both of whom are stated to be eye witnesses to the stabbing of the deceased, clearly stated that when they reached the spot, they found Tavinder giving knife blow to Sanjay Sharma and Navjeet quarreling with Sagar Sharma.These two eye witnesses, therefore, do not support PW-1 Sagar Sharma and PW-5 Amit Sharma as regards the role attributed by them to the appellant Navjeet, at the time the deceased was stabbed by his co-appellant Tavinder.Thus, if we go by the version given by PW-1 and PW-5, the appellant Navjeet had held the deceased, when fatal knife blows were given to him by the appellant Tavinder, whereas if we go by the version given by the PW-2 CRL. A. No.542 /2009 Page 41 of 44 Jitender and PW-3 Lalit Sharma, the appellant Navjeet was found engaged in quarreling with the informant Sagar Sharma, meaning thereby that he was not holding the deceased when stab blows were given to him by the appellant Tavinder.A. No.542 /2009 Page 42 of 44 case charge under section 324 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof stands duly proved against him since he shared a common intention with the appellant Tavinder to cause injuries to the informant, using the knife which his brother Tavinder was carrying with him.A. No.542 /2009 Page 42 of 44For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, we maintain conviction of the appellant Tavinder under section 302 of the IPC.His conviction under section 307 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof is converted into conviction under section 324 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof.The appellant Navjeet is acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof.His conviction under section 307 of IPC read with section 34 thereof is converted into conviction under section 324 read with section 34 thereof.Since the appellant Tavinder has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- only, we see no reason to interfere with the sentence awarded to him under section 302 of the IPC.Both the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each or to undergo simple CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 43 of 44 imprisonment for three months each in default under section 324 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof.A. No.542 /2009 Page 43 of 44The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE (BADAR DURREZ AHMED) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 RS/Ag CRL.A. No.542 /2009 Page 44 of 44A. No.542 /2009 Page 44 of 44

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The entire sum due was to be cleared in twenty three instalments On default of any one monthly instalment the Financier had the right to terminate the hire-purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck.Some more events happened thereafter which are not necessary to be mentioned here.In nut shell the case of the appellants was that the respondent's case against them and others that they committed any offence on the 30th July, 1973 was absolutely false.It ought to be stated that here that the respondent had previously lodged a Fist Information Report with the Police on August 20, 1973 in respect of the alleged occurrence.JUDGMENT N.L. Untwalia, J.On May 1, 1976 the respondent in this appeal by special leave filed a complaint against 10 persons, including the three appellants, Under Rule/Section 395, 468, 465, 471, 412, 120-B/34 of the Penal Code in the Court of the Chief judi.cial Magistrate, Kanpur.The Magistrate held an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973, hereinafter called the Code.Thereafter on January 17, 1977 the Magistrate passed an order directing the issue of summons against nine accused only under Section 395 of the Penal Code.Before the summonses were actually issued, on the same day i. e. January 17, 1977 the appellants moved the Allahabad High Court to quash the Criminal Proceeding in question in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.The High Court by its order dated February 21, 1977 has refused to quash the said proceeding and dismissed the appellants' application.Hence this appeal.We do not consider it necessary to state and discuss all the points involved in this case in any details.Only a few of them may, however, be mentioned for the purpose of allowing this appeal and quashing the criminal proceeding against the appellants and others as in our opinion the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.The Total cost incurred in the purchase of the truck was in the neighbourhood of Rs. 60, 000/-.We do not mention the exact amount as there is some difference between the parties in regard to the same.On March 29, 1973 an agreement was entered into between the respondent and his then partner one Bhagwati Prasad, accused No. 6 on the one hand and Mrs., Sardar Finance Corporation, Kanpur on the other, which firm was represented by appellant No. 1 as its partner, in accordance with which about half the money was advanced by the said firm which enabled the complainant and his partner to acquire the truck.According to the complainant's case the amount advanced by the said firm was by way of loan while according to the case of the appellants it was on the basis of a Hire purchase agreement entered into between the parties in support of which a formal agreement in writing was also executed.The complainant's case is that only he was signed a blank form along with other several papers bearing stamps and the form had not been duly filled up.But before that a!l the accused in a high-handed manner during his absence came to his house and inspite of protest by his wife forcibly under threat of arms removed the truck and thus they are said to have committed the various offences including the offence of dacoity.The case of the appellants was that according to the hire-purchase agreement a sum of Rs. 1,783/- was to be paid every month by the 15th day of the month.The first instalment payable was on the 15th May, 1973 second on the 15th June, 1973 and the third on the 15th July, 1973 and so on.There was prolonged investigation by the various Police Officers for a long time and ultimately a Final Report was submitted by the investigating agency.The respondent filed objections petition before the Magistrate who dealt wish the Final Report.The Respondent filed a revision before the Sessions Judge from the order of the Magistrate accepting the Final Report.The Sessions Court dismissed the revision.The Respondent then went to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code The High Court by its order dated April 16, 1976 summarily dismissed the same.On the well-settled principles of law if was very suitable case where the criminal proceeding ought to have been quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power.The dispute raised by the respondent was purely of a civil nature even assuming the facts stated by him to be bstantially correct.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5.1.2015 Gullubai (PW-3) lodged a report at Police Chowki, Dehri Sarai, Police Station Pithampur, District Dhar averring that on 4.1.2015 at about 5.00 - 6.00 PM her granddaughter (prosecutrix PW-4), who was minor at the time of incident, (name and identity of prosecutrix impressed by law contained in section 228 of IPC is not disclosed) was playing with her younger sister Amisha near Mataji Ka Otla Cr.A.No.385/2016 situated at near Mandav Liquor Factory, Labad District Dhar.After a while when Amisha Came home alone she inquired about prosecutrix to Amisha, who informed her that appellant Man Singh had taken prosecutrix.On that she narrated the incident to her grand son Ajay (PW-6) that appellant Mansingh had taken prosecutrix from somewhere.Thereafter, they searched for prosecutrix nearby, but of no avail.At 7.00 PM two unknown persons brought the prosecutrix on bicycle.They informed her that prosecutrix was weeping near national factory.When she gave her address, they brought her.When she asked prosecutrix she told her that appellant/accused Mansingh took her and pushed into the pit on the edge of the road and set on her and pressed her throat and committed dirty work (rape) with her.Prosecutrix was scared.At that time Sohan(PW-5), father of the prosecutrix was not at home.He had gone to Rajod.When he returned from Rajod at 3.00 PM in the evening, Gullubai went to Police Chowki Dehri Sarai with her granddaughter and lodged a report Ex.That report was written by Laxmi Verma, Head Constable.After writing the report Laxmi Verma sent that report for registration to P.S., Pithampur.On that report Crime No.9/2015 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i) of IPC and matter was investigated.During investigation prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr.Nikunja Sule (PW-1), who gave medical report Ex.Doctor also prepared slide of vaginal discharge of prosecutrix and also took her cloths sent it to Police Station in a sealed packet alongwith seal impression, which was then seized by Sub-Inspector R.S.Baghel and seizure memo Ex.P/4 was prepared.The statement of prosecutrix (PW-4), her grand mother Smt.Gullubai (PW-3), her father Sohan (PW-5), her brother Ajay (PW-6) were recorded and appellant/accused Man Singh was arrested on 6.1.2015 and was also medically examined, where he was found capable of doing Cr.A.No.385/2016 intercourse.Doctor also seized underwear and pubic hairs and also prepared slide of his semen and after packing it sent that article to Police Station, Pithampur, District Dhar.On Seizure of that article seizure memo Ex.P/3 was prepared by R.S.Baghel.The seized articles were sent for examination to Regional Forensic Science laboratory, Jhumaghat, Rau, Indore and after investigation Police filed charge sheet against the appellant before JMFC, Dhar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.On that charge sheet Special S.T.No.50/2015 was registered.Learned 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Dhar framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i,) 323of IPC and under Section 5(M)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and tried the case.So from the prosecution evidence it is clearly proved that prosecutrix was minor (only eight years of age) at the time of incident.As regards the point whether appellant abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape with her and assaulted her prosecutrix (PW-4) clearly deposed that she studied in Class III in Govt.School and had known the appellant.At the time of incident she was playing at Mataji Ka Otla along with her younger sister Amisha when appellant came there and sent Amisha to home and took her to nearby pit situated near bushes and pushed her on land and wore nails on her throat and put up her underwear and slept over her.A.No.385/2016 Appellant also entered finger like object in her vagina, due to which blood oozed out from her urethra."1 eSa ljdkjh Ldwy esa i<+rh gwWA eSa d{kk 3 jha esa i<+rh gwWA eSa vfHk;qDr ekuflax dks igpkurh gwW og iYyoh dks igpkurh gwWA ? kVuk ds le; eSa ekrkth ds vksVys ij [ksy jgh FkhA esjs lkFk esjh NksVh cgu vfu'kk Hkh [ksy jgh FkhA vfHk;qDr eq>s VwVh gqbZ daiuh ds ikl dkaVs okys >kM+ gS ogka ij ,d xM~Mk gS ogka ysdj x;k FkkA vfu'kk dks vfHk;qDr ls lsao ijey fnykdj ?kj Hkst fn;k FkkA 2 vfHk;qDr us esjh pM~Mh fudkyh Fkh vkSj vaxyh tSlk fudkyk FkkA vfHk;qDr us eq>s iVd fn;k Fkk vkSj esjs mij lkS x;k Fkk vkSj esjk xyk nck fn;k Fkk vkSj cksyk Fkk fd iqfyl okyk vk jgk gS] pqi jgks vkSj xys ij uk[kwu x<+k fn;s FksA vfHk;qDr us vius diM+s Hkh fudkys FksA vfHk;qDr esjs mij lkS x;k FkkA eq>s is'kkc dh txg [kwu fudyk FkkA vfHk;qDr is'kkc djus x;k rks eSa Hkkxdj vk xbZA eq>s nks O;fDr feys Fks vkSj cksyk fd :d rks eSaus mu O;fDr;ksa ls cksyk Fkk fd eq>s cpkvksA eq>s ml O;fDr dk uke ugha ekywe og daiuh ds xsV okyk FkkA og lkbZfdy ij fcBkdj eq>s esjs ?kj NksM+ x;k FkkA esjh pM~Mh Hkh [kjkc gks xbZ FkhA ?kj vkdj eSaus esjh nknh dks ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;k FkkA nwljs fnu ge fjiksVZ djus Fkkus x;s FksA ogka eSaus iqfyl dks lc crk fn;k FkkA nwljs fnu ge fjiksVZ djus Fkkus x;s FksA ogka eSaus iqfyl dks lc crk fn;k FkkA iqfyl us eq>s esfMdy ds fy, vLirky Hkstk FkkA MkDVj dks Hkh eSaus lc crk fn;k FkkA lk{kh ls iwNs tkus ij mlus crk;k fd vfHk;qDr us tks maxyh tSlk fudkyk Fkk mls esjh is'kkc dh txg Mkyk Fkk] ,slk lk{kh us viuh is'kkc dh txg b'kkjk djds crk;k gSaA izfrijh{k.k vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls Jh jktsUnz j?kqoa'kh vf/koDrk %& 3 eSa vfu'kk ds lkFk eafnj ij [ksy jgh Fkh ml le; FkksM+k FkksM+k mtkyk FkkA vkSj cPps lkFk esa ugha [ksy jgs Fks ge nksuksa gh FkhA eafnj ds FkksMs ls vkxs esjk ?kj gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs ? kj ds vkl ikl cgqr ls yksxksa ds ?kj cus gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd gekjs ?kj ds vkxs cgqr cM+k [kyh eSnku gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ml [kkyh eSnku esa brokj dks gkV cktkj Hkjrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd gkV Hkjus ls ogka brokj dks dkQh HkhM+ jgrh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tgka gkV cktkj Hkjkrk gS nks&pkj dne vkxs iDdk jksM+ gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd jksM+ ij cgqr lkjh nqdkus gS vkSj HkhM+ jgrh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd jksM+ ds nwljh vksj iqfyl pkSdh cuh gSA 4 ;g dguk lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr tgka xM~Ms esa ys x;k Fkk ogka jksM+ cuh gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd ogka cgqr ls yksx vk tk jgs FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVukLFky ds ikl esa cgqr cM+h QsDVh Cr.A.No.385/2016 cuh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QSDVh esa cgqr ls yksx dke djrs gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QSDVh dk xsV jksM+ ds ikl gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QSDVh ds xsV ls yksx vkrs tkrs gSA eSaus ?kVuk ds ckn xsV okys ftlus eq>s ?kj igqapk;k Fkk mls ?kVuk ds ckjs esa ugh crk;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVukLFky ls esjk ?kj FkksM+h nwjh ij gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ekrkth ds eafnj ds vksVys tgka eSa [ksy jgh Fkh ogka cM+h cM+h eqje iM+h gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa eafnj ij [ksyrs [ksyrs iFkjhyh txg ij fxj xbZ FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa eafnj ds ogka [ksyrs [ksyrs fxj xbZ Fkh blfy, eq>s is'kkc dh txg pksaV vkbZ FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ?kVuk ds ckjs esa eSa esjh nknh ds crk;s vuqlkj crk jgh gwW] Lor% dgk esjs lkFk gqvk ogha crk jgh gwWA""Her statement is also corroborated by the statement of her grand mother Gullubai (PW-3) to whom she had narrated the incident.Gullubai (PW-3) also deposed that at the time of incident her granddaughter prosecutrix was playing at Mataji Ka Otla located near Mandav Liquor Factory, Labad along with her younger sister Amisha.When Amisha returned home alone she asked her regarding prosecutrix who told her that appellant Man Singh took her.Then she searched for the prosecutrix along with her grandsons Ajay and Ajit but of no avail.At 6.00 PM in the evening two unknown persons brought prosecutrix at home.They told her that they found prosecutrix on the way.They asked her address and when she told them they took her to home.At that time prosecutrix told that appellant took her in a pit and committed rape with her.She also saw that blood was oozing out on the genital of prosecutrix and swelling was also present there.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge.A.No.385/2016 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE SINGLE BENCH: HON.JUSTICE SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J.A.No.385/2016 Mansingh @ Kanha S/o Bharatsingh Versus State of M.P.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ramlal Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28/06/2017) This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.against the judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2015 passed by 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Dhar in Special Case No.50/2015, whereby learned ASJ found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Ten years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 of IPC and Six month RI and under Section 5(M)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Ten years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Although, appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case.However, after trial learned ASJ found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the same appellant filed this criminal appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court only on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix and her grandmother Gullubai found the appellant guilty while there are many contradictions and omissions in their statements.From their statements it is also proved that Gullubai lodged false report against the appellant at the instance of Mangilal, Sarpanch.Learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i),323 of IPC and 5(M)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesOn the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that from the statement of prosecutrix, which is also corroborated from the statement of Gullubai (PW-3) and other evidence it is clearly proved that appellant abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor (eight years) at the time of incident and committed rape with her.So Cr.A.No.385/2016 learned trial Court rightly found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i),323 of IPC and 5(M)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesThe point for determination in this appeal is whether conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i), 323 of IPC and 5(M)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memo of appeal and rising during arguments.As regards the age of prosecutrix at the time of incident Gullubai (PW-3), grandmother of prosecutrix, clearly deposed that she was eight years of age when the incident took place .Learned trial Court at the time of recording statement of prosecutrix also estimated the age of prosecutrix as eight years.This fact is also corroborated from the scholar entry register Ex.From there age of prosecutrix on the date of incident i.e. 5.1.2015 appeared around eight years.When appellant went for urination she ran away from the spot.On the way two persons met her and brought her to home on bicycle where she narrated incident to her grand mother Gullubai.Her statement reads as thus :-Later when Shohan (PW-5) came home she lodged FIR Ex.The statement of prosecutrix (PW-4) was also corroborated from the statement of Dr.Nikunja Sule(PW-1), who examined the prosecutrix after the incident and gave medical examination report Ex.She also deposed that on 5.1.2015 she was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Ghata Billod.On that day at 5.00 PM Head Constable Laxmi Verma brought prosecutrix for Cr.A.No.385/2016 medical examination and she examined the prosecutrix.On examination she found two abrasions on her neck (nail mark on the right side of neck) and blood was also present on her under garment.She was frightened.On the examination of her genital she found that some dry and sticky substances were present on her labia majora, which smelled poorly.The hymen was ruptured at 5 O'clock position and There was a little bleeding from there.She further deposed opined that girl child has been physically assaulted and she also prepared to slides of her vaginal discharge and also seized her cloths.She is an independent witness.There is no contradiction in her cross examination in this regard.So there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.Nikunja Sule (PW-1) in her cross-examination deposed that no definite opinion regarding rape with prosecutrix could be given.So it cannot be assumed that appellant committed rape with prosecutrix.But this statement of Dr.Nikunja Sule (PW-1) do not help the accused as she in her examination in chief clearly deposed that on examination of prosecutrix she found two abrasions on her neck (nail mark on the right side of neck) and blood was also present on her under garment.On the examination of her genital she found that her hymen was ruptured at 5 O'clock position and there was a little bleeding from there and that in her opinion the girl child had been physically assaulted.So only on the ground that she deposed in her cross- examination that final conclusion cannot be given regarding rape it cannot be said that no rape was committed with prosecutrix in the incident.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution since they did not produce FSL report.But this argument also has no force.The FSL Cr.But this argument has also no force.Had the appellant not committed rape with prosecutrix (PW-4) why she would give false statement against him.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that appellant took loan from Sarpanch Mangilal and at the instance of Mangilal, Gullubai lodged false report against the appellant.But Gullubai in her cross-examination clearly denied from the suggestion that she had lodged false report at the instance of Mangilal.There is no evidence on record that Gullubai has any relation with Mangilal then why she would lodge false report against appellant at the instance of Mangilal.Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of.

['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

However, Section 5 of the Act lays down exceptions to Section 3 and the same is extracted as under:“5.Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply- (1)The provisions of Section 4, and so much of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.The Doctor, considering her physical and mental state, has also suggested for terminating the pregnancy of the victim as follows:' ... mth; 14 tanj Md rpWkp vd;gjhYk;> mtuJ clYk;> kdKk;> KGikahd tsu;r;rp bgwhj fhuzj;jhy;> ,e;j fu;g;gk; bjhlUkhdhy;> mJ mtuJ cliya[k;> kdija[k; btFthf ghjpj;J> fu;g;gfhy gpur;ridfis Vw;gLj;Jk; tha;g;g[ ,Ug;gij kdjpy; bfhz;L> mtuJ bgw;nwhh; nfl;Lf; bfhz;ljw;F ,zq;f fUf;fiyg;g[ bra;a ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gLfpwJ.'The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in more than one occasion, viz., in (2018) 11 SCC 572 – Z vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2016) 14 SCC 382 – X vs. Union of India and Others; (2017) 3 SCC 458 – X and Others vs. Union of India and Others, even though the length of pregnancy exceeds the statutory limit, has allowed the termination of pregnancy, if there are compelling reasons.In the present case on hand, the petitioner's daughter is admittedly a minor, aged 7/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 about 14 years.She is a victim in Crime No.3 of 2020 and the offence was committed upon her by the accused.It is also represented that she is a school going child, completed VIII standard and is due for IX standard.1.The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.2.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.3.The Dean, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, Thanjavur District.9/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 B.PUGALENDHI, J.4.The Chairman, The District Child Protection Officer, Department of Social Defence, Government Children Home, Thanjavur.5.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.6.The Social Welfare Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.7.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District.W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 02.07.2020Since the victim is a Minor girl, aged about 14 years, the petitioner has moved the authorities to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter, as it would affect her both physically and mentally.Alleging inaction on the part of the authorities, he has filed the instant writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent / Dean, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, Thanjavur, to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner approached the District Child Protection Officer / fourth respondent and the victim was subjected for medical examination by Dr.Anju Padmasekar, Assistant Professor (Gynecologist), Government Hospital, Thanjavur.The Doctor, after examination, vide her report dated 20.06.2020, opined that the victim was 5 ½ months pregnant and in view of her physical and mental health condition, suggested for terminating the pregnancy.Based on this report, the District Child Protection Officer / fourth respondent has addressed a letter to the District Legal 3/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 Services Authority, Thanjavur, requesting appropriate action, but there was no further progress.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, delay in taking any decision for terminating the pregnancy would affect the victim badly and therefore, prays for allowing this petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.“3.When Pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners:-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.(2)Subject to the provisions of sub-section 4/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner -(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental health; or(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.(3)In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.(4)(a)No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of eighteen years, is a lunatic, shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian.5/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020(b)Save as otherwise provided in Cl.(a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.”The victim girl is of 14 years and as per Section 3(4)(a) of the Act, the pregnancy can be terminated on a 6/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 written consent from her guardian.As per the report of Dr.Anju Padmasekar, Assistant Professor (Gynecologist), Government Hospital, Thanjavur, as on 20.06.2020, the petitioner's daughter was 5 ½ months pregnant and therefore, as on date, her length of pregnancy has exceeded 20 weeks.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the well being of the victim, this Court, without giving any room for further delay, directs the third respondent / Dean, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, Thanjavur District, to immediately form a Medical Board of not less than three Doctors, including a Gynecologist, a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist, to ascertain as to whether the termination of the pregnancy of the petitioner's daughter is necessary, as provided under Section 5 of the Act. If they give a opinion for terminating the pregnancy of the victim, the same shall be recorded and the termination procedure shall be effected forthwith.During the procedure, the Doctors shall ensure the safety of the victim.8/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2020 With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed.No costs.1) Issue order copy expeditiously.2) Registry to send a copy of this order to the email id of the respective Counsel.3) In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs FAZIL QURESHI) Jabalpur, Dated : 27-03-2019 Shri Kuldeep Singh, GA for the applicant/State.In view of the foregoing, this petition seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that on 20.5.2014 Ankit Singh, who is husband of the victim Rajni Singh, abused the father of the applicant after committing trespass and issued a threat.Thereupon, the father of the petitioner lodged the First Information Report on 20.5.2014 against Ankit Singh namely the husband of the victim and the charge- sheet was filed.In the aforesaid criminal case, the husband of the victim namely Ankit Singh had filed an application for bail in which it was mentioned that in the night intervening 20th May, 2014 and 21st May, 2014, the applicant came to the terrace of his house wherein, his wife was sleeping and outraged the modesty of the wife.Thereafter, another First Information Report was lodged for offences punishable U/s.354 and 452 of the I.P.C., which was registered vide Crime No.384/14 on 23.7.2014 i.e. after a period of 50 days from the date of incident.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated, as there is previous enmity between the parties and the First Information Report has been lodged after 50 days from the alleged date of incident.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has supported the order passed by the trial Court.I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.It is equally well settled that at the stage of consideration of application for quashment of the proceeding, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by the High Court.See: Rishipal Singh Vs.In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case may be seen.In the instant case, admittedly, on 20.5.2014, on the basis of the report lodged by the father of the applicant, an offence was registered against the husband of the victim and the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 50 days.Prima-facie there appears no explanation for lodging of such a delayed F.I.R. Taking into account the enmical relations prevailing between the parties, it appears that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence.For the aforementioned reasons, the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod, in Criminal Case No.452/14 is quashed.Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by Fax.In the result, the petition is allowed.C.C. as per rules.(ALOK ARADHE)

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In nut shell, the prosecution case is as under :On 21.6.2000, Sunita died and according to the prosecution it is a suicidal death.Jairam Phusande and Kalawati Phusande are the parents of the appellant , whereas Gajanan, Dadarao and Sau.By the impugned judgment, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 2 APPEAL224.04.odt Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::Lankabai Phusande are the brothers and sister-in-law of the appellant.They were also arrayed as accused in Crime No. 54/2000, registered with Police Station, Manora, Dist.Washim, which was registered on the basis of oral report (Exh.24) lodged by Manohar Dhore (PW1), the brother of deceased Sunita.From the wedlock, Sunita gave birth to a male child by name Ganesh.After the marriage, Sunita was treated nicely for a period of two years and thereafter all the accused persons started giving ill-treatment to Sunita on demand of money.Whenever she::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 3 APPEAL224.04.odt used to come to Mangrulpir, where the first informant used to reside, she used to disclose the same to him.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::Prior to 15 days of the occurrence, Sunita had been to Mangrulpir along with her son and disclosed that for household purposes Rs.10,000/- is demanded by the appellant and when Sunita informed about the poor financial status of her father and brother, she was mercilessly beaten and she was sent to Mangrulpir.The first informant thereafter dropped a letter at Poharadevi, where the appellant used to reside and called him at Mangrulpir.After his arrival there, the first informant pleaded him that the amount will be given to him after 7-8 days and thereafter the deceased went along with the appellant at her matrimonial place.B] On 21.6.2000, an unknown person came to the house of the first informant at Mangrulpir and informed him about consumption of poison by Sunita and about her death.Therefore, the first informant firstly went to Shevti, where the parents and other brother used to reside, informed the said fact and they all came to Pohradevi where they got information that dead body of Sunita was sent for post mortem.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::information report of Manohar (PW1) as Crime No. 54/2000, took the investigation to himself.During the investigation, he recorded the statements of various persons and it was revealed to him that the deceased committed suicide due to ill-treatment, which she has received at the hands of the appellant and his other relatives and therefore, he filed the final report in the Court of law.The Court, where the final report was presented, found that the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.Therefore, committal order was passed.D] The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim framed the Charge against the appellant and other five accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and also relied upon various documents duly proved during the course of the trial.By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the Court below, except the appellant, acquitted all other accused::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 5 APPEAL224.04.odt persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State chose not to prefer any appeal against their acquittal.It is the appellant, who has questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment by preferring the present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::I have heard Ms. F. N. Haidari, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N. R. Rode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.Both the learned counsel with equal vehemence submitted their respective submissions and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings.Before registration of the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, an accidental death vide A.D. No.21/2000 (Exh.29) was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The cause for registration of this accidental death was the intimation (Exh.28) given by the acquitted accused Jairam Phusande about the death of his daughter-in-law Sunita.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::During the said enquiry proceedings, he visited the spot of the incident and prepared spot panchanama of the spot (Exh.30).Inquest was also done on the dead body in presence of panchas (Exh.31).Thereafter, he sent the dead body of Sunita to Mangrulpir Rural Hospital for post mortem.The Investigating Officer also seized a tin of MonoChrotophos and a steel glass, which was emitting smell of poisonous substance under seizure memo (Exh.33).The post mortem report (Exh.34) was also collected from the Medical Officer of Rural Hospital, Mangrulpir.In the meanwhile, as observed, Manohar (PW1) on 24.6.2000 lodged the first information report.Thus, there is delay of three days.Merely because there is a delay in lodging the first information report, the Court should not view the case of the prosecution with suspicion, provided the explanation is offered by the prosecution for lodging the report at belated stage.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::The first information report (Exh.24) does not offer any explanation whatsoever in nature by PW1 Manohar, the first informant, approaching to the police for lodging the report belatedly.It was always open for the prosecution to offer such explanation during trial which was not offered at initial stage i.e. at the time of lodging of the first information report, however explanation is not offered even at trial stage.All the prosecution witnesses, especially Manohar (PW1), the first informant is blissfully silent in his evidence regarding not lodging the first information promptly.Not lodging promptly the first information report gives opportunity for embellishment.Non-supplementing good reasons for lodging the first information report promptly can be one of the factors of its own importance while evaluating the prosecution case in its totality.Death can be occurred (1) naturally, (2) accidentally (3) there can be suicidal death or (4) death can be caused which can be termed as homicidal death.In the present case, the appellant was never charged that he has committed homicidal death of his wife.According to the::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 8 APPEAL224.04.odt prosecution, the deceased committed suicide.Therefore, the prosecution was under an obligation to prove that Sunita committed suicide.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::When the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was put to him that Sunita committed suicide.Of course, to such question, the reply of the appellant was that of "false".According to the learned Judge of the Court below, Sunita committed suicide because of seizure of one small container of poison and a glass and the post mortem report speaks that stomach contents, teeth and tongue were smelling like insecticide compound together with inquest panchanama which discloses that nail of Sunita had turned bluish.In this backdrop, firstly, I would like to discuss the spot panchanama (Exh.30).The relevant portion from the spot::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 9 APPEAL224.04.odt panchanama is reproduced herein below in vernacular :::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::"?kjkps leksj vksljhr njokT;kyk ykxwu xknhoj ,d L=hps izsr iMysys fnlr vkgs-lnjps iszr gs fQ;kZfn t;jke panzHkku iqlkaMs ;kauh R;kaph lqu ukes lquhrk larks"k iqlkaMs o; 25 o"kZ jk- iks-nsoh fgps vlY;kps vksG[kqu iapk le{k lkaxhrys."Thus, when the Investigating Officer reached to the spot of incident.During the enquiry of accidental death, he noticed the dead body in 'Osari' (Vharanda), adjacent to the door.In the spot panchanama itself, in detail, in presence of the panchas, the Investigating Officer has described the body posture of the deceased and thereafter the panchanama recites as under :"e`rdps vaxkoj xqykch jaaxkph lkMh o xqykch jaxkps Cykmt ?kkrysys fnlrWhen the spot panchanama is perused very minutely and with microscopic eyes, then it revealed that something is inserted after the vernacular portion reproduced above and before starting of the last paragraph giving the boundaries of the house, which reads thus :"rlsp vkokjkr ,d fo"kkjh vkS"k/kkph 'kh'kh LVhypk Xykl fnlr vkgs"The said appears to be written after the entire panchanama was reduced into writing.Thus, it is crystal clear that::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 10 APPEAL224.04.odt the container and still glass, which according to the prosecution were seized, are not from near the body of deceased Sunita, but from the courtyard.With respect to the learned Judge of the Court below, he has missed this point to reach to conclusion that Sunita must have consumed poison.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::The inquest panchanama (Exh.31) is drawn in presence of three panchas namely Ramesh Dhoke, Laxmanrao Raut and Smt. Yamunabai Gawande.Had the body was emitting smell of foul substance, it would not have gone unnoticed from three respectable panch witnesses and there was no reason for the Investigating Officer not to record the same in the inquest panchanama.The learned Judge of the Court below has also not considered this aspect and has appeared to have impressed that the nails were turned bluish.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::Insofar as post mortem report (Exh. 34) is concerned, the cause of death as per the autopsy surgeon was as under :"Exact cause of death cannot be determined on post mortem examination.However, it may be due to poisoning by unknown substance.Hence, viscera is preserved and it should be sent for chemical analysis to determine the exact cause of death and substance responsible."Though, the viscera was sent to the Chemical Analyzer, till culmination of the trial, the Chemical Analyzer's report was not produced on record.Thus, till culmination of the trial, the final cause of death and the poisonous substance remained in dark.Therefore, much importance cannot be attached to the seizure memo (Exh.33) about the container of Monophrotophos.Though, the said was sent to Chemical Analyzer, the report did not receive.Further, merely because of admission given by the defence the post mortem report is accepted, still the prosecution is not absolved from proving its contents by examining the Doctor, is the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 1980 Cri.L.J. 853 in the case of Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi .vs.It is a document containing the notes made by a::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 12 APPEAL224.04.odt Doctor contemporaneously while he is conducting the post-mortem examination.That memorandum can be used by the doctor for refreshing his memory while he is giving evidence in Court.It may be used by the defence, if necessary, for contradicting the doctor's evidence in the Court.The memorandum itself can never be substantive evidence though it can be exhibited in the Court when the doctor is examined as a witness and has deposed to the contents of that document.No court can come to a proper conclusion relating to the culpability of an accused person only on the basis of the recital of the injuries in a memorandum of the post mortem examination.Therefore, the contents of post mortem report, in my view, are remained to be proved.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::In view of the aforesaid, the nature of death of Sunita is not proved.IN my view in absence of final opinion of the doctor about the cause of death it cannot be said that prosecution has proved that Sunita committed suicide.Therefore, to that extent, the benefit has to be extended in favour of the accused and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 13 APPEAL224.04.odt Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::The next question is whether the prosecution has proved its case for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Merely because the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, that itself is not sufficient for the appellant to claim his acquittal for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, since, the offence under Section 498-A is distinct than the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.It is established on record that prior to eight years of death, Sunita married with the appellant.She delivered a male child.Till filing of the report, which culminated into the trial, at no point of time any report was lodged against the appellant for any type of ill- treatment or unlawful demand.For the purposes of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty is defined.Since, the appellant is found to be not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the case of the prosecution will have to be examined as to whether it falls under clause 'B' of the explanation.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::The evidence of PW2 Mahadev Dhore, PW3 Gajanan Dhore, PW4 Keshao Dhore, PW5 Padma Dhore and PW6 Baby Dhore are on the similar line with PW1 Manohar Dhore, the first informant.Their evidence is of stereo type that initially for two years, Sunita received good treatment at the hands of all the accused persons.However, after she gave birth to a male child, ill-treatment started.It appears to me improbable as in our country generally, expectation from daughter-in-law is that she should give berth to a male child.Further, in the first information report and even from the evidence, demand for Rs.10,000/- was a solitary demand and even according to the witnesses, it was for household purposes "?kj?kqrh dkj.kkdfjrk".In my view, if the husband is pleading with his in-laws for extending some financial help, it will be rather difficult to term it as an unlawful demand, as mentioned in the definition of 'cruelty'.Apart from that, it is brought on record in the cross- examination of Manohar (PW1) that marriage of Sunita with the appellant was settled with the consent of both the sides and that time::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 15 APPEAL224.04.odt both the sides were knowing about weak financial condition of each other.Therefore, it appears improbable that when the appellant was knowing that the financial position of his in-laws is weak and his demand is not going to be fulfilled, he will make such demand.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::Further, it is established that father of Manohar, namely Kisan and his uncle Champat, they married with two sisters.Savita is the daughter of Champat.This Savita is also married to one Santosh, who also resides at Poharadevi, the matrimonial place of Sunita.Not only that, it is brought on record that Savita's matrimonial house is situated just 10 - 12 houses away from the house of Sunita.Thus, Savita is residing in nearby vicinity of Sunita.If there was any type of ill-treatment from the appellant, it would have been most natural on the part of Sunita to disclose the same to her sister, who resides just 12 houses away from her house.Savita would have been the best prosecution witness insofar as ill-treatment to Sunita is concern, however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, Savita is not examined.In view of the fact that only on one occasion the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- for household purposes, in my view it would be harsh to punish the appellant for::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 16 APPEAL224.04.odt the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Consequently, I pass the following order :::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::The appeal is allowed.The judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dated 25.3.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 119/2000, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant.With this, the appeal is allowed and disposed of.JUDGE Diwale::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 :::

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

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

The accused in C.C. No. 15 of 1983 who has been convicted by the learned VIII Additional Special Judge, Madras Division for an offence under S. 161, I.P.C. and 5(1)(d) r/w. S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is the appellant.The accused is an Assistant Conservator of Forest, Andaman Government Timber Depot, Madras, Harbour, Madras.He was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for having received a sum of Rs. 500/- from one Ramachandra Nair, partner of M/s. Paywoods as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for showing favour to M/s. Paywoods for reconsidering the reduction of Rs. 30,369.20 from the bills of M/s. Paywoods as a public servant.The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.He denied the suggestion that he was not competent to authenticate the orders issued by the Lt. Governor and he had not produced any record to show, except his oral evidence, that he was empowered to authenticate the orders of the Lt. Governor.P.W. 2 Ramachandra Nair is the partner in M/s. Paywoods.As a contractor of clearing agency he used to clear the goods received from Andaman and Nicobar Islands.According to P.W. 2 the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as bribe in order to make the entire payment without deduction.But P.W. 2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- and asked the accused to come to his house to take the money.The Superintendent of Police called the Inspector, P.W. 6 and entrusted the matter.The Inspector took up the matter and asked P.W. 2 to bring a sum of Rs. 500/-.P.W. 2 brought Rs. 500/- and after that P.W. 6 finished the formalities of solution test and gave some instructions to P.W. 2 to trap the accused.Then P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 6 went the house of P. W. 2 along with one Muthukumar and P.W. 6 made some arrangements to trap the accused.Then the accused came and P.W. 2 and the accused had some discussion and then P.W. 2 gave the amount to the accused.The accused received the amount.P.W. 3 Vasanthakumar is employed in Adi-Dravida Welfare Office as Inspector.P.W. 4 replied that his uncle was not well.P.W. 5 Mr. A. K. Datta is the Conservator of Forest in the Andaman Nicobar Government at Port Blair."We resent your unfounded and defamatory remarks therein and hope better sense will prevail upon you hereafter."In Ex. D-5 letter it is stated as follows :M.Os. 1 to 83 were marked on the side of the prosecution.The learned Special Judge found him guilty as stated above.On 11-6-1982 he was engaged by P.W. 6, Inspector of Police for trapping the accused.His evidence is that he was present at the scene when the accused took a sum of Rs. 500/- from P.W. 2 and also at the time of preparation of mahazar Ex. P.-9 at about 3.30 p.m. for the seizure of Rs. 500/- from the accused.He also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused was paid the amount for not making deduction from the charges due from P.W. 2 and that when the amount was paid to the accused, P.W. 6, the Inspector came there and introduced himself to the accused and that the accused stood perplexed on seeing the Inspector.P.W. 4 met the accused prior to the date of occurrence and asked him to give the file relating to the ship M. V. Digipul which the accused gave him.He knew the accused.M/s. Bay Woods is one of the stockists for Andaman Government Depot at Madras.As per the terms of the agreement recoveries have been made by the accused who was the then Assistant Conservator of Forest.The accused was in-charge of the timber depot and it is one of his duties to make recoveries if there is any violation of the agreement.Ex.D-1 shows the deduction made as per Cl. 7(2)(1) of the Agreement.It is seen from Ex.D-2 that refund of deduction cannot be done by the accused.Ex. D-3 the letter dated 7-9-1981 is as follows :"We hereby reject outright your irrelevant and insane imagination contained in your above letter."Ex. D-4 dated 27-7-1981 is as follows :P.W. 6 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police.He was formerly Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Madras.He registered the case in R.C. No. 34 of 1982 under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sent a copy of it to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day.He examined P.W. 2 and asked him to come to his office with a sum of Rs. 500/- and then he asked P.W. 3 Muthukumar to be the witness of the occurrence.When P.W. 2 returned to his office with a sum of Rs. 500/- he conducted phenolphthalein test and went to the house of P.W. 2 and made arrangements for trapping the accused.On seeing the signal shown by P.W. 2, P.W. 6 went near them and asked the accused whether he had received a sum of Rs. 500/- from P.W. 2 and then again conducted phenolphthalein test, and then he seized the M.Os.Subsequently the investigation was transferred to some other police officer, hailing from Kerala on 15-6-1982 as per the direction of the superior officials.P.W. 7 is the Vigilance Officer.He took up investigation from P.W. 6 on 15-6-1982, enquired into the matter and examined the concerned witnesses.He visited the place of occurrence and prepared a plan of the site and also examined the accused.On 29-7-1982 he sent a request to the Court for forwarding M.Os. 7 and 8 to the Forensic Science laboratory for chemical analysis.P. 17 is the requisition.P. 18 is the chemical analysis report.The accused was questioned under S. 313, Cr.P.C.It was also suggested that Ex. P-14 printed F.I.R. and Ex. P6 original complaint were typed with the same typewriter in P.W. 7's office.These suggestions were denied.The question now is whether the explanation offered by the accused can be accepted or not and whether the prosecution has proved its case.It is the admitted case that P.W. 2 is not getting on well with the forest officials.It is also admitted that P.W. 2 has used defamatory language in his correspondences with the department.There is no application of mind before granting sanction.There is also no documentary evidence to show that the sanctioning authority has signed the papers and also there is no signature of the Lt. Governor.Ex. P-1 was signed by N. K. Nampoothiry, Assistant Secretary.At the end of that order it is mentioned as "by order and in the name of Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Island.The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :-The defence of the accused is that the money was thrust into the pocket by the prosecution witness.Appeal allowed.

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The brief facts leading to the appeal and the cross objection are as under:-For convenient sake parties are described as per their status and ranking in the suit.According to the plaintiffs, Mrs.Thangamani, married Mr.Ponnusamy Gounder on 30.10.1963, as per Hindu rites and customs.Through him, Ms.P.Rajeswari and Ms.Kalaichelvi, the second and third plaintiffs were born.Ponnusamy Gounder deserted the first plaintiff, in the year 1967, and married one Ms.Sundararajan was not born to Mr.Ponnusamy and Ms.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani alone are the children of Mr.Ponnusamy born through Ms.Baggiam through Mr.Ponnusamy.Baggiam, they are recognized as husband and wife.As a consequence, the plaintiffs and the children born to Ms.Baggiam through Mr.Baggiam Ammal born through Mr.Ponnusamy gounder.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani are the legal heirs of deceased Ms.Baggiam Ammal.Therefore, instead of forcing the parties to go for a fresh suit for partition, comprehensive decree is need to be passed.In the suit schedule property 3/4th of the share stands in the name of Mr.Ponnusamy and < in the name of Ms.Baggiam Ammal.This is the plaintiffs appeal preferred against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.The first defendant filed cross objection, the first defendant raised certain questions of law, pending appeal by way of memo, for consideration of this Court.(a) Whether the finding of the Courts below, that, the first plaintiff is the wife of the deceased Ponnusamy is legally tenable, particularly in the light of the fact, that, the first plaintiff has not proved the factum of her marriage with the said Ponnusamy?(b) When the oral and documentary evidence indicates, that, the first defendant [Cross Objector] has been living with Ponnusamy even prior to his alleged marriage with the first plaintiff, whether the Courts below ought to have raised the presumption, that, this cohabitation is in consequence of a valid marriage?Ramayee as his second wife.Therefore, the first plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against Mr.Ponnusamy Gounder for bigamous marriage.He was found guilty under 494 I.P.C Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine.In the Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.46 of 1977 filed for maintenance, the first plaintiff was awarded Rs.100/- second and third plaintiffs were awarded Rs.50/- per month each.There is no other legal heirs, except the plaintiffs.The suit schedule properties are the personal properties of Mr.Though, the sale deed dated 27.07.1958, stands in the name of the Mr.Ponnusamy and one Ms.Baggiam Ammal, it is the absolute property of Mr.Ponnusamy.Ponnusamy purchased the said property jointly along with Ms.Though, in the sale deed Ms.Baggiam Ammal is shown as wife of Mr.Ponnusamy, in fact, she was only a kept mistress to Mr.Ponnusamy.While fact being so, after the death of Mr.Ponnusamy, the said Ms.Baggiam Ammal has forcibly evicted the plaintiffs.Therefore, being the widow and children of deceased Mr.Ponnusamy, the suit for declaration and title and recovery of possession with future profit or in alternative for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs >th share over the suit properties was filed by the plaintiffs.The said plaint was opposed by the first defendant Ms.Baggiam Ammal, on the ground that, the alleged marriage between Mr.Ponnusamy and Mrs.Thangamani is false.The second and third plaintiffs are not the children of Mr.Ponnusamy.Contrarily, the first defendant has contested the suit that she and Mr.Ponnusamy Gounder were married and living together as husband and wife in the suit property along with her children, till the death of Mr.Ponnuswamy Gounder on 05.10.1979 and she continue to be in possession.The marriage alleged to have been held between the first plaintiff and Mr.Ponnusamy on 30.10.1963 is void, since, it had taken place after Ponnusamy married the first defendant, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property.The Trial Court, based on the pleadings framed as many as eight issues and after considering the evidence let in by the respective parties has held that the marriage between Mr.Ponnusamy and Ms.Baggiam/ first defendant is not proved.However, the fact that they lived together for long period as husband and wife is established through evidence.Referring Exhibits B1 and B2, the sale deeds wherein more than one place the first defendant is shown as wife of Mr.Ponnusamy, the Trial Court has concluded that, there is no evidence to prove the factum of marriage between Mr.Ponnusamy and Ms.aggiam, though, these two sale deeds mention the first defendant Ms.Baggiam as wife of Mr.Ponnusamy.In the absence of proof of marriage, it could be only held that Mr.ponnusamy and Ms.Bakkiam lived as Husband and wife and begotten children.In respect of suit property, the Trial Court, has found that half share in the suit property was purchased by Mr.Ponnusamy and Ms.B2, the sale consideration for the second half of the suit property Rs. 366 and 12 annas was to be paid to Ms.Thus, the right of Ms.Baggiam as title holder of property has to be recognized.In view of the above exhibits and evidence, the Trial Court has held that, the plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive right over the suit property as absolute property of Mr.Ponnusamy.Considering Exhibits B1 and B2, the trial Court held that, the first defendant Ms.Baggiam owned 1/4th share in the suit property and the remaining 3/4th share is owned by Mr.Ponnusamy.Having held so, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of the suit property in entirety and Pointing out inconsistency in the prayer to declare the entire property and in the alternative prayer of partition to > share, the Trial Court, dismissed the suit.Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court has further observed that the first defendant and Mr.ponnusamy having lived together as husband and wife much prior to the marriage of the first plaintiff, the children born to the first defendant through Mr.Ponnusamy are entitled for share in the property of Mr.Ponnusamy.From the evidence of first defendant, the trial court has concluded that, out of five children born to Ms.Bakkiam, 2 died and one Mr.The Trial Court, considering Ms.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani are also entitled for share in the suit property has held that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Ms.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani are entitled for 3/20 shares each and the first defendant is entitled for 5/20 shares in the suit property.Having concluded so, the Trial Court has passed the preliminary decree in respect of the suit property with declaration that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled for declaration and possession for in respect of 9/20 shares in total in the suit schedule property.Not satisfied with this decree and judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred a first appeal wherein, the defendants have also made cross objection.The First Appellate Court framed for the following points for determination.1.Whether the entire suit house belonged to Ponnusamy gounder or to the first defendant as claimed?2.Whether the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Mr.Ponnusamy gounder?3.Whether the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of Mr.Ponnusamy gounder?4.To what share the plaintiffs are entitled to in the suit property?After appreciating the evidence at length, independently, the First Appellate Court, held that the contention of the appellants that though, 1/4th of the suit property stands in the name of Ms.Baggiam, she did not pay the sale consideration.Therefore, the First Appellate Court held that Mr.Ponnusamy gounder is entitled for 3/4th share in the suit property and Ms.Baggiam Ammal holds the rest of the 1/4th share.In respect of the marital relationship between the first plaintiff Mrs.Thangamani and Mr.Ponnusamy, the First Appellat Court has taken note of the criminal proceedings initiated against Mr.Ponnusamy by Mrs.Thangamani and has held that since, the first defendant Ms.Baggiam had participated in the trial and deposed in that case in support of Mr.Ponnusamy that Mrs.The First Appellate Court dismissed the First appeal and cross objection holding that, the first defendant Ms.baggiam and Mr.Ponnusamy were living together as husband and wife much before the valid marriage of Mr.Ponnusamy with first plaintiff Mrs.Thangamani.Since, the marriage between Mr.Ponnusamy and first defendant not proved, the earlier joint relationship, does not confer status to Ms.Baggiam as legally wedded wife of Mr. Ponnusamy.Ponnusamy Gounder's property in the suit property and the share to which, they are entitled to be decided in a separate partition suit by impleading all the necessary parties.Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Appeal.Pending Second Appeal, Ms.Application to bring the legal heirs of Ms.Ponnusamy are entitled for share in the property.Further, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, as per the direction of this Court, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has gone into the evidence let in by the respective parties to ascertain who are the legal heirs of deceased Ms.Baggiam Ammal and has found that Mr.Sundararajan is not the legal heir of Ms.At the same time, the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, while ascertaining the legal representatives of Ms.If properly considered Ms.Selvarani alone will be the legal heir of Baggiam.However, due to long cohabitation, as husband and wife, the Court has recognized them as husband and wife for the purpose of legitimizing the children born to them, in the course of such long cohabitation.At the instance of this Court, exclusive enquiry has been conducted to find out who are at the children born to Ms.Baggiam and Mr.The Sub-court,Erode has reported that respondents 4 and 5 namely, Ms.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani are the children born to Mr.Ponnusamy Gounder and Ms.Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellants are applicable where no animus between the parties to live as husband and wife is pleaded or proved whereas, in this case, documentary evidence ever since 1958 describe Mr.ponnusamy Gounder and Ms.Baggiam as husband and wife.Birth certificates and school certificates of the children born to them show that they are parents.Ration card, voter ID show them as husband and wife, and parents of Ms.Selvarani and Ms.Just because there is no proof for solemnization of their marriage, the Courts below have accepted the marriage of Mr.Ponnusamy held later with the first plaintiff Mrs.Thangamani in the year 1963 as a valid first marriage.This will not take away the right of the children born to Mr.Ponnusamy gounder who were born even prior to the marriage between him and Mrs.Thangamani.The Trial Court, after reconciling the evidence of first defendant examined as DW1 and the evidence of PW2 Rajamani @ Eswara Mudaliar has arrived at the conclusion that Ms.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani were two issues born to Ms.In this case, it is well established that Ponnusamy Gounder and Ms.Baggiam Ammal were living together as husband and wife for a long period much longer than the period Mrs.Thangamani lived with Mr.Ponnusamy under her valid marriage.If one take the period of cohabitation, it is evident, Mr.Ponnusamy and Ms.Baggiam started living together much prior to the marriage of Mr.Ponnusamy with Mrs.Thangamani and it continued even after the separation of Mrs.Thangamani and Mr.Rajeswari and Ms.Selvarani who are the 4th and 5th respondents in the second appeal, impleaded as legal heirs of Ms.Baggiam Ammal were born to Mr.Ponnusamy.The cross objection regarding the validity of marriage between Mr.Ponnusamy and Mrs.Thangamani has not found favour in the light of the earlier proceedings wherein courts below have found that Mr.Ponnusamy gounder was legally married to Mrs.Thangamani and while that marriage subsisted he has married another lady and found guilty for offences under Section 494 I.P.C. Therefore, this Court holds that Mrs.Thangamani is the wedded wife of Mr.Ponnusamy, whereas due to long cohabitation between Mr.Ponnusamy Gounder and Ms.Ponnusamy Gounder are entitled to the property of Mr.Ponnusamy Gounder.The First Appellate Court except declaring the right of plaintiffs 1,2,3 in respect of > share of the suit property which stands in the name of Mr.Ponnusamy gounder, left open for the parties to work out their shares since, other legal heirs were not parties to the proceedings at that time.However, pending appeal, Ms.Baggiam died and this Court has taken steps to find out who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ms.Accordingly, the First Additional Sub Judge, Erode, have reported to this Court that Ms.The plaintiffs as legal heirs of Mr.ponnusamy are entitled for share in the estate left by Mr.Ponnusamy along with the said Ms.Rajeswari and Ms.Since the plaintiffs has sought for partition as alternative relief and now, after the death of 1st defendant Ms.Baggiam her legal heirs born through Mr.ponnusamy are brought on record, the reason attributed by the First Appellate Court to interfere the trial court judgment no longer available.On the death of Ms.Baggiam Ammal, this Court has ascertaining through fresh enquiry who are the legal heirs of Ms.Baggiam Ammal.On her own right Ms.Baggiam Ammal have 1/4th title over the suit property as a joint owner of the property which shallbe inherited by her legal heirs.For the remaining > share, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 viz., Mrs.Thangamani, Rajeswari and Kalaiselvi and defendants 4 and 5 viz., Ms.Selvarani and Ms.Rajeswari shall share equally.This Court therefore, modifying the judgment of the First Appellate Court and confirms the Trial Court judgment that the children born to Ms.Accordingly, this Court declares Appellants/plaintiffs 1 to 3 along with respondents 4 and 5 are entitled for equal share in the > share of Mr.ponnusamy Gounder in the suit property.In the remaining < share which stands in the name of Ms.Baggiam, if she had died intestate, all her children shall share it equally.With this finding, preliminary decree of partition is passed as above.It is open to the parties to apportion their shares by filing application for final decree.Since the above finding covers the answer raised in the cross objection, no separate finding is recorded in respect of the cross objection.In the result, Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court is modified to the above effect.Cross objection is dismissed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.The Additional District Court, Periyar District at Erode DistrictThe I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,nvi Pre-delivery Judgment made inSecond Appeal No.1600 of 1989andCross.Objection No.28 of 199418.11.2016http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT A.C. Sen Gupta, J.This appeal arises out of the Crl.The defence was that the complainant did not pay any money to the accused and that he brought this case for the purpose of teaching a lesson to the accused because the accused refused to comply with the complainant's request for damaging the Criminal Case of Cadia Kisku in which the accused acted as 'Tatbir'.The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence adduced, found that the charge could not be proved and acquitted the accused.Hence this appeal.Thus in order to prove a charge under Section 420, I.P.C. against the accused, it must be proved that the complainant was deceived and induced by the accused to pay him the sum of Rs. 45/-, that the complainant paid the money to the accused in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently or dishonestly when he made such inducement which was acted upon by the complainant.These ingredients of the offence could not be proved by the evidence adduced.The substance of the evidence of the 5 witnesses examined by the complainant including himself (P.W.1) is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 45/- to the accused for the purpose of securing a copy of registered deed.There is no evidence of any circumstance to show that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to pay the money.The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.Records to be sent to the court below.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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