Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 as alleged by the prosecution.Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Page 2 of 6The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and the injured discharged from the hospital.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal, on condition that each of the petitioners Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two 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 6[a] the petitioners 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.9267 of 2020 24.06.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC, in Crime No.297 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, 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, Namakkal.The Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Erumapatty, Namakkal District.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 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.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau in S.T. No. 134 of 2009 (Case Crime No. 268 of 2009), State Vs.Ravindra @ Raghvendra and others, under Sections 302 /34, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Madhuban, District Mau.Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Smt. Saroj Singh lodged a report at the police station stating that she was married to Devanand.Later on marriage could not continue and the relations of husband and wife between Smt. Saroj Singh and Devanand came to an end by the court.The opposite party no. 2 was being maintained by her mother Vijay Laxmi and was living in the village with her daughter Kumari Jyoti.On 26.2.2009 the opposite party no. 2 had gone to Madhuban to bring admit card of her daughter Jyoti, who was a student of class 10 of Subhagi Devi Higher Secondary School, Madhuwan, Mau but she could not get the admission card and came back to her house on foot managing her other affairs.When she reached her house at about 5 p.m., she saw that her daughter was hanging by a rope.When she was trying to save her daughter, suddenly Raghvendra Yadav @ Kanthi Yadav and Vikas Mall started fleeing away from the other room.The complainant requested both the accused to help her in saving her daughter but they threatened to kill the complainant and ran away with banki in their hands.Just thereafter Rana Pratap Singh @ Pinku Singh and Chandra Prakash accompanied by Santosh Kumar Singh reached the spot.After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Raghvendra @ Ravindra and one Ram Kishan Yadav.Charge sheet was not submitted against Vikas Kumar Mall.When the charge sheet was submitted in court, charges were framed against the accused persons and the statement of P.W.1 Smt. Saroj Singh commenced.After examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Smt. Saroj was concluded, an application was moved by the prosecution to summon Vikas Mall under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned lower court, vide order dated 4.2.2010 summoned the accused Vikas Mall under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred by the revisionist.I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This order shall dispose of Crl.Revision Petitions Nos.596/2000, 619/2000, 46/2001 and 47/2001, which are directed against order dated 23.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.287/99 registered with P.S. Mehrauli, commonly known as "Jessica Lal Murder Case".In Crl.The facts, leading to filing of the above revision petitions, briefly stated, are that on the intervening night of 29th and 30th April, 1999, a party was going on at Tamarind Court Cafe, Qutub Colonnade, Mehrauli, New Delhi in which drinks were being served on payment basis.According to the prosecution, accused Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill, Alok Khanna and Amit Jhingan (hereinafter referred to as A-1 to A-5 respectively) also reached this Cafe at about 11.30 p.m. At about 2.00 a.m., A-1 asked a waiter to give him two drinks and on his refusal, he asked Malini Ramani, daughter of the owner of the Cafe to get him a drink, but she also declined.On his insistence, she remarked that he could not have a sip of drink even if he paid Rs.1,000/- on which A-1 remarked that he could pay Rs.1,000/- for a sip of her.It is alleged that thereafter A-1 asked Jessica Lal, deceased, to give him two drinks, but she also refused upon which A-1 took out a pistol from his pocket and fired one shot towards the roof and the second shot towards the deceased, which hit near her left eye.She fell down and later succumbed to her injury.On account of this firing, there was commotion (Hafra Tafri) amongst the guests present in the Cafe and most of them started running away.The prosecution alleges that A-6 succeeded in causing disappearance of this weapon of offence.He is also alleged to have helped and supported A-10 R.K.Sudan to escape from Delhi A-7 Harvinder Chopra, A-8 Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill and A-9 Yog Raj Singh had allegedly harboured A-1 knowing of having reason to believe that he was wanted in connection with the offence.Some of the leading models of Delhi including deceased Jessica Lal were working as bar-tenders.The accused A-1 to A-5 remained there for a period of about 2/1-2 hours during which nothing objectionable happened.At about 2.00 AM when the party was coming to a close, A-1 first asked a waiter to get him drinks and on his refusal asked Malni Ramani, the daughter of the owner Beena Ramani but she also declined to oblige him.There was exchange of some unpleasant words even between the two and thereafter A-1 allegedly asked the deceased Jessica Lal to provide him two drinks.On her refusal he took out a pistol from his pocket and first fired a shot towards the roof and the second shot towards her which struck above her left eye and caused her fatal injury.The prosecution case is that on account of this firing there was complete commotion in the party and people started running.A-1 to A-05 also escaped from the spot.It is alleged that A-1 was being escorted out of the cafe by his other co-accused.It is also alleged that after leaving the Cafe, they again re-assembled at the house of A-3 and then planned retrieval of the Black Tata Safari of A-1 from the spot as well as the pistol which A-1 had allegedly concealed near Handloom Emporium.(a) Meeting between the accused at the house of A-3 before reaching the place of incident;(b) Exchange of telephone calls before reaching cafe;.(c) Carrying of a pistol to the spot by A-1;(d) Loading of the pistol by a-1 on his way to the place of incident;(e) Circumstances suggesting that they knew the deceased prior to the incident;R.596/2000, the State prays to set aside the discharge of accused No.1 Manu Sharma, accused No.2 Vikas Yadav, accused No.3 Amardeep Singh Gill, accused No.4 Alok Khanna and accused No.5 Amit Jhingan under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC as well as the discharge of A-2 to A-5 for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.A further prayer is to set aside the discharge of accused A-4, A-5 and A-6 Shyam Sunder Sharma, who have not been charged for commission of any of the offences.R.47/2001 has been filed by accused No.2 Vikas Yadav with a prayer to discharge him of the offences under Sections 201, 120-B and 34 IPC.Revision petition No.46/2001 has been filed by (SIC) & Tony Gill with a prayer to discharge him of the offences under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC.Revision petition No.619/2000 has been filed by accused No.12 Raja Chopra with a prayer to discharge him for the offence under Section 212 IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.After coming out of the Cafe, A-1 walked away on foot whereas the remaining accused slipped away in a vehicle.It is alleged that A-2, A-3 and A-4 reached the house of A-3 where A-1 also came later.The prosecution story is that before coming to Cafe also, there was exchange of telephone calls between them, which suggests that they had gone to the Cafe after hatching a conspiracy to murder deceased Jessica Lal.Prosecution alleges that after the incident A-1 to A-4 re-assembled at the house of A-3 where they hatched a conspiracy to remove the Tata Safari belonging to A-1 from the place of occurrence.In furtherance of this conspiracy, A-2 and A-3 again went to the spot in the vehicle of A-4 and forcibly removed black Tata Safari of A-1 from there inspite of resistance by P.W.54 Shravan Kumar.It is alleged that while the accused were taking away Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of occurrence, P.W.54 Shravan Kumar gave a danda blow on account of which one glass pane of vehicle got broken.It is also alleged that before coming to the house of A-3 after the incident, A-1 had concealed his pistol near the place of incident and later on in furtherance of a conspiracy, A-1 and A-2 went to the said place and managed to retrieve the weapon of offence form there.This weapon of offence, according to the prosecution, was later handed over by A-1 to accused R.K.Sudan (hereinafter referred to as 'A-10'), who is turn handed it over to A-6, Shyam Sunder Sharma.Accused No.12 Raja Chopra is stated to have provided his car to A-1 for escaping from Delhi and reaching Chandigarh.The prosecution filed a challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid accused for the commission of offences under Sections 302/201/212, read with Section (SIC) IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 302/34 IPC.Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order held that A-1 should be charged under Section 37 IPC (SIC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. A-1 to A-8 were ordered to be charged under Section 120-B read with Section 201 IPC for conspiracy and removal of the Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of incident.Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution request for charging A-1 to A-5 under Section 120-B IPC for commission of an offence under Section 302-IPC for murder of the deceased Jessica Lal.Section 34 IPC was also held to be not applicable against them for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. A-4 Alok Khanna and A-5 Anil Jhingan were discharged of all the offences.A-6 Shyam Sunder Sharma was also discharged of all the offences alleged against him.Mr.S.K.Saxena, learned Special Public Prosecutor, arguing for the State in Crl.He has assailed the view taken by learned trial Court that there were no grounds for framing of charge under Section 120-B IPC in as much as even if the evidence was to go (SIC), these accused could not be convicted under Section 120-B IPC in relation to the murder of Jessica Lal.According to learned counsel for the State, this approach of learned trial Court was manifestly erroneous for the reason that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is not required to (SIC) and appreciate the prosecution evidence on record to find out as to whether the evidence was sufficient or not for convicting an accused, if the evidence was to go (SIC).L.J. 2448 and Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs.Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Another, .10 Mr.Saxena submits that for proving an offence of conspiracy-direct evidence is seldom available to the prosecution as dark deeds are done in darkness.He argues that existence of criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances, events and conduct of the accused prior to the offence, at the time of commission of the offence and subsequent to the commission of the offence.To argue that there existed a conspiracy between the aforesaid five accused for committing murder of Jessica Lal, he relies upon the judgments in Hardeo Singh Vs.State of Bihar & Others, 2000 Crl.L.J.2978; Ajay Agarwal Vs.Union of India & Others, AIR 1993 SC 1637 and Kehar Singh & Others Vs.The State (Delhi Administration), .Learned counsel, in support of his submissions for framing of charge of conspiracy against A-1 to A-5, points out that the prosecution has placed on record enough material to show that the accused persons had not at the residence of A-3 before going to the restaurant, there was exchange of phone calls between them, A-1 was carrying a loaded pistol with him and recovery of empty shells and a live cartridge from Tata Safari of A-1 shows that the pistol was loaded on way to the restaurant in the presence of other accused.According to him, all these circumstances prior to teaching the venue of the incident suggest very strongly that there might have been a conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 commit murder of Jessica Lal otherwise they had no reason to go there when one of them was armed with a pistol.He further submits that presence of all the five accused at the spot is prima facie established and it is also established by statements of some witnesses that the deceased not a stranger to them.He has read the statement of Shyan Munshi to show that A-3 Tony Gill was seen talking to the deceased sometime prior to the incident.It is submitted that in the absence of a conspiracy and a firm resolve to kill Jessica Lal, A-1 had no reason to fire a second shot aiming towards her.Absence of any effort by A-2 to A-5 to prevent A-1 from firing a second shot at Jessica Lal and thereafter omission to provide her help clearly suggest that they had come prepared to murder her.After the incident, all of them escorted A-1 out of the restaurant, which circumstance is also indicative of their plan to commit murder and then escape.His further contention is that even if it is not believed that the conspiracy was hatched at the residence of A-3 Tony Gill, a possibility is there that the conspiracy was hatched at Tamarind Cafe itself where A-1 to A-5 were present for sufficient time before killing the deceased Jessica Lal.Learned counsel for the State submits that even after commission of murder, the accused persons continued to collaborate and cooperate with each other in the matter of retrieval of the vehicle of A-1 from the spot, retrieval of the weapon of offence from the place where he was (SIC) by A-1, refixing of a window pane in the vehicle of A-1, meeting at the residence of A-3 Tony Gill, exchange of telephone calls between them and escape of A-1 from Delhi.According to him if A-2 to A-5 had not been co-conspirators of A-1, they would have (SIC) associated themselves from A-1 at least after the shooting incident and as such, their exists (SIC) suspicion that they all were in conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Jessica Lal.Mr.S.K.Saxena presses for invoking Section 34 IPC also against A-2 to A-5 for the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC on the ground that there was some time gap between the first shot fired by A-1 towards the roof and the second shot fired towards the deceased, but none of his co-accused tried to prevent A-1 from firing the second shot towards the deceased Jessica Lal, which resulted in her death.Their omission to prevent A-1 from firing the second shot, according to learned counsel, is suggestive of their common intention.After shooting of the deceased by A-1, the remaining four accused A-2 to A-5 did nothing to help the deceased by way of removing her to the hospital or calling the police and instead were more concerned to escort A-1 out of the restaurant safely.It is submitted that these facts and circumstances strongly suggest that if not conspiracy, they at least shared a common intention to kill Jessica Lal and as such Section 34 ought to have been invoked against them.Learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that the charges under Section 212 IPC also ought to have been framed against A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in as much as inspite of their knowledge of commission of the offence by A-1, they escorted him out of the restaurant.Inspite of best efforts, the Investigating Agency could nt trace out this weapon and as such, material evidence has been made to disappear.Referring to statement of P.W. A.K.Dutt and the transcript of the taped telephonic conversation between P.W. A.K.Dutt and accused R.K.Sudan, it is submitted that there were sufficient grounds for charging A-6 under Section 201 IPC.He submits that disclosure statement of A-1 led the Investigating Agency to discover the fact that the pistol was handed over by A-1 to accused R.K.Sudan and the transcript of the taped conversation shows that the weapon was passed on to A-6 by accused R.K.Sudan.The telephonic conversation between R.K.Sudan and P.W. A.K.Dutt, learned counsel argues, was an extra judicial confession of R.K.Sudan and as such, admissible in evidence.Learned counsel argue that such serious charge cannot be and must not be framed against the accused unless the prosecution has sufficient material in support of the allegations.They submit that framing of a charge is not an empty formality in as much as an unwarranted and groundless charge, even if likely to fail, results in extreme harassment and hardship to an accused.It is submitted that request of the prosecution for framing a charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC against A-1 to A-5 for murder of deceased Jessica Lal is absolutely unwarranted, baseless and without any material on record.It is argued that though motive is not essential to be brought on record for establishing the commission of an offence, but in a case of conspiracy, motive is very material for the reason that it provides basis to the accused persons for entering into a conspiracy.It is argued that in the present case, the prosecution has no material to show that A-1 to A-5 had any enmity or ill will for planning murder of deceased Jessica Lal.According to learned counsel for the accused, the mere fact that prior to going to Tamarind Cafe, accused were together or that they were present at the Cafe or after the incident they escaped from the place of occurrence together, were not sufficient to draw an inference of criminal conspiracy.It is submitted that had the accused persons been in conspiracy to commit murder of Jessica Lal, they would not have waited for hours together at the Cafe before firing upon her.Moreover had the murder been preplanned and in furtherance of any conspiracy, the accused would not have allowed themselves to be seen by so many witnesses for such a long time and then shot at the deceased in full view of so many.Had there been a conspiracy, the accused, in normal course, would have ambushed her at a time and place where they could have found her alone and would have made every effort to conceal their identity.It is also argued that the telephonic conversations prior to the incident do not suggest any conspiracy as the accused might have been contacting each other for reaching the Cafe for having drinks and fun.In the absence of transcript of telephonic talks, no inference can be drawn that these telephonic calls were for hatching a conspiracy to murder the deceased.Their going to Cafe together and presence there are also not an incriminating circumstances.The fact that A-1 was carrying a weapon is also not a circumstance warranting any inference that the accused had gone to the Cafe to commit any murder.It was a licensed weapon and as such, A-1 had every right to keep it with him for his own protection.The argument of the State that at the time of the incident, none of the accused tried to prevent A-1 from firing at the deceased nor gave any help to her and they all escaped from the place of incident together, is also not enough to draw any inference of conspiracy.Learned counsel for the accused submit that evidence on record shows that there was no time gap between the first and second shot so as to enable A-2 to A-5 to prevent A-1 from firing the second shot towards deceased Jessica Lal.Like all others present at the spot, A-2 to A-5 also were taken aback and stunned.Since so many started running from the spot after the firing incident, A-2 to A-5 also escaped from there, which also is not incriminating circumstance to suggest any conspiracy.It is argued that A-2 to A-5 had not escorted A-1 out of the restaurant and had merely escaped from there along with him.Had they been escorting A-1 out of the restaurant, they would not have left the spot in their cars leaving A-1 to manage his own self because the evidence of the prosecution itself shows that A-1 came back from the spot on foot.It is also submitted that the first shot was fired by A-1 towards roof, which also shows that there was no conspiracy at all to commit murder of deceased Jessica Lal.Had there been any conspiracy, even the first shot would have been fired towards her.According to site plan, A-3, A-4 and A-5 were standing towards other side of the counter where the deceased Jessica Lal was itself that these three accused were standing in the same direction in which fire was shot by A-1 and as such, there was every chance that one of them could be hit by the said shot.It is submitted that the firing by A-1 was sudden and on account of such a trivial incident that A-2 to A-5 had no time or opportunity to prevent the firing.It is also argued that the prosecution has not been able to show any abnormal conduct on the part of the accused persons either before the incident, at the time of the incident of after the incident so as to suggest existence of a criminal conspiracy or common intention for murder of deceased Jessica Lal.The firing according to the prosecution evidence itself was quite sudden.Statement of P.W.42 Shiv Dass recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically says "EK DUM US I ADKE NE PISTOL NIKALI", which negatives the existence of a common intention.According to him, prosecution has miserably failed to place on record any evidence that after the incident, A-1 and A-6 were in touch or that A-6 had done anything so as to render him liable under Section 201 IPC.Statement of P.W. A.K. Dutt that A-6 wanted to deliver some money to A-10 R.K.Sudan so that he may go back to U.S.A., is not at all an incriminating circumstance as the prosecution has not collected any evidence to show that A-10 R.K. Sudan was keen to go back to U.S.A. but his mother was not sick.He also submits that the prayer of the State to charge A-6 of all the offences is baseless.The argument of learned counsel for the State that Section 212 IPC is attracted against A-6 on the ground that he helped A-10 to escape from India, is not covered by Section 212 IPC as there is nothing on record to show that A-6 knew that A-10 was wanted for any offence.Arguing on behalf of A-3 Amardeep Singh Gill and A-4 Alok Khanna, Mr. I.U. Khan, Advocate has fully supported the arguments on behalf of the other accused that in the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence with the prosecution to show that there was any conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC nor there is any evidence to suggest that they shared any common intention for her murder.Learned counsel arguing in Crl.R.46/2001 on behalf of A-3 has prayed that he be discharged of the offences under Section 201 and 120-B IPC.According to him, A-4 had no telephonic talks with A-1 either prior to the occurrence or after the occurrence and as such, he had played on role at all and was not liable to be charged for any offence.There is no evidence against him under Section 212 IPC even and the removal of vehicle of A-1 from the spot did not attract Section 201 IPC as it did not amount to causing disappearance of the evidence.He also submits that the allegation of escorting A-1 out of the Cafe by A-2 to A-5 was not at all an incriminating piece of evidence as like many others, the accused were also moving out of the Cafe after the firing incident.It is submitted that mere fact that A-4 had given his car to A-3 for taking A-2 to the spot, does not link him with any offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC because there is nothing with the prosecution to show that A-4 had given his car to A-3 knowing that the purpose of the visit was to remove the car of A-1 from the spot.The State of Haryana & Another, 1979 Crl.L.J. SC 857 and P.K.Narayanan Vs.State of Kerala, Crimes 1994(3) SC 850 to contend that existence of a criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred on the basis of suspicions, surmises or conjectures.For arguing that no offence under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out against A-3 and A-4, he relies upon the judgments in Jogta Kikla Vs.The State, and Jit Singh & Others Vs.The State, .Mr. R.K.Naseem, Advocate appearing for accused No.5 Amit Jhingan has opposed the prayer of the State for framing charges under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 IPC and charges under Sections 212 and 201 read with Section 120-B IPC against the accused on the ground that A-5 had not gone to the Cafe in question with the other accused and had reached there separately.After the incident even, he had not left the spot along with the other co-accused.The only allegation against him is that at the time of firing, he was standing near the deceased along with A-3 and A-4 and at about 4.00 a.m. on the asking of A-3 on telephone, he had gone to the house of A-3 in his gypsy and thereafter he had taken A-1 and A-2 to the Cottage Emporium for retrieval of the weapon of offence.Learned counsel for A-5 submits that there is no evidence whatsoever on record that A-5 knew A-1 prior to the incident and his mere presence in the party on that day does not suggest that he was in any conspiracy with A-1 to A-4 for commission of the offence of murder.He also argues that except disclosure statements, which cannot be read in evidence, there is nothing with prosecution to prove the visit of A-1 and A-2 to Handloom Emporium for retrieval of pistol.Relying upon a rough note alleged to be in the handwriting of SI Sunil Kumar, it is argued by learned counsel for A-5 that Special Public Prosecutor had been guiding the investigations and on his behest, supplementary statements of some p.ws.were recorded.He submits that when such padding was being done by the Investigators, the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as gospel truth.According to him, pistol of A-1 was already with the Investigators much before arrest of A-1 and as such, the entire prosecution case in regard to disappearance of the weapon of offence and the conspiracy in respect of retrieval thereof is a crude fabrication.Referring to the site plan placed on record, learned counsel has argued that the story regarding its concealment near Cottage Emporium is preposterous on the face of it as A-1 could not have dared to pass in from of Tomarind Cafe after the incident merely with a view to conceal his pistol near Cottage Emporium.Mr. R.K. Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of accused No.12 Raja Chopra has prayed for allowing his Crl.R.619/2001 and discharging A-12 for the offence under Section 212 IPC.It is submitted that A-12 has been charged under Section 212 IPC on the ground that he had sent his car from Chandigarh to help A-1 to escape from Delhi, but a certificate issued by the Transport Department shows that this car had already been sold by A-12 to M/s. Piccadly Agro of which A-1 was also a Director.Therefore, in the absence of some other evidence, it cannot be inferred that A-12 had sent this car to Delhi for taking A-1 to some other place.It is also submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record any evidence whatsoever to show that A-12 knew anything about the involvement of A-1 in this offence and as such, had any knowledge of A-1 in this offence and as such, had any knowledge or reason to believe that he was an offender.The State of Himachal Pradesh, .Dilip Nathumal Chordia Another, are the words of caution for the revisional Courts.If upon consideration of the material on record, documents and sorrounding facts and circumstances of the case the Trial Judge considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against an accused he is under duty to order his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.However, if upon the consideration of the material on record the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he is under a legal obligation U/S 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to frame a charge against him and put him on trial.The law as to under what circumstances the Courts should pass an order under Section 228 of the Code for framing a charge and on what ground a discharge should be ordered under Section 227 of the code has been the subject matter of deep deliberations by the High Courts as well as Apex Court in a number of cases.Leading judgments on the question are in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs.The State of Maharashtra, 1972 Crl.L.J. 329, Malkhan Singh & Another Vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh, , State of Bihar Vs.Ramesh Singh , , Union of India Vs.Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, , Rambilas Singh & Others Vs.State of Bihar, , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs.Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Others, , Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs.Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Another, , State of Maharashtra etc. Vs.Som Nath Thapa etc., 1996 Crl.L.J. 2448, Satish Mehra Vs.Delhi Administration & Another, 1996 (5) SCALE 523 and Sumitra Banik Vs.(f) Failure of A-2 to A-5 to stop or prevent A-1 from firing the second shot towards the deceased;(g) Escorting out of A-1 by his co-accused A-2 to A-5;(h) Their escape from the spot together without doing anything to help the deceased, inform the police or to suggest that they had disassociated themselves from A-1 ;(i) Meeting again at the house of A-3 and planning to retrieve the Tat Safari of A-1 from the spot;(j) Exchange of telephonic calls after the incident;(k) Retrieval of the weapon used in the offence and(l) Harbouring A-1 and helping him to escape from Delhi.Learned Additional Sessions Judge for the reasons given in para 22 of the impugned order declined to charge A-1 to A-5 under Section 120B of Section 302 or Sections 302/34 IPC.There is no doubt about the legal proposition that for proving a criminal conspiracy prosecution is seldom in a position to place before the Courts any direct evidence.conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and as such are usually proved by circumstantial evidence alone.However, the law is well settled that for establishing a criminal conspiracy the prosecution must place on record some connecting link or connecting evidence of meeting of the minds of the conspirators for achieving a particular object.Motive may not be important for proving a criminal offence where ocular evidence is available, but in the case of a conspiracy, motive provides the basis for joining of hands by the conspirators.The facts relevant for inferring a conspiracy and kind of evidence required to be placed before the Courts were discussed in detail by Their lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgments reported in Hardeo Singh Vs.State of Bihar & Others 2000 Crl.L.J. 2978, Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs.Nalini & Others, and Kehar Singh & Others Vs.The State (Delhi Administration), .The ingredients of Section 34 IPC were discussed in 2000 Crl.L.J. 380 (Supra).In the light of the principles governing the framing of a charge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence required for proving the offence under Section 120B IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not at all succeeded in placing on record any material on the basis of which the Court can come to a conclusion that there are grounds to presume that A-1 to A-5 had entered into a conspiracy.The scales weighing the material on record are not evenly balanced but are clearly tilted in favor of the accused for the reason that for entertaining a suspicion even the Court must have some material on record.Baseless suspicion, imaginary inferences and groundless conjectures are to be discarded by a discerning judicial eye.The reasons for the above conclusions are that the accused A-1 to A-5 are not shown to be having any ill will, motive or reason for the murder of deceased Jessica Lal.Their meeting and telephonic talks before reaching Tamarind Court cafe, where the incident took place are not shown to be for hatching a conspiracy.The circumstances suggest that they were only planning an evening for fun and frolic.The carrying of a loaded pistol by A-1 to the spot is also not suggestive of any criminal design because it was a licensed pistol and he had every right to keep it on his person for his own defense.Even if his co-accused knew that he was carrying a loaded pistol, although there is no cogent evidence on this point, they had no reasons to panic or doubt his intentions because it was not an unlawful arm.There is no ground to presume that pistol was loaded on way to Cafe in the presence of A-2 to A-5. A-1 to A-5 reached the place of incident at about 11.30 PM whereas the firing took p;lace at about 2.00 AM.Had the accused been in conspiracy to murder Jessica Lal, they would not have remained at the spot for about two and a half hrs.before killing her so as to expose themselves to the eye of persons present in the party.Moreover had there been any conspiracy A-1 would not have fired inside the restaurant and in the presence of hundreds of people inviting abundant ocular evidence against him and his co-accused.He could have waited for the time and opportunity when she could be found alone either going out of the Cafe or on her way to her house so that the offence could he committed in secrecy.Therefore, the case as laid is suggestive of absence of conspiracy and not existence of a criminal conspiracy.The subsequent conduct of the accused persons in escaping together or thereafter meeting at the house of A-3 to plan retrieval of the car or the weapon of offence or the harbouring of A-1 is also not suggestive of any conspiracy to murder.Support to A-1 after the incident may render the accused liable for different offences but not at all for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 302 IPC.The prosecution evidence as placed on record does not suggest the sharing of common intention even as required under Section 34 IPC for the murder of deceased Jessica Lal.A perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses, site plan and other material on record clearly suggests that the firing was sudden.There is nothing on record to suggest that between first and second shot there was enough time gap so as to enable A-2 to A-5 to prevent or over-power A-1 from firing a second shot. A-2 to A-5 could not have even anticipated that a second shot would be fired towards deceased Jessica Lal.In the statement of PW 42 Shiv Dass recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has clearly come that A-1 had at once taken out his pistol and fired.One factor which goes very much against the charge under Section 34 IPC is the statements of the witnesses as well as the site plan of the place of incident, which show that at the time of firing A-1 was towards one side of the bar and his co-accused A-2 to A-5 were towards the other side and there was a counter in between.A-3, A-4 and A-5 were standing near the deceased.It shows that the bullet fired by A-1 was in the direction of not only deceased Jessica Lal but his friends A-3, A-4 and A-5 also who were standing near her.Had there been any common intention between A-1 and his co-accused present at the spot, he could not have fired in the direction where his friends were also standing in as much as the bullet could have hit any one of them.Since it is shown that A-1 was on the other side of the counter and his other co-accused were on the other side thereof, there was no chance for them to prevent A-1 from firing a second shot towards deceased Jessica Lal.There is no act of commission or ommission attributable to A-2 to A-5 to invoke Section 34 IPC against them.The Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the facts, material and circumstances placed on record by the prosecution do not at all suggest that the firing was as a result of any criminal conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 or they shared any common intention attracting Section 34 of the IPC.Even if A-3 knew Jessica Lal from before and was found talking to her some time between 11.30 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. it is not at all a circumstance for presuming any conspiracy or common intention to kill her because nothing has come on record that any of the accused had any motive or ill will for killing her.The State is highly aggrieved by the discharge of accused No.6 Shyam Sunder and prays for framing of charges under Section 201/212 IPC against him.Learned counsel for the State has argued that the disclosure statement made by A-1 led to the "discovery of the fact" that after the incident the weapon used in the offence was handed over by A-1 to A-10 R.K. Sudan.The statement of PW Ashok Kumar Dutt and the tape recorded conversation between A.K. dutt and accused R.K. Sudan raise strong suspicion against A-6 that the weapon of offence was handed over to him by A-10 R.K. Sudan and thereafter A-6 gave him some money and arranged that he left India without any delay.It is submitted that if A-10 had fallen into the hands of the police, he would have disclosed that he had handed over the weapon to A-6 and then it would have been possible for the police to effect the recovery thereof.He submits that weapon of offence was very material in this case as it was a licensed weapon and if bullets fired at the spot could be linked to this weapon it would have been a clinching piece of incriminating evidence against A-1, which the prosecution has been deprived of on account of non-recovery of the weapon.Shri Rajinder Singh Cheema, learned counsel for A-6 has controverter the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and has opposed the prayer for framing any charge against A-6 on the ground that in the absence of the recovery of the weapon of offence the disclosure statement of A-1 cannot be considered.It is pointed out that the financial assistance given by A-6 to A-10 for going back to USA, even if believed, does not show that A-6 knew the involvement of A-10 in any offence.It is also argued that taped conversation between PW A.K. Dutt and A-10 is hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. He submits that prosecution has not placed on record anything to show that the mother of A-10 was not sick and it was for that reason only that A-6 had given him financial help for going back to USA immediately.After considering the disclosure statement of A-1, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW A.K. Dutt and the transcript of the telephonic conversation between A.K. Dutt and A-10 R.K. Sudan, I am of the considered view that there are good and sufficient grounds for holding that a strong suspicion exists against A-6 for charging him under Section 201 IPC as well as 212 IPC.This taped telephonic conversation suggests at least prima facie that A-6 knew as to where the weapon of offence had gone.A-10 who had left India could not possibly take it out of India and as such the only person in whose contact he was before leaving Indian was A-6 with whom he spent some time at Manali also after receiving the weapon from A-1 at Delhi.The over-anxiety demonstrated by A-6 to see that A-10 goes out of Indian and the financial support given by him are suggestive of his apprehension that in case A-10 gets arrested by the police he may disclose the whereabouts of the weapon of offence and the role played by A-6 in the whole transaction.The telephonic talk between PW A.K. Dutt and accused No. 10 R.S. Sudan does not appear to be hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act in as much as inducement even if any was not proceeding from a person in authority.A-10 did not know even that this telephonic call was being recorded by the police.He also ought to have been charged under Section 212 IPC for the reason that the material on record clearly suggests that he had helped A-10 R.K. Sudan to move out of India knowing that he was also likely to be arrested in this case in as much as he had helped A-1 regarding disappearance of weapon of offence which was a material piece of evidence for the prosecution.The prayer of the State that A-2 to A-5 should have been charged under Section 212 of the IPC for harbouring A-1 as they had escorted him out of the restaurant cannot be accepted.The statements of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution do not at all suggest that A-2 to A-5 had given any assistance or help to A-1 for escaping from the place of incident.The statements of PW Bina Ramani and some other witnesses merely show that after the shooting incident, when there was utter commotion in the restaurant, A-1 as well as A-2 to A-5 simply headed towards the exit gate and thereafter left the spot.Moreover, the prosecution case itself is that after the shooting incident A-1 was left alone outside the Cafe whereas his other co-accused moved away in their own vehicles.A-1 had to come to the house of A-3 on foot leaving his own vehicle at the spot.This circumstance negatives the prosecution allegation that A-1 was harboured by A-2 to A-5 in the matter of escaping from the spot.Thus the learned Trial Judge was justified in not framing a charge against A-2 to A-5 under Section 212 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the State has further contended that A-4 also ought to have been charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC on account of his role in the retrieval of the Tata Safari of A-1 from the spot.The prosecution evidence strongly suggests that a conspiracy for the removal of Tata Safari from the spot was hatched at the residence of A-3 where A-4 had also come.It is true that A-4 did not accompany A-2 and A-3 to the spot for the removal of Tata Safari but the prosecution evidence shows that he had provided his own Tata Seira to them for the purpose.In view of the fact that A-4 had seen A-1 shooting at the spot, had reached the house of A-3 after the incident and thereafter had given his vehicle also to A-2 and A-3 for the removal of Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of incident raises a strong suspicion against him that he was also a party to the conspiracy and as such he ought to have been charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC.According to him, mere removal of the vehicle from one place to another did not make the vehicle disappear and as such no charge ought to have been framed in this regard.Therefore in the present case when accused A-1 to A-4 in furtherance of their conspiracy removed the Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of incident and placed it some where else they prima facie committed an offence under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC for the reason that they caused a material piece of evidence to disappear from the eyes of the investigators.It cannot be disputed that this Tata Safari was a material piece of evidence for the prosecution in as much as its recovery from the spot would have made it easier for the police to trace out and then link A-1 with the offence.Thus a charge in (SIC) against A-1 to A-4 in this behalf.The plea of the prosecution that A-1 to A-5 ought to have been charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 of the IPC for removal and disappearance of the weapon of offence is not sustainable for the simple reason that except the disclosure statement of the accused prosecution has no evidence whatsoever to show that after the incident and in furtherance of a conspiracy A-1, A-2 and A-5 had gone to the spot near Cottage Emporium, Mehrauli and retrieved the weapon of offence.Disclosure statements made by the accused are not admissible in evidence in the absence of any recovery.The prosecution has no other evidence to show that they had gone there for retrieving the weapon of offence.However, in the case in hand the trial is still to be held and at the stage of framing a charge the Court has to see as to whether there exist grounds or not for raising a strong suspicion against A-12 in regard to the commission of an offence under Section 212 of the IPC.The evidence required for conviction is not to be insisted upon at this stage.As observed herein before since A-12 was very close to A-1 being the Director in a company in which A-1 was also a Director, it can be reasonably inferred that the car of A-12 was sent to A-1 for picking him up from Delhi and A-12 knew or had reason to believe that A-12 was involved in an offence and the Car was sent to screen him from legal punishment.The commission of offence as defined in Section 52(a) of the Act was by providing a Car and the knowledge or reason to believe that A-1 was the offender.In the course of arguments Sh.(a) The prayer of the State for charging A-1 to A-5 under Section 120-B for an offence under Section 302 IPC and A-2 to A-5 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Jessica Lal is declined.(b) Accused No.1 Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was charged by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC for the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal, 201 read with Section 120B IPC for conspiracy for removal of his vehicle from the spot, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for the replacement of the glass pane of Tata Safari.The State had prayed that he should be charged under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC also as there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal.The State had urged before this Court for framing charges against him under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal and also under Section 212 IPC for harbouring A-1 out of the Cafe after the incident.This accused had filed Crl.Revision petition No.47/2001 praying for his discharge for all the offences.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the prayer of the State, for framing additional charges against him as stated above is declined.The Crl.Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the framing of the charge under Section 201 read with Section 34 in regard to the replacement of glass pan of the vehicle of A-1 is allowed and he is discharged for the commission of the said offence.(d) Accused No.3 Amarjit Singh @ Tony Gill was charged by the Trial Court under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC in regard to conspiracy and removal of the vehicle of A-1 from the place of incident.The State had prayed for framing charges under Section 302 read with Section 120B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against him for the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal and also under Section 212 of the IPC for harbouring A-1 out of the Cafe.This petitioner had filed Crl.Revision petition No.46/2001 challenging the framing of the charge under Section 201/120B IPC against him.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the prayer of the state for framing additional charges against him is declined.The prayer of the petitioner for discharging him for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC is also declinest.His Crl.Revision Petition stands dismissed.(e) Accused No.4 Alok Khanna was discharged by Trial Court of all the offences.The State in its Crl.revision petition No.596/2000 has challenged the (SIC) order passed by the learned Trial Judge and has prayed for framing charges against him under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Jesicca Lal.The State also prays that he be charged for offences under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC for the conspiracy and removal of the Tata Safari Car of A-1 from the spot.It is also prayed that he be charged under Section 212 IPC also for harbouring A-1 by way of escorting him out of cafe after the incident.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the prayer of the State of the State for charging A-4 under Section 212 of the IPC is declined.However, the revision petition filled by the State is allowed to the extent that A-4 shall be charged under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC for conspiracy and removal of the Car of A-1 from the place of incident.(f) Learned Trial Judge had discharged accused No.5 Amit Jingen of all the offences.The state in its revision petition had prayed for framing of the charges against him under Section 302/120B, 302/34 IPC, 201/120B IPC retrieval of the pistol of A-1 and 212 IPC for escorting A-1 out of the cafe after the firing incident.His discharge by Trial Court is upheld.(g) Accused No.6 Shyam Sunder was discharged for all the offences by the learned Trial Judge.The State in its revision petition has prayed for charging him under Section 201 read with Section 120B for conspiracy and disapprearance of the weapon of offence.It is also prayed that he b charged under Section 212 of the IPC also for harbouring A-10 R.K.Sudan by way of assisting him to escape from India.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the Crl.revision petition filed by the State qua him is allowed and he is ordered to be charged under section 201 IPC and 212 IPC.(h) No controversy has been raised in regard to accused No.7 H.S. Chopra, accused No.8 Vikas Gill and accused No.9 Yograj Singh who were charged by the Trial Court under Section 212 of the IPC for harbouring accused No.1 after the offence and before his arrest by the police.He filed a Crl.revision petition 619/2000 challenging the framing of the charge against him under Section 212 of the IPC.For the reasons given in this order, this Court finds no force in his revision petition and upholds the orders of the learned Trial Judge charging him under section 212 of the IPC.Accordingly the Crl.Revision petition No.596/2000 filed by the State and Crl.Rev. petition No.47/2001 filed by accused no.2 Vikas Yadav are partly allowed.Revision petitions No. 46/2001 filed by Amardeep sing Gill and 619/2000 by Raja Chopra are dismissed.Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the Trial Court.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

in all the Appeals.II, Tirunelveli are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeals.The case of the prosecution is that PW2-Durgadevi and PW3-Nagarajan arethe children of the deceased by name Angammal and all of them have lived inVetrivinayagar Kovil Street, Vannarpettai.On 18.01.2006 at about 10.00 pm., theparents of PWs.2 and 3 have performed pooja so as to drive effect of evil eyeand due to that wranglings have happened in between the parents of PWs.2 and 3and first accused by name Karuppasamy.The complainant (PW1) and senior paternaluncle of PWs.2 and 3 have desisted the parents of PWs.2 and 3 and first accused.On 19.01.2006 the father of PWs.2 and 3 has gone out by using his motor cycle.On the same day, at about 12.30 pm., while the deceased has been standing infront of the house, PW2 has come from school due to her illness.On the sameday, PW3 has not attended school due to his illness.At that time all theaccused have come to the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and all of themhave indiscriminately attacked the deceased and subsequently an ambulance hascome from Sakthi hospital and PW1 has taken the deceased to the said hospitaland subsequently given the complaint (Ex.P7).On receipt of Ex.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that PWs.2 and3 namely Durgadevi and Nagarajan are the children of the deceased by nameAngammal and all of them have lived in Vetrivinayagar Kovil Street,Vannarpettai.Thecomplainant viz., PW1 and senior paternal uncle of PWs.2 and 3 have desistedthem.The doctor who admitted the deceased in Sakthi hospital has beenexamined as PW9 and his specific evidence is that on 19.01.2006 at about 12.55pm, the deceased has been brought to Sakthi hospital and he found the followinginjuries:1.Abdominal injury - stab wound 3 cm.2.Amputation right upper limb - Elbow level - no liable vital part3.Amputation left thumb.Criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against theconviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.II,Tirunelveli.!For Appellants ... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha (Crl.A.Nos.218 & 495/07)For Appellant ... Mr.S.P.Maharajan (Crl.A.No.396/08)^For Respondent ... Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian Addl.Public Prosecutor (All Appeals.) :COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM, J.) The conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions CaseNo.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track CourtNo.P7, PW8, the concerned Sub Inspector of Police hasregistered the same in Crime No.87 of 2006 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and307 of the Indian Penal Code and the printed copy of First Information Reporthas been marked as Ex.The Investigating Officer has taken up investigation, conductedinquest, arrested all the accused, recovered material objects and aftercompleting investigation laid a final report on the file of the JudicialMagistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli has issued summonses toall the accused and furnished copies of relevant documents under section 207 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after coming to a conclusion that theoffences alleged to have been committed by all the accused are triable bySessions Court, he committed the same to the Principal District and SessionsCourt, Tirunelveli and taken on file in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006 andsubsequently made over to the trial Court.The trial Court after considering the materials found on record hasframed first charge against all the accused under Section 341 of the IndianPenal Code, second charge against all of them under Section 302 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.Theaccused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 12 have been examined andExs.P1 to P20 and M.Os.1 to 4 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating material available inevidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.On the side ofthe accused, DW1 has been examined and Ex.D1 has been marked.The trial Court after perpending the available evidence on record hasfound all the accused guilty under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced each of them to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and alsoimposed a fine of Rs.500/- upon each of them with usual default clause.Theaccused have also been found guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fineof Rs.10,000/- upon each of them with usual default clause.Against theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused asappellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2008, the second accused asappellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2007 and third accused asappellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2007 on the file of this Court.On 19.01.2006 the father of PWs.2 and 3 has gone out.On the same day atabout 12.30 pm, while PWs.2 and 3 and their mother (deceased) are in theirhouse, all the accused have come with deadly weapons and hurled invectives byusing filthy words against the deceased and all of a sudden they attacked herindiscriminately and subsequently the complainant has taken the deceased toSakthi hospital by using an ambulance van and after some time she passed away.The entire complaint alleged to have been givenby PW1 has been marked as Ex.P7 by the Sub Inspector of Police, who registeredthe same in Crime No.87 of 2006 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 307 of theIndian Penal Code.As pointed out earlier, PW1 has not supported the case of theprosecution.The specific evidence given by PW2 is that the occurrence has takenplace on 19.01.2006 at about 12.30 pm., and prior to occurrence, she, herbrother (PW3), mother(deceased) and senior paternal uncle (PW4) are in theirhouse and at that time all the accused have come there by using an Auto withdeadly weapons and the first accused has hurled invectives against her mother(deceased) by using filthy words and all of them have attacked her mother andsubsequently PW1 has taken her mother to Sakthi hospital through an ambulancevan.As stated earlier, PW3, Nagarajan is the youngerbrother of PW2 and PW4, Chinnadurai is the senior paternal uncle of PWs.2 and 3.PWs.3 and 4 have categorically stated in their evidence that on 19.01.2006 atabout 12.30 pm., all the accused have come to the place of occurrence by usingan Auto and suddenly they attacked the deceased by using deadly weapons.The intimation given to police has been marked as Ex.P9 and AccidentRegister has been marked as Ex.The doctor who conducted necropsy has also been examined as PW10 andhe found the following injuries:(1) Abrasions back of left elbow 4x2cm;(L) knee 4x2 cm; (2) Clean-cut injury, base of left thumb x entire circumstance, the distalportion of the finger is missing.(3)Vertical incised wound (L) breast, above the nipple, 7x.5x.5 cm.(4)Two transverse incised wounds outer aspect of upper part of rightthigh; each 4x.5x.5;(5)R upper limb in hospital bandage, on removal of bandage, beveled cutinjury towards the elbow, 20x8 cm x bone deep back of right forearm & elbow; theunderlying muscles, vessels and both bones clean cut.(6)Transverse incised wound R subcostal region, 5x2 cm.X peritonealcavity depth; the outer end is sharp and the inner end is blunt.The postmortem certificate given by PW10 has been marked as Ex.Further PW10has opined that "the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to heavy cut injury in the right forearm."The trial Court after considering the evidence given by PWs.2 to 4, 9and 10 and other connected witnesses has invited conviction and sentence againstall the accused as stated supra.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have uniformlycontended that the specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence hastaken place at about 12.30 pm., on 19.01.2006 and the First Information Reporthas been given on 2.30 pm., on the same day and further PW9 has not specificallystated the name of the person(s) who brought the deceased to Sakthi hospital andon the date of occurrence, PWs.2 and 3 are not in their house and in short, theyare not eye witnesses and even in Ex.P7, the complaint, presence of PW4 has notbeen stated.Likewise, in the inquest report (Ex.P18) presence of PW1 alone hasbeen stated and presence of PWs.2 to 4 have not at all been stated and further,from the evidence of PW2 the Court can easily discern that after the attacksmade by the accused on the person of the deceased she has fallen down and oneKanaga has given water to her.But she has not been examined.Further, PW9has categorically admitted in his evidence that he has given intimation to thepolice under Ex.P9 at about 12.55 pm., But he has been examined by theInvestigating Officer on the same day at about 1.00 pm., Further Ex.P7 has beensent to Court very belatedly without proper explanation and the trial Courtwithout considering the fact that the entire case of the prosecution bristleswith vital infirmities, has erroneously invited conviction and sentence againstall the accused under Sections 341, and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code andtherefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against all theaccused are liable to be set aside.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contendedthat in the instant case even though the complainant (PW1) has become a hostilewitness, the prosecution has clearly established the alleged guilt of theaccused punishable under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code byway of examining PWs.2 to 4 and in fact their evidence has been clearlycorroborated by medical evidence by way of examining PWs.9 and 10 and furtherthe prosecution has given clear explanation for not seizing bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence and further mere delay in sendingthe First Information to Court is not fatal to the case of the prosecution andthe trail Court after considering the overwhelming evidence available on record,has rightly invited conviction and sentence against all the accused underSections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are not liable to beinterfered with.The first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellants isthat the specific evidence given by PW9 is that he admitted the deceased inSakthi hospital at 12.55 pm., and immediately he has given intimation to policestation and he has been examined by the concerned Inspector of Police on thesame day by 1.00 o' clock, whereas, Ex.P7 has been registered on the same day atabout 2.30 pm.It is seen from the evidence given by PW9 that he admitted thedeceased on 19.01.2006 at about 12.55 pm., Further he deposed to the effect thatimmediately he has given intimation to the concerned police and the concernedInspector of Police has examined him at 1.00 pm., It is an admitted fact thatEx.P7, complaint has been registered on 19.01.2006 at about 2.30 pm.Since Ex.P7has been registered on 19.01.2006 at about 2.30 pm.it is highly impossible onthe part of the Investigating Officer (PW12) to examine PW9 on 19.01.2006 atabout 1.00 o' clock.Therefore, the evidence given by PW9 to that aspect isnothing but a slip of tongue and the same cannot be given effect to.FurtherPW12 has clearly stated in his evidence that he visited hospital on the same dayat about 3.30 pm and examined PW9 and other connected witnesses.Therefore, thefirst and foremost contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused isof no use.The second/vital attack made on the side of the appellants/accused isthat in the instant case, PWs.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and bothof them are school going children and the occurrence has taken place on19.01.2006 at about 12.30 pm., and since both of them are school going children,definitely they would not have seen the occurrence and further in the inquestreport, presence of PW1 has not been stated and in Ex.P7, complaint presence ofPW4 has not been stated and therefore, the prosecution has virtually failed toadduce proper evidence with regard to alleged occurrence and the trial Court hasfailed to look into the same.As stated earlier, PWs.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased andPW4 is their senior paternal uncle.In the evidence given by PW2 it has beenclearly stated that on 19.01.2006 morning she attended school.But due toillness, she left the school and arrived home.The evidence of PW3 is that dueto illness on 19.01.2006 he has not attended school.Apart fromthe evidence given by DW1, on the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked.D1 is a xerox copy of attendance register, wherein it has been clearly statedthat on 19.01.2006, PW2 has been absent.At this juncture, a faint attempt hasbeen made on the side of the appellants/accused to the effect that in Ex.It is an admitted factthat Ex.D1 is a document marked on the side of the appellants/accused.Therefore, viewing from any angle, thesecond/vital attack made on the side of the appellants/accused is sans merit.The third attack made on the side of the appellants/accused is that inEx.likewise, in Ex.P7 complaint, presence of PW4 is not foundplace.For the purpose of deciding the above aspects put forth on the side ofthe appellants/accused, it is very much essential to rely upon the recisionreported in (2011)6 Supreme Court Cases 288 [Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.Stateof Uttar Pradesh], wherein at paragraph - 10 it is observed as follows:The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding theapparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidentalor by some machinery, etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all thedetails of the overt acts in the inquest report.Evidence of eyewitnesses cannotbe discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at theearliest point of time.The inquest report cannot be treated as substantiveevidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest."Even from a cursory look of the decision referred to supra, it iseasily discernible to the effect that mere non-mentioning of names of witnessesin an inquest report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and furtherinquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence so as to believe the caseof the prosecution and further it is also equally a settled principle of lawthat mere non-mentioning of names of witnesses in the complaint would notmilitate the case of the prosecution and further it is an archaic principle oflaw that in the First Information Report all details of alleged overtacts by theconcerned accused and all details of persons who witnessed the occurrence neednot be minutely stated.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the third attack madeon the side of the appellants/accused goes out without merit.The fourth contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that the specific evidence given by PW2 is that after attacks alleged to havebeen made by all the accused on the person of the deceased, she has fallen downand one Kanaga has given water to her.But the prosecution has not chosen toexamine her and therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with genuinecase and the trial Court has failed to look into the said aspect.It is seen from the evidence given by PW2 to the effect that afterattacks alleged to have been made by all the accused, the deceased has fallendown and immediately one Kanaga has given water to her.But as rightly pointedout on the side of the appellants/accused, the said Kanaga has not been examinedas one of the prosecution witnesses and further no explanation has been givenwith regard to her non-examination.It has already been pointed out that PWs.2 to 4 have given cogent andtrustworthy evidence so as to prove the alleged guilt of the accused punishableunder Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Since in the instantcase the prosecution has adduced evidence in plenitude with regard to motive anddetails of attacks alleged to have been made by all the accused, mere non-examination of the said Kanaga would not affect the case of the prosecution.In Ex.P2 it has been clearly stated that PW12 has reachedthe place of occurrence at about 3.30 pm and before his arrival, the place ofoccurrence has been bestrown and also daubed by using dung water.Since in Ex.It has already been pointed out that PW12, Investigating Officer hasreached the place of occurrence on 19.01.2006 at about 3.30 pm., and in Ex.Therefore, the said contention put forth on the side of theappellants/accused is also sans merit.The seventh contention put forth on the side of theappellants/accused is to the effect that a vital discrepancy has been inexistence with regard to injuries sustained by the deceased betwixt the evidenceof PWs.9 and 10 and the trial Court has failed to look into the same.As pointed out earlier, PW9 who admitted the deceased initially inSakthi hospital has found three injuries on her person.But PW10, the doctor whoconducted autopsy has found six injuries.Simply because a mere discrepancy withregard to number of injuries sustained by the deceased is in existence inbetween the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, the Court cannot reject or eschew theconsistent and cogent evidence given by PWs.2 and 3 for disbelieving the versionof the prosecution.In the instant case, PWs.2 to 4 have cogently and consistently statedin their evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence all the accusedhave attacked the deceased by using deadly weapons indiscriminately.The eighth contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that Ex.Any defect in the preparation of the inquestreport by the investigating officer cannot lead to an inference that the FIR wasnot registered at the alleged time.The FIR contains all the essential featuresof the prosecution's case including names of eyewitnesses, time and place ofincident, names of the victim, motive, name of the accused persons, weapons intheir hands and manner of assault.Thus, all these things lend a seal ofassurance not only to the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of the incident,but also to the participation of the appellants in the crime.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the saidcontention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused are not havingattractive force.The trial Court after considering the overwhelming evidence availablein the present case, has rightly invited conviction and sentence against all theappellants/accused under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and legal premise, thisCourt has not found any acceptable force in the contentions put forth on theside of the appellants/accused and altogether the present Criminal Appeals areliable to be dismissed.In fine, these Criminal Appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly aredismissed.The conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions CaseNo.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track CourtNo.1.The Additional District and Sessions Court/ Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City,3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per prosecution story, it is alleged that the applicant on the basis of false promise of giving job to the complainant party had taken some amount from them thereby committed offence under section 420 & 406 of IPC.The applicant is a lady of 55 years of age who has no criminal antecedents alleged against her.The charge sheet has since been filed.The applicant is Anganwadi Worker and is directly or indirectly not connected with the alleged offence.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dehat, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 302/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 420, 406 of IPC.The applicant has not taken any money from the complainant party.The offence under sections 420 & 406 of IPC are not made out against the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 10/06/2017 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is 2 M.Cr.C. No.6620/2017 made out.The applicant shall appear and mark her attendance before the trial court concerned once every month.

['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.

Sukhnandan responded by shouting - what was the matter? At this, the accused ran away leaving the bleeding and weeping girl behind.Suman was taken home, where she narrated the incident to her mother Savitri Bai (P.W. 2).Savitri Bai applied pads over the bleeding private parts of Suman, Sukhnandan contacted the village patel, arranged for a bullock cart and took Suman to the Police Station Unnai, situated at a distance of 11 Kms.JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J.The accused/appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine.An amount of Rs. 400/-, out of the fine realised, has been directed to be paid as compensation to Suman Bai the prosecutrix.Savitri Bai (P.W. 2) is the widow of Sukhnandan.Suman, who was aged about 9 yearns at the time of the incident, is her daughter.Sukhnandan was alive at the time of the incident, but died during the trial and could not be examined as a witness.Sukhnandan used to run a flour-mill at the outskirts of the village and near the fields.It is alleged that on 26-8-81 at about 5 p.m., Suman went to the flour-mill to relieve her father Sukhnandan so as to enable him taking his meals.Sukhnandan went home, leaving Suman alone at the flour-mill, for keeping a watch.The accused/appellant taking advantage of loneliness approached the innocent girl with an indecent offer, which she naturally declined.The accused/appellant overpowered by his lust, forcibly dragged Suman towards the fields and made her lie down behind the thick bushes of Babool and Chhola.With one hand he kept Suman lying on the ground forcibly and with the other hand he removed the undergarments of Suman as also the undergarments of his own.Then he committed rape on Suman.Suman pierced a cry.She started bleeding profusely.Her cry was heard by Sukhnandan, who had returned to the flour-mill by that time.where Suman lodged the F.I.R., Ex. P/1, at 11.20 p.m.Suman was referred for medical examination.She was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Dipika Chaudhary, Lady Assistant Surgeon at the Female Hospital Datia.She found the girl to be 9 years of age.The sex characters were not developed.Marks of violence were not seen over the body.Labia majora and minor a were not still developed.Fresh blood was oozing out from torn hymen.Vagina admitted only the tip of the little finger with difficulty.On account of pain, Suman did not permit P/V examination.Dr. (Mrs.) Chaudhry could not give a definite opinion about rape by mere clinical examination.However, she prepared slide of the vaqinal swab, also seized the underwear and pads of the victim and delivered them to the Police, after sealing them, for chemical examination.The Chemical Examiner in his report, dt. 31-12-1981 (Ex. P/7) confirmed the presence of blood on the slide, underwear and pads, but seminal stains and spermotozoa could not be detected over them.The Serologist also confirmed the presence of human blood on the underwear and pads.He was promptly referred for medical examination.But nothing incriminating could be found on his person, though he was found sexually capable.Needless to say that by the time the accused was medically examined, about one and a half month had elapsed from the date of the incident.On completion of usual investigation, the accused/appellant was challaned and charged under Section 376, I.P.C. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court expressed dissatisfaction at the manner in which Dr. (Mrs.) Chaudhry had examined the victim of rape.Further, B. S. Sahi, Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the F.I.R., was examined as P. W. 6, and he stated in so many words that F.I.R., Ex. P/1; was recorded at the instance of Suman and bore her thumb mark.This witness was left totally uncross- examined.If only, the father of the prosecutrix, who unfortunately died before he could be examined at the trial, would only have been available, the little ambiguity introduced by the defence, would have been removed without any difficulty.In a charge for murder, the husband and brother of one Mst.She was weeping.The appeal Is dismissed.

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

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

Heard on I.A.No.21405/18 application for removing default.This application has been filed for removing the default regarding maintainability of the appeal as in the memo of appeal there is no averment whether the appellant is on bail or in jail.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has surrendered before the trial Court on 5.12.2018 and since then he is in custody.Hence, the default as pointed out by the Registry may be removed.Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, without going into any technicalities and looking to the object of the provision, as the appellant has surrendered, the default as pointed out by the office is considered to be rectified.Also Heard on I.A.No.19986/18 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.The appeal is barred by 16 days.For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed.Delay in filing this appeal is condoned.The Record of the court below be called for.Also heard on I.A.No.20085/2018 which is an application filed by the appellants under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 56/2018 convicting the appellant under Section 354 in alternate 354(A) of the IPC in alternate Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 354(D) of IPC in alternate 11(iv)/12 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-, for with default stipulations .There is a fair chance to succeed in the case.The disposal of this appeal will take time.At present the appellant is in custody.In the circumstances, if the appellant's sentence is not suspended, his right to appeal will be futile.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned G.A. has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Looking to the short period of sentence and other facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that subject of payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of appellant Shubham @ Shivam Karainaar shall remain suspended till further orders and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 26.3.2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned trial Court.IA stands disposed of.List the case for admission after receipt of the record.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vj Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 13/12/2018 17:02:47

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that information was received at Police Post Bawana from Police Station Narela that a quarrel was going on at Chowk Bawana.Sub Inspector Mahipal Singh, along with members of his police force, went to Bawana Chowk and was informed that injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital.SI Mahipal Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital.He obtained the medico legal reports of Jagan Singh, Khazan Singh besides Zile Singh deceased.Khazan Singh had been declared fit to make statement.In his statement, recorded by SI Mahipal Singh, he had deposed that on 6.4.1983 at 7.00 p.m. he was present in front of his house.His brother Jagan Singh was employed in Delhi Police.He saw him coming down from bus from Bawana Chowk.Respondents Rajbir, Ramesh and Hanumant Singh were sitting on the roof of their house opposite his house.They started abusing his brother.Rajbir Singh respondent exhorted that they be caught hold of and finished so that they are not able to attend the court case fixed on the next day.The brother of the complainant kept quite.Thereafter, the injured complained that he, his son and Jagan Singh went to the roof at first floor of his house.They heard the noise "Pakad Lo Salon Ko Bhagane Na Payen".In the mean time Rajbir Singh, Ramesh, Hanumat, Rajesh, Jaggu, Anand and Satbir Singh, who were armed with Knives, climbed up the stairs of his house and attcked.Zile Singh received injuries.JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.Respondents had been tried by the learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi with respect to offences punishable under Sections 174/148/149/452/325/326/307/34 Indian Penal Code.The State against the judgment of acquittal, referred to above, and also condensation of delay in filing the same.When the complainant and Jagan Singh tried to save Zile Singh, accused Hoshiar Singh gave pharsa blow on the left hand of Jagan Singh while Ram Mehar gave pharsa blow on the head of Jagan Singh.Dhani Ram and Ami Chand gave jellies blow on his left hand and leg and thereafter, Azad Singh, Jahan Singh and Khazan Singh gave lathi blows to him and Jagan Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Hanumat, Rajbir and Ramesh exhorted that they should be finished so that they are not able to see towards the plot in future.Respondents also pelted stones on them.Balram besides Singh and Hari Singh came to save them.On basis of this statement, which was bearing the endorsement of SI Mahipal Singh, formal First Information Report was registered.SI Mahipal Singh prepared the site plan.Certain bricks bats were picked up from the roof of the house and were kept in a gunny bag.From the road side, the blood was lifted and sealed in accordance with law.Blood was also lifted from the roof.They were all converted into different sealed parcels and taken into possession vide different recovery memos.Zile Singh and succumbed to his injuries at Hindu Rao Hospital.Injuries on the person of Khazan Singh and Jagan were opined to be grievours.The death of Zile Sing was opined to be due to shock following injuries on his chest and abodomen.During investigation, one pant, one bushirt of Zile Singh were taken into possession and sealed in a parcel with the seal of HRH.It was taken into possession vide recovery memo.Blood stained uniform of Jagan Singh was sealed with the seal of HRH.Similarly, one blood stained Dhoti of Khazan Singh was taken into possession after converting that into a parcel and sealing with the seal of HRH, vide recovery memo.Blood samples of Jagan Singh and Khazan Singh were also taken by the doctor in the hospital.It was on these broad facts that report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was failed.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Separate charge under Section 302/34 IPC was also framed against Rajbir Singh and Hanumant Singh.M.189/2001 seeking leave to file appeal is rejected.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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)P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Kamala.The accused is the brother ofthe deceased.They are the residents of Velanoor.In respect of an enjoyment ofporamboke land, there has been all along quarrel and tussle between the accusedand the deceased.P.W.1 was actually employed in Madras.During the relevanttime, he came to his native place and on the date of occurrence, he wasavailable in his native place.b)On 31.5.2003 at about 4.15 p.m., P.W.1 and his mother had travelled in amini bus to Keelakarai and in the same bus, the accused was also travelling andthey were sitting apart.When the bus was nearing the house of one Selvakumar,the accused suddenly sprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked herindiscriminately and she died instantaneously inside the bus itself.Immediately, the accused got down from the bus and ran away.c)P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gaveEx.P.1, the report to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 17.30 hourson 31.5.2003, on the basis of which, a case came to be registered by therespondent police in Crime No.191 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC.Ex.P.12, theFIR was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.d)P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, tookup the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar andEx.P.14, the rough sketch.He recovered material objects from the place ofoccurrence under a cover of mahazar.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Ramanathapuram made in S.C.No.39 of 2004, the sole accused/appellant, on beingfound guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months RI, has brought forth thiscriminal appeal.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are asfollows:Then, he conducted inquest on the dead bodyof the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and preparedEx.P.13, the inquest report.Following the same, the dead body of the deceasedwas sent to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai for the purpose of autopsy alongwith a requisition.e)P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to spinal cord andinjury to major blood vessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.He filed an application for policecustody and the same was ordered.On 14.6.2003, the accused voluntarily gave aconfessional statement, which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, theaccused produced M.O.1 aruval, which was recovered in the presence of thewitnesses under a cover of mahazar.All the M.Os recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the material object recoveredfrom the accused pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in tworeports.P.6 is the Chemical Examiner's report and Ex.P.7 is the Serologist'sreport.g)P.W.18, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation of thecase.On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before theCourt.3.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has marched18 witnesses and relied on 14 exhibits and 9 M.Os.On completion of the evidenceon the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned procedurally underSection 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstance found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took aview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and foundthe accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, which isthe subject matter of challenging before this Court.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counselwould submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on directevidence of 6 witnesses, which according to the prosecution are theeyewitnesses, out of 6 eyewitnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 have turned hostile; that theonly evidence available for the prosecution was the evidence of P.W.1; thatinsofar as P.W.1 was concerned, he is none else than the son of the deceased;that when the test of careful scrutiny was applied, his evidence did not standthe test; that the lower court has accepted the test, which was thoroughly indeviation of the prosecution case; that the occurrence has taken place in arunning bus; and that if to be so, at least one of the independent witnesseswould have come forward to speak the prosecution case, but all of them haveturned hostile, which would clearly indicate that they have not witnessed theoccurrence and they have been added as witnesses by the Investigator in order tomake believe the case.7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentionsand the Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest conducted by the Investigator, the dead body of thedeceased was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor.He has issuedEx.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of injury to spinal cord and injury to major bloodvessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.The fact that she died out ofhomicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant/accused at any stage ofproceedings and hence, it has got to be safely recorded so.It is true, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and itcannot by itself be the reason to discard his testimony, since it stood the testof careful scrutiny.P.W.1 wastravelling in the bus, in which both the deceased and the accused were alsotravelling.When the bus nearing the place of occurrence, the accused suddenlysprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked her and caused her death.Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and a case came tobe registered within a short span of time.The FIR has also reached theJudicial Magistrate concerned within a reasonable time and thus, he has spokenthe act of the accused in a clear and candid manner and his evidence hasinspired the confidence of the Court.Yet another circumstance is therecovery of M.O.1 aruval, pursuant to the confessional statement.The witnesswas examined to that effect.10.Coming to the question of nature of the act of the accused, the Courtis of the considered opinion that the contentions of the learned counsel for theappellant has got to be discountenanced.It is true, there was a poramboke landand there was a rival claim and tussle between the accused and the deceased asto the enjoyment of the same.The learned counsel took the court to the part ofthe confessional statement to state that the deceased was in practice of abusingthe accused and that was the reason for provocation.A reading of theconfessional statement, which was relied on by the prosecution and accepted bythe lower court, would indicate that the deceased was in practice of abusing theaccused.The object of the accused at that time was to do away the deceased, sothat he can enjoy the land and not because of provocation he has acted, sincethe deceased abused him.Thus, there is distinction between both of them.Therewas neither quarrel nor provocation, which was sudden as expected one in law.Apart from that, in order to attract the sudden provocation, the accused shouldnot take undue advantage of the situation.In the instant case, the deceased wasa womenfolk and when she was travelling in the minibus unarmed, the accusedsuddenly sprang on her and attacked her with aruval and thus, he has taken undueadvantage of the situation.Hence, no question of applying sudden provocationwould arise as one envisaged in the exceptions to S.300 IPC.Hence, the act ofthe accused should be termed as murder.The lower court was perfectly correct infinding the accused guilty Under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonmentand nothing requires for interference either factually or legally.11.In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, Kilakkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['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.

354 and 376 of IPC.As per the prosecution story before the learned Trial Court in brief was that, on 09.02.2013 the prosecutrix with her two year old daughter, Poonam was sleeping at her home at village, Vasantpura.Her husband had gone to other city for earning.In the night, Veersingh was standing in her courtyard.On being asked why he has come to her house the accused embraced her and shut her mouth and committed rape.After commission of the act, the accused ran away from her house.On the following day she reported this to her brother-in-law (Jeth).She went to the Police Station Raun, District Bhind to lodge report.On the basis of her report Crime No.27/2013 under Section 456 and 354 of IPC has been registered.On 15.02.2013 she filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhind about the commission of rape.Therefore, Section 376 of IPC was added.completing investigation charge-sheet was filed.After committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges and after adducing the evidence M.Cr.C. No.1961/2014 pronounced the impugned judgment.We have given our thoughtful consideration.The prosecutrix is a married woman of 22 years.The medical officer (PW-7) has submitted the report Ex-P3, after examining the prosecutrix.No internal and external injury has been found on the body of the prosecutrix.There has been some enmity between the complainant and the accused.The defense witnesses have deposed that 10,000/- and two bags of Bazraa was given to Banwari the husband of the prosecutrix by the accused.This version has been admitted by PW-4, the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix.This gave rise to a valid and reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.No injury on the body of the prosecutrix, the previous enmity and contradictions and omissions brought on record has been clearly discussed by the learned Trial Court.The learned Trial Court has also given the cogent reasons for its decision.That being so, we decline to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court.Hence, petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.

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

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

According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Civil Appeal No.67 of 2018, dated 08.01.2018, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs.13049 of 2019A2(1)/10/306/2018 dated 27.11.2018 and quash the same and to give appointment to the petitioner in Reg.The writ petitioner has completed the decree and participated in the selection process to the post of Grade-II Police in the year 2018 and has attended the physical test and written examination and also participated in the oral test.The petitioner was selected for the post of Grade-II Police, but the first respondent sent a letter in his proceedings No.C.NO.A2(1)/10/306/2018, dated 27.11.2018 informed thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 petitioner that he was not selected the post of Grade-II Police since the petitioner involved in a criminal case.In the aforesaid criminal case in C.C.No.148 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhungar, passed a Judgment by acquitting the petitioner from the aforesaid criminal case and now no criminal case is pending against the petitioner.But, the second respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner and passed the impugned order in C.NO.A2(1)/10/306/2018, dated 27.11.2018 without any justification and the said order is liable to be quashed.The Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the following decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.1. 2008 (2) MLJ 1203 (Full Bench) Manikandan Vs.Chairman, TNUSRB2. 2014(2) CTC 337 (Larger bench) Alex Ponseelan Vs.DGP, Chennai.2015(2)SCC 377 Joginder Singh Vs.Union Territory of Chadigarh.4. 2016(8) SCC 471(Larger bench of Supreme Court) in Avatar Singh and Others Vs.C.A. No.67 of 2018 – Union Territory of Chandigar Vs.Pradeep Kumar.6. 2018(6) CTC 659 – State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.Abhijit Singh Pawar.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 “(3).In this connection, it is submitted that, at present, the above said candidate was involved in Pandalkudi P.S., Cr.P.C on 15.11.2014 at 04.00 hrs he was taken custody for Preventive Arrest and the same was action dropped by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pandalkudi P.S. After completion of enquiry, he was released on the same day.(4).The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station and the Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station had stated in their reports, dated 13.06.2019 that no criminal case is registered against Tr.T. Iyyappadoss.The Inspectors of Police, Special Branch, Virudhunagar submitted a report, dated 16.06.2019 that Tr.Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order, dated 27.11.2018 in C.No.A22(1)/10/306/2018 and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh.The 2nd respondent/Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar is directed to re-consider the appointment orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, within a period of three (3) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.No Costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.24.06.2019 ksa Index : Yes / No Internet: yes / No1.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee Chengaalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Virudhunagar.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J., ksa WP(MD).No.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case are as follows :The complainant, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance.JUDGMENT Karpagavinayagam, J.This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused, Krishnamurthy, against the judgment dated March 30, 1992, C.A. No. 36 of 1991 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, by his judgment dated February 22, 1991, in C.C. No. 288 of 1989 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").The respondent, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance.He filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, who in turn acquitted the accused of the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but convicted him for the offences under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Aggrieved over this judgment, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal in C.A. No. 36 of 1991, on the file of the IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Salem.The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused and while dismissing the appeal observed that as the accused is entitled to the benefit of remission as per G.O.Ms.No. 279, dated February 23, 1992, he need not undergo the said imprisonment of six months.Without satisfying the judgment of the first appellate court, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner in this court.The accused/petitioner used to get loans along with his father from the said finance company.The loans obtained by the accused/petitioner, of Rs. 62,000 dated March 20, 1985, Rs. 10,500 dated April 8, 1985, Rs. 9,000 dated May 5, 1986, Rs. 10,500 dated July 16, 1986, Rs. 30,000 dated March 29, 1988, and Rs. 20,000 dated December 2, 1987, totalling about Rs. 1,42,000 have not been settled by him.Part interest due on the above principal has also not been paid by the accused.When the complainant insisted the accused for settlement of the above loans, the petitioner assured that he would discharge the entire amount by one stroke on or before April 15, 1989, after disposing of his landed properties.On April 22, 1989, both the parties arrived at a settlement for the total principal due to the tune of Rs. 1,22,000 and the loan of Rs. 20,000 dated December 2, 1987, was given up.For the said amount interest was calculated at 18 per cent.On the same day, the accused assured that he would pay the said amount by way of cheque the next day, since he has already sold his landed properties.The next day, i.e., on April 23, 1989, the accused came and presented a cheque drawn on the State Bank of India, for Rs. 1,66,360, to the complainant, stating that already the said amount was deposited in the bank and if the cheque is presented, it would be honoured immediately.He requested the complainant to hand over the pronotes executed by him on different dates, in respect of the various loans referred to above.When the cheque was presented on the next day, i.e., on April 24, 1989, for encashment, to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the same was dishonoured, as "refer to drawer" for want of sufficient funds.Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated May 8, 1989, to the accused demanding payment of the amount mentioned in the dishonoured cheque, within fifteen days from the date of notice.The accused/petitioner sent a reply stating that he never obtained any loan whatever from the complainant and that he never issued any cheque as his cheque book as well as pass book were lost and that the complainant has misused the same against the petitioner.On receipt of such a reply, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Act.After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate dealt with the petitioner/accused as stated earlier, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court.Hence, the revision.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant Sadhoo alias Sadhuram having been convicted by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 80/91 deciding the charges against him on 27-6-1992 and convicted for committing offence Under Sections 376(2)(f), 366A and 363, Indian Penal Code, whereunder sentenced for 10 years, 5 years and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively, has approached this Court by means of the present appeal which is being decided on merit after hearing learned counsel for the State and the accused who is present in person before this Court.Though the accused was represented through a Lawyer but was not granted bail.This Court on 1-11-1996 when the case was posted for hearing passed an order to the effect that none present for the appellant when the case was called for in the second round and directed for issuance of production warrant of the appellant of a date for hearing of this case in the presence of the appellant.The appellant is brought in person before this Court.It needs to be mentioned here that the learned State counsel Shri S. K. Gangrade, Panel Lawyer, was very fair in properly assisting the Court specially in the circumstances of the present case where the accused is the persontieither conversant with the legal position nor record, of his case.The sentences awarded to the accused/appellant Under Sections 363, 366A and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, were made to run concurrently.The prosecution case in brief is that on 17th February, 1991 Ku.Anita aged 11 years daughter of Ram Prasad (PW 2) at about 8.30 P.M. went to attend the marriage in the locality and while way back to her home at about 9.00 P.M. the accused who met her tried to catch hold her, who tried to rush towards her home but the accused who caught hold her took to the field and thereafter to a dilapidated house of guard-line and committed rape on her but her cry could not attract any body.Accused thereafter took her to a newly constructed house near the railway station where also he committed rape twice on her.P.14 dated 18-2-1991 is the report of missing of Ku.Anita (Gumsuddi report).FIR was recorded on 18-2-1991 (Ex.P.4) which was recorded by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Kotwali Damoh at about 7.45 P.M. Accused was arrested on 19-2-1991 by P.W. 7 the investigating officer.In his statement in para 3 he stated date as 20-2-1991 which apparently seems to be a typographical error and has no adverse impact on the prosecution case.Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.The prosecutrix was examined by Doctor Chanda Jain (PW. 9) and the medical report is Ex.P.5-A. The accused/appellant was examined by Dr. K. K. Sachdeo (P.W.8) and the medical report is Ex.The defence was that of denial and false implication in the crime.The defence did not examine any witness.Heard learned counsel for the State and also the accused who is present in person before the Court and has been given adequate opportunity though being illiterate is not of any assistance to the Court.Double burden rested on the State counsel which- he succeeded in discharging fairly.The basic question regarding all the three charges against the accused hinges upon the identification of the accused which is an independent factor.Narayan Singh the Naib Tahsildar (PW. 3) who conducted the identification parade stated in his statement that in the identification parade 9 persons were mixed who were made to stand in a line, and were covered by blanket upto their neck and were of same height.The prosecutrix Ku.Anita rightly identified the accused by placing her hand on him.Identification memo which is Ex.P.1 which contains his signature as well as the signature of the prosecutrix, was prepared by him.In the cross-examination he was put the question regarding showing of the accused to the prosecutrix at the police station and he denied the same, and also denied the fact that the police people went inside the jail and the accused was singly called in the jail to the spot of identification.So far as the statement of this witness is concerned it deals with the identification that identification parade was conducted by him and that the identification was proper.So far as the question of showing the accused in jail is concerned, though this witness is not the proper witness for that purpose as his scope of confinement is limited to the identification parade.He denied the facts that the prosecutrix told him that the accused was shown to her several times at the police station and also denied the fact that the police people were inside the jail.Nothing much could come out from his statement on this aspect of the matter.Though the prosecutrix in court rightly identified the accused but what is relevant for consideration is the statement of the prosecutrix herself made before the court who before the court made statement that during the identification parade she correctly identified the accused and in cross-examination (para 7) she admitted that after lodging the FIR she went to the police station continuously for 3 or 4 days.According to her on Tuesday the accused was arrested who was shown to her at the police station.She also admitted that the accused was got identified to her at the police station and at the police station one person wearing white clothes asked her for identifying the accused person, who was shown at the police station.This statement itself creates a serious doubt to the very reliability of the identification and thereby fixation of the person as to who committed the offence in question.No doubt identification in the court is substantive but the same requires corroboration by test identification parade and the Court identification needs to be careful to be acted upon and for that it is always safe to have corroboration from identification parade.In the present case, the question of corroboration does not arise in view of the statement of the prosecutrix herself as she has stated in her cross-examination that the accused person was shown to her before the identification parade was held and she was told to identify the accused and as such it becomes a case left with mere identification in the court at the time of trial for the first time and such an evidence being of feeble character cannot be reliable so to hold that it has been corroborated by the test identification parade as it could not be held to be identification parade being in proper perspective and is worth not placing reliance.It under the facts and circumstances creates grave doubt as to the very question regarding involvement of the present accused in the crime and as a result thereof the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.Though in view of this it is not necessary to dilate on other points, which very much exists in the present case as the case suffers from all round infirmities, regarding the age of the girl who was student of class IV and no school leaving certificate having been produced in the court in proof of age.The medical evidence of the doctor P.W. 9 is also not worth being placed reliance.The aspersions made by the trial Court against Dr. Smt. Jain in regard to non proper conduction of the medical examination as well as against the prosecution agency are well founded.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 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.15 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.67 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.15 of 2019 and file a 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 petition is closed.27.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arb ToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.67 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.arb Crl.O.P.No.67 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2020 27.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7

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

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

JUDGMENT Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed by Baldev Singh who is one of the complainants in the case registered vide Fir No. 441 of 1987 under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code .The prosecution version in brief is that all the accused persons namely, Durga Prasad, Faqir Chand, Jagdish alias Kalia, Nirmal Sinah alias Gauria, Hira Lal had picked up and dragged Bhagwant Singh inside the katra and struck him with bricks.It is alleged that Ram Swarup and Hira Lal pinned him down on the ground while Jagdish hit him with a brick and Durga Prasad and Faqira climbed up the roof of the house shouting that Bhagwent Singh be finished and thereafter accused Faqira and Durga Prasad threw the brick wall on Bhagvvaiit Singh who succumbed to his infuries.A charpoi is also stated to have been hit on Bhagwant Singh's chest.Bhagwant Singh is stated to have suffered 15 injuries on his person.(2) Faqir Chand and Durga Prasiid during the investigation have proved bail applications in the Court of Sessions.The same were rejected vide order dated November 2, 19S7 and November 7, 1987 respectively Durga Prasad thereafter moved an application for grant of bail in High Court which was registered as Cril.Misc (M) 762 of 1988 and which came to be dismissed on .July 4. 1988 on merits.1988 through In's wife Shaino Devi before the trial Court as in the meanwhile the case has been committed for trial to the Sessions.It is alleged that the application Faqii Chand was moved by Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate and the application moved on behalf of the Durga Prasad by his wife was moved by Shri Ajay Kumar and who are juniors to Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate, Vide order dated August 4, 1988 line Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Durga Prasad and vide order dated July 18, 1988 the same Court granted bail to Faqir Chand.It has been pleaded that no fresh grounds have been mentioned in the bail application which could entitled them to get bail from the Additional Sessions Judge.It has been strongly urged that a fraud has been practiced on the trial Court by not disclosing in the bail applica''ions of Faqir Chand and Durga Prasad that their previous bail applications have been dismissed on merits and the application of Durga Prasad had also been dismissed by the High Court.The complainant had moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge also pointing out these facts seeking the order for cancelling the bail of the said two accused but the Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated September 7, 1988 had dismissed the application although he had mentioned in the order that if the accused bad disclosed in the application regarding dismissal of their applications on merits earlier, lie might have exercised his discretion in a different way but he, following the judgment of the High Court in K. K. Girdhar Vs.M.S. Kafhuria 35(1988), D.L.T. 392(1) dismissed the application.In the cited case.He has urged that there has been no fraud practiced on the Court by mere omission to mention the fate of the earlier bail applications in the fresh application for bail.(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has vehemently argued that by not disclosing the material facts.in the bail application that the previous bail applications has been dismissed on merits, a fraud has been practiced and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge also show's that if the material fact has been disclosed in the new bail applications.One bail application after another can be moved on behalf of the accused for seeking bail.The question which has arisen in the present case is whether on the mere fact that in a fresh application for bail the material fact of previous bail application having been rejected on merits is concluded amounts lo playing fraud on the Court or amounts to abuse of the process of Court if bail is granted on such application without coming to know about the previous application for grant of bail having been dismissed on merits by the High Court or even by the Sessions Court earlier.In case Babu Singh (supra) the only ratio laid down is that repeated applications for bail can be moved by the accused or on behalf of the accused.Counsel for the respondent has also cited Bhagirath singh Judeja Vs.State of Gujarat Facts in brief in the cited case were that an application for bail was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and on the same day an application was moved for hail before the Sessions Judge.The Sessions Judge granted bail.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Pankaj D.Kavale, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.rejection of first application bearing No.2420 of 20126 vide orderdated 06/12/2017 by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::attention to the Order dated 28/12/2017 passed below Exhibit 22thereby granting bail to co-accused Ilyas Abdul Jabber Choudhariand argued that this accused person has actually received thediesel stolen by the accused persons.He is granted bail by thelearned trial Court.The learned Counsel further drew myattention to the Order dated 28/11/2018 passed in Criminal BailApplication No.1175 of 2017 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court(Coram : Prakash D. Naik, J) and argued that co-accused TayyabMansoor Shaikh, who has installed the electric motor for stealingthe diesel, is granted bail.With this, the learned Counsel arguedthat as the co-accused are released on bail, the applicant is alsoentitled to be released on bail.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed theapplication by contending that co-accused Tayyab Mansoor Shaikhis granted bail on the premises that he was working as a plumberand had installed the electric motor as per the duty assigned tohim.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued thatanother accused Ilyas Abdul Jabber Choudhari, who is released onbail by the learned trial Court was accused of receiving the stolenproperty, whereas according to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the present applicant was in-charge of laying down thepipeline illegally for stealing diesel from the supply main of thePetroleum Company and while doing so, he convinced theGaikwad RD 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 ::: (1)BANo.17482018.docwitnesses examined by the prosecution not to oppose the work oflaying down underground pipeline, which was meant for stealingthe diesel in huge quantity from the supply main of the PetroleumCompany.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::4 I have considered the submissions so advanced.6 However, the trial Court is directed to expedite thetrial and to finish it of as early as possible and in any case within aperiod of two years from the date of receipt of this of this Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.02.2019 as well as summoning order dated 01.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 1063 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2019, under Sections 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar.It is also submitted that as per the provisions of explanation clause of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case, a report made by police officer in a case, which discloses, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence, shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer, by whom such report is made, shall be deemed to be complainant.P.C. and thereafter his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.With the reasons mentioned above, the order of the Magistrate is only required to be modified and not to be quashed as a whole.The application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed partly for treating the charge-sheet as complaint."The application is, accordingly, allowed.

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

She was medically examined.Present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecutrix / petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge vide orders dated 17.07.2014 and 12.08.2014 in case FIR No.290/2014 registered under Sections 323/341/342/354/354B/376/506 IPC at PS Harsh Vihar.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.The respondent No.2 moved an application Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 1 of 3 for anticipatory bail.Vide order dated 17.07.2014, observing that there were no allegations of commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and other offences were bailable in nature, anticipatory bail was granted.Subsequently, after about 24 days on 05.08.2014, the victim recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she levelled allegations of rape, molestation, insertion of finger in the vagina.Sections 376/354B IPC were added in the FIR.It prompted the respondent No.2 to seek anticipatory bail under those offences.Vide order dated 12.08.2014 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.Aggrieved by the said orders, the instant petition has been filed for cancellation of bail.M.C. 146/2015 Page 1 of 3Admittedly, the prosecutrix and the respondent No.2 are related to each other.There appears to be a property dispute between the parties.In the alleged history, she did not complain about any sexual assault.It is relevant to note that she was accompanied to the hospital by an NGO lady Paramjeet Kaur.After the respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.07.2014 in which it was observed that there were no allegations of offence under Section 354 IPC, after an inordinate delay, the prosecutrix recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she made vital improvements and introduced a new story levelling allegations of sexual assault.No medical examination was conducted thereafter.Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed.There are no allegations if after the grant of anticipatory bail the respondent No.2 ever Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 2 of 3 misused the liberty.The impugned order dated 12.08.2014 was passed in the presence of the complainant's counsel.The petitioner being duly educated is not expected to omit levelling charge of rape at first instance.M.C. 146/2015 Page 2 of 3Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no sufficient reasons / grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the Court below.The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 21, 2016 / tr Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 3 of 3M.C. 146/2015 Page 3 of 3

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. W.P.(C) No.1694/2011 impugns the order dated 25.11.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), Principal Bench allowing the OA No.164/2010 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the respondent and directing the petitioner Delhi Police to appoint the respondent to the post of Head Constable along with others of the batch for which he had competed, without however giving him the benefit of back wages but entitling him to seniority from the date the person immediately below him in the merit list of Constables for the selection of the year 2006 was appointed.Since the issue involved in all the three petitions is the same, we heard the same together and are disposing of all the three petitions by this common judgment.The respondent in W.P.(C) No.1694/2011 had in pursuance to the recruitment in the year 2006 to the post of Constable in Delhi Police applied in the OBC category and cleared the Physical Endurance and Measurement WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 3 of 13 Test, Written Test, Interview and Medical Test and was declared provisionally selected subject to the verification of his character and antecedents.The said verification revealed, that he was involved in FIR No.131/99 under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and FIR No.145/2004 under Sections 147, 323 and 451 of the IPC; that he was vide judgment dated 17.03.2001 acquitted in the criminal case in FIR No.131/1999 by giving him benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; that in criminal case in FIR No.145/2004 also, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 01.12.2006 pursuant to a compromise and giving him benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and clarifying that the same would not have any adverse effect on the respondent.The respondent though had not disclosed the aforesaid criminal cases in the application form but in the attestation form meant for verification of character had made disclosure thereof.The petitioner Delhi Police however after giving a notice to show cause and considering his reply thereto, cancelled the candidature of the respondent.The representation of the respondent also did not find favour.The respondent thereafter filed O.A. No.2083/2008 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.04.2009 directing Delhi Police to reconsider the eligibility of the respondent.Ajit Singh S/o Sh.Ramjilal R/o Jogawar PS Mundawar, Distt.Alwar (Raj.) reported that on the morning of 26.07.2004 at about 5-6 A.M. he along with his father Sh.Ramjilal, mother Smt. Servo, wife Manju, Lekhram and Lekhram's wife Munesh were in their house.While his mother Servo was churning buttermilk, Sube Singh, Kanwar Singh, Sanwal S/o Kunjaram, Dharamveer S/o Sube Singh and their wives attacked them with cane sticks and halberds (Pharsa) and inured all of them.Kanwar Singh and Sube Singh were equipped with halberd while rest were equipped with cane sticks.Sube Singh attacked him with halberd on his back.They vandalized the household articles and robbed `40,000/- cash, gold chain of his wife Manju, gold earring of Munesh.Notice of the writ petition was issued and vide interim order dated 06.04.2011, the operation of the order of the Tribunal stayed.2. W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 impugns the orders dated 19.03.2010, 27.07.2010 and 16.05.2011 of the Tribunal dismissing the OA No.2372/2009 preferred by the respondent therein impugning the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 2 of 13 and dismissing the review applications filed by the petitioner.Rule was issued of the said petition also.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 2 of 13Delhi WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 4 of 13 Police however vide order dated 17.06.2009 found the respondent unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police where safeguarding the human right is the utmost priority, giving the following reasons:WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 3 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 4 of 13On hearing the noise, the neighbours gathered and intervened.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 5 of 13In Second case FIR No.131/99, PS Mundawar Sh.Ramji Lal S/o Sh.Laxman R/o Jogawar, PS Mundawar, Distt.Alwar (Raj.) reported that he had a hut (chhappar) in the village in which he had stored "Tura" & "Wheat".On 03.05.99 at about 4:00 PM Sube Singh, Lal Singh, Kanwar Singh S/o Kunja Ram, Rakesh S/o Sube Singh, Dharamveer S/o Sube Singh, Sudesh D/o Lal Singh, Dhamali D/o Sube Singh, Chiriya W/o Sube Singh and Gidoari W/o Kunja Ram came there and broke his hut with the help of wood sticks and halberd.They also stole the wheat, tura and other materials forcibly.When he, his family and other villagers objected to it, they threatened them for dire consequences.Accordingly the case was registered U/s 454/380 IPC.During course of trial the court charged them U/s 147/323 IPC and the accused persons pleaded their guilt.Charges U/s 147/323 IPC were proved against them and the Court fined `100/- each on the five accused persons.Keeping in view the above circumstances, it has been established that you were involved in two criminal cases and played an active role in these cases.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 6 of 13From the facts as explained above, it shows that you are of the habit of picking up quarrel and resorting to violence.This type of attitude renders you unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police where safeguarding the human right is the utmost priority.As such, you have again been found not suitable for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and your application is considered and rejected."The said order was impugned in O.A. No.164/2010 (supra).The Tribunal however in view of the acquittal in the criminal cases with clarification that the probation would not adversely affect the respondent held such rejection to be bad and directed Delhi Police to appoint the respondent therein.The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 had also applied for the post of Constable in Delhi Police in the recruitment of the year 2008; he also cleared all the tests and was provisionally selected but on verification was found to have been involved in case FIR No.134/2003 under Section 3/6 of WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 7 of 13 the Public Examination Act and was convicted with a fine of `1,000/- and given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. On such revelation, his candidature was also cancelled.The Tribunal dismissed his challenge holding that he has to suffer for the consequences of his conviction and the conclusion reached by the Delhi Police of his being unfit for service could not be questioned.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 7 of 13The respondent in W.P.(C) No.7811/2011 had also applied during the recruitment of the year 2009 for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and was provisionally selected; however verification of his antecedents revealed that he was involved in criminal case FIR No.115/2007 dated 16.07.2007 under Sections 341/294/506/34 IPC in which he was convicted but released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act for the reason of his being a student and under 21 years of age.His candidature was also cancelled after hearing him.The Tribunal set aside the said order relying inter alia on Commissioner of Police Vs.Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 and accordingly directed his appointment.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 8 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 8 of 13We have recently had occasion to deal with the questions as raised in these petitions in our judgment dated 16.11.2011 in W.P.(C) No.8752/2011 titled Vinod Kumar Vs.Commissioner of Police and judgment dated 20.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6518/2011 titled Commissioner of Police Vs.Ranvir Singh.Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 is dismissed and the petitioner therein not found entitled to employment.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 11 of 13Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.7811/2011 is dismissed and the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Tribunal directing the Delhi Police to appoint the WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 12 of 13 respondent therein is upheld and the petitioner Delhi Police is directed to now comply with the said order within six weeks.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 12 of 13No order as to costs.RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 15, 2012 'gsr' WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 13 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 13 of 13

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the said order the present revisional application is filed with a prayer for setting aside the said order and to pass necessary order as it thinks fit and proper.Learned Advocate Mr. D. Roy Chowdhury assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Jayanta Dutta argued as follows:-In the petition of complaint filed before the learned Magistrate transpired the allegation under Section 498A/506(II)/427/120B/34 I.P.C. and as a result the cognizance was taken and the matter was transferred to the learned J.M. for trial.

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 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.

The writ petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, supplying products to Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML), which is an establishment under the Ministry of Defence, Union of India.The 4th respondent is a registered Trade Union of the petitioner Company and respondents 5 to 12 are the previous and present Office Bearers of the 4th respondent Union.According to the writ petitioner, there has been some industrial dispute between the Management and the Union and the same is pending.The Union office bearers and other members went on strike from 15.11.2007, which according to the petitioner is illegal, since there was no proper notice given and it was in violation of the wage settlement.5(a).Since there were no effective steps taken by respondents 1 to 3, the writ petitioner has filed O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Hosur for permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent and its members from obstructing and preventing the ingress and egress of men and materials from and to the factory and from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 300 meters from the petitioner's factory.5(b).When the matter came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to find out the actual position of the case.On 07.12.2007, the learned Government Advocate, on oral instructions from the second respondent has submitted that in the writ petitioner's factory there has been a dispute between the Management and its employees regarding the status of alleged temporary workers.It was also submitted that in the Campus of the factory one Sub-Inspector of Police and five Police Constables were posted round-the-clock to give protection.He also submitted that en route the place of manufacture and supply, 20 Policemen were posted for the purpose of giving protection.He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made by respondents 1 to 3 to the writ petitioner to move the materials from the factory twice a week and in such an event, the petitioner Management can give an advance information to the second respondent, so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and maintain law and order.The said submission made by the learned Government Advocate was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the second respondent to give police protection in the above terms as and when the petitioner gives advance information.Today, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Government Advocate on oral instructions from the second respondent viz. Mrs.Shyamala Devi would submit that in respect of the petitioner's factory, there has been some dispute between the factory and the employees/workmen, regarding the workmen having been changed.It is also further submitted, on instructions, within the campus of the factory one Sub Inspector of Police and 5 police constables have been posted to give protection round the clock.He would also submit that enroute to the place of manufacture and supply, 20 policemen are posted for the purpose of giving protection.He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made to the petitioner, to move the materials twice a week and in such event, the petitioner-Management can give advance information to the second respondent so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and to maintain law and order.The above submission made by the learned Government Advocate is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to give police protection on the above terms as and when the petitioner gives an advance information.No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed."Considering the genuineness of the claim made by respondents 4 to 12 in the writ petition, who have received the notice about the writ petition only on 08.12.2007, this Court by order dated 21.01.2008, has directed the respondents 4 to 12 to file counter affidavit in the main writ petition and also directed the main writ petition to be posted for counter.The counter has been filed by respondents 4 to 12 and both the Miscellaneous Petition and the main writ petition were heard together.The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.100 of 2007 for temporary injunction.The trial Court, on 09.06.2007, has passed an order of injunction against 4th respondent and its Union members from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 200 meters from the petitioner's factory and from gheraoing the management staff, officers, apprentices and from preventing vehicle with finished, unfinished, semi-finished products, raw materials and fixtures and other things from entering into the factory or leaving the factory.5(c).After the said order, the writ petitioner has once again approached respondents 1 to 3 for giving protection to enforce the injunction order granted by the Civil Court.According to the petitioner, even after the order of injunction, respondents 4 to 12 have involved in illegal activities by erecting tent within 20 meters from the factory main gate; assembling in groups and shouting abusive and threatening slogans in front of the gate; threatening and intimidating the staff while entering and leaving the factory; indulging in stopping the vehicles and checking the personal belongings, bags etc. of the staff while leaving the factory; assaulting essential service suppliers and thereby paralysing the functioning of the factory; and causing damages to the vehicles by breaking the wind shield etc. which bring materials to the company.It was in the circumstance that in spite of the injunction being made absolute after hearing respondents 4 to 12, the said respondents have indulged in the said activities, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.Respondents 4 to 12 have filed counter affidavit.As per the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that they have filed CMA.No.44 of 2007 against the order of injunction granted in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007 and they have also applied for the stay of order of injunction.Therefore, according to the respondents 4 to 12, the writ petitioner having approached the Civil court, cannot file the present writ petition.According to the respondents, the writ petitioner has committed unfair labour practice and dismissed 33 workers, including respondents 5,8,11 and 12, without enquiry.There is also breach of settlement by demanding the workers to perform higher work load which created industrial strife.According to respondents 4 to 12, an offender cannot be granted any discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction.The reason for strike called by respondents 4 to 12 is the illegal demand of the petitioner for upward revision of work load, in violation of the settlement between the parties entered in January,2006 which expires on 30th June,2008 and during the bilateral negotiations also the Management is demanding higher work load.6(a).According to respondents 4 to 12, the Management has brought 45 outsiders labelling them as "Trainees" and kept them as day in and day out, only to intimidate the workers.The complaint to Inspector of Factories has not been attended by the Inspector properly and the issue is pending before the Division Bench by way appeal.Therefore, according to the respondents, the demands made by them are not illegal.The notice for strike was given on 10.10.2007 and from 15.11.2007, respondents 4 to 12 and its Union workers are on legal strike.The idea of the writ petitioner is to break the strike by undertaking outsiders and also to achieve production.The police protection itself is sought for only to break the strike, which is legal.Since respondents 4 to 12 have already filed appeal against the order of injunction granted by the Civil Court, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any interim order in this case.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that there are totally 163 workmen employed in the writ petitioner Company and while admitting that the 4th respondent is a major Union consisting more number of workers who are on strike from 15.11.2007, his contention is that respondents 4 to 12 have lost their case before the Civil Court in the interlocutory application stage, since the Civil Court has granted injunction pending suit after hearing both sides and it is the respondents 4 to 12 who have filed appeal against the said order and it is not necessary for the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court again and it is the duty of respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition to give protection to the petitioner in order to implement the civil Court order.7(a).According to the learned senior counsel, even the finished products which are situated inside the factory of the petitioner are not allowed to be taken away and under the guise of right of strike, the employees should not indulge in illegal and violent activities.According to him, respondents 4 to 12 have no right to prevent the employees who are willing to work and other persons who are entering into the factory premises cannot be prevented in the name of strike.His further contention is that respondents 4 to 12 are not allowing any lorry even to go out, with the result, the writ petitioner is unable to supply materials to Defence Department.7(b).He would also rely upon an order of this Court made in W.P.No.33949 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, in which the claim of the 4th respondent Union for direction to take action against the writ petitioner, viz., not to engage trainees/apprentices, was dismissed.He would also submit that many criminal complaints have been given by the writ petitioner.The learned Government Advocate, on instructions would submit that between 15.11.2007 and 19.11.2007, 2 Police Constables were posted regularly in the premises of the writ petitioner; from 20.11.2007 to 07.12.2007 one Sub-Inspector of Police and 4 Constables were posted daily in the premises and from 08.12.2007 till date two Police Constables have been posted to give 24 hour protection to the writ petitioner Company.The complaints by the employer/writ petitioner relate to damage to public properties while the complaints by the workmen relate to threatening and making division among the workers.According to learned Government Advocate, Crime No.9 of 2008 has been registered by police on 05.01.2008 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 12 submits that the Union members are on legal strike from 15.11.2007, which arose under Industries Disputes Act. According to him, the writ petitioner/employer failed to act as per the settlement on payment of wages and work load and wanted to extract higher work load and many workers have been dismissed without notice.His submission is that in the name of engaging outsiders and calling them as apprentices/trainees, the writ petitioner employed them as regular employees and the idea of the writ petitioner is to divide the Union and if that is allowed, the concept of collective bargain will be thrown to winds, which is not the intend of the legislature in making laws.I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hazan Fizal, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner has approached the Civil Court and filed a suit against the 4th respondent and its Union members.When the employer attempts to divide the striking workers, which is lawful, it is certainly open to the 4th respondent Union and its members to approach the Inspector of Factories or raise an industrial dispute by treating the same as unfair labour practice, etc. and the immunity granted under Section 18(1) of the Act cannot mean to say that the Union must be permitted to achieve its object by resorting to the method which are not permitted in law.In view of the above said facts and legal position, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner must be granted police protection in the light of the order of injunction granted on 09.06.2007 in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007, which was made absolute on 21.11.2007, to perform its legal obligations, but at the same time, with liberty to the 4th respondent Union to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievance regarding the alleged employment of trainees/apprentices on regular basis by the writ petitioner.In view of the same, the writ petition stands ordered on the above terms.No costs.1.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Hosur, Krishnagiri District.3.The Inspector of Police SIPCOT, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

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

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

ORDER K.S. Hegde, J.The appellants were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1957 on his file, for the murder of one Mareppa on the midnight of 31 3 1957 at Benakal village, Bellary District.They are also tried for some other offences alleged to have been committed at the time of the said murder.They were convicted Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Further appellants 1 and 2 (Basappa and Badrigadu respectively) were convicted for an offence Under Section 324, for causing hurt to Mareppa, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Appellant No. 31 (Chakalabandi Adavappa) was convicted for an of m fence Under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Appellant No. 4 (Phothagadu) was convicted Under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The several sentences imposed on the appellants were made to run concurrently.2. Accused 1 and 2 are cousins.Accused Sections and 4 are brothers and all the accused are related to one another.The case for the prosecution is that in the village of Benakal there were two factions; one of the factions was led by A l (Basarroal by and the opposing faction was led by one Handihal Hanumanthappa; feelings between these two factions were very bitter; the deceased and P. W 2 (Mariswamappa) belonged to the faction of Handihal Hanvrninthappa, whereas all the accused belonged to the faction led by A l. It is further alleged that on the night of 31 3 1957, two haystacks be lonsine to A l and A 3 caught fire; at that time the deceased, P.W. 2 and many others were attending a Baiana performance in Durgamma temple not far from the scene of occurrence; on seeing the haystacks ablaze, the deceased, P.W. 2 and many others went to the scene.With a view to have a nearer view of the burning haystacks, the deceased and P.W. 2 first stood on the roof of A 3' house and later on moved on to the roof of A 3' house which was close to the burning haystacks.The party of the accused suspected that the deceased and P.W. 2 must have set fire to the haystacks and further they were there to enjoy the fun.That first information is marked as Ex P 3 in this case.The police immediately came to the scene or occurrence but by the time they reached the scene,, the body of the deceased was almost burnt.The Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Mysore (P.W. 4 Dr. A. T. Srinivasa Iyengar) who examined the burnt bones and flesh of the deceased, was unable to give1 any opinion as regards the cause of death.So also P.W. 7 (Dr. Y. Padmanabha Rao) who held the post mortem examination was not in a position to speak about the cause of death.P.W. 1 (Dr. B. N. Ramakrishniah) who examined P.W. 2 found' two injuries on his person.One of them was a tapering cut wound 4" x 1/2 which exposed the bones of the elbow and the other was a lacerated wound 1" x W scalp deep situated 2" behind the right ear.He was of the opinion, that the injury on .the elbow was a grievous one.There appears to have been some controversy in the Court below as to whether the bones and flesh recovered by tile Police from the burning haystacks were those On the deceased Mareppa.There is little doubt in this case that Mareppa had died on the night of f51 3 1957 and the bones and flesh recovered by the police were those of the deceased.The trial Court, accepted the prosecution case on this point and its conclusions were not challenged before us.Hence it is unnecessary to go over that ground.The existence of the alleged factions was not disputed before us.The immediate occasion for the attack on the deceased and P.W. 2 according, to the prosecution, is the burning of the haystacks.This is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. & (Saranappa), P.W. 5 (Mari Durgappa).P.W. ft (Talur Mareppa).P.W. 9 (Basappa) and P.W. 1U (Mukkanna).The presence of P.W. 2 at the ' scene of the occurrence cannot be denied.He him , self has sustained injuries.Undoubtedly he b& longs to the faction of the deceased wd he was are enemy of the accused.the first Information laid before the police.It may be remembered that this information was laid before the police almost within three hours after the occurrence and1 that at a place which is about 6 miles from the scene of occurrence.There was little time to concoct a false story.The evidence of P.W. 2 is fully corroborated by P.W. 3 (Saranappa) and P.W. 6 (Talur Mareppa).Their houses are very near the scene of occurrence and hence they are natural witnesses.It is true that P.W. 3 is the brother in law of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 is the maternal uncle of the deceased.Hence undoubtedly they are interested witnesses.As regards the throwing of the body of Mareppa into the burning haystacks, we have the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 5 Mari Durgappa).He urged the we should not place reliance on their evidence, particularly in view of the existence of the factions,It was also urged that though a large number of persons have witnessed the occurrence, no disinterested witness has been examined to support the prosecution case.This is true.But in a factious village, people who are really neutral, will be reluctant to come forward as witnesses to support one or the other side, lest they should invite trouble for themselves.This is a common tendency.The fact that the deceased was killed and P.W. 2 was injured on the night of 31 3 1957 admits of no doubt.The sequel of events as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses appear to be natural.But above all, there is the firs' information (Ex. P 3) which is of utmost importance in this case.According to the evidence of P.W. 1, the injury caused on the elbow of P.W. 2 is a grievous injury.The prosecution evidence shows that the said injury was caused by A 4 (Pothugadu).Hence A 4's conviction Under Section 326 IPC is justified.Some attempt was made to show that the injury in question was a simple injury.Similarly the conviction of A 3 (Adiveppa) Under Section 324 IPC for pausing hurt to P.W. 2 cannot be questioned.Now coming to the murder of the decease ed, we are faced with certain difficulties, as the Doctors were not able to give any definite opinion as regards the cause of his death.To some extent We are left to conjecture as to what was the direct cause of his death.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

the ground of non-consummation of marriage due to willful neglect on the part of the wife was allowed by the Court below.The wife initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Now, he wants to include the records of this proceeding and also his oral evidence on that basis as evidence in the 2 present suit.We feel that the section 498A legal proceedings when started some two years after the divorce have no direct connection with this proceeding, although they might be a result of a further fall out between the husband and the wife.All the records of present proceedings would only make the present proceedings unnecessarily time consuming.For All these reasons, we do not entertain the application (CAN 10038 of 2017) under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The same is hereby dismissed.( I. P. Mukerji,J.) (Amrita Sinha, J.)

['Section 498A 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 09.02.2016 relating to Crime No.135/2015 registered at Police Station Dharnawada, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326A, 34 of IPC.Thereafter, the victim was referred to the District Hospital, Guna (M.P.) and he left the hospital against the advice of the doctor and 2 Mcrc.5435.2016 Raj Vs.Under these circumstances, at the most offence under Section 324 of IPC may constitute which is triable by Magistrate.Sufficient time will be required in conclusion of the trial and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.If the applicant is not released on bail then his future will be spoiled in the company of the hardened criminals inside the jail.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd

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

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

C.C. as per rules.Heard on the point of admission and the filed certified copy of the judgment dated 25.09.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in ST No.500154/2016 is perused.Appeal appears to be arguable hence, admitted for final hearing.Record of trial Court be requisitioned.No fresh notice is necessary to the respondent as Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has appeared.Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.7776/2017 filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence of appellant- Chhotu alias Nisar Pathan awarded by the trial Court.Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506-B of IPC to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.It appears that fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court, and appellant has been sentenced under Section 363 of IPC for a period of three years and under Section 506-B of IPC to undergo one year RI and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal, hence, I.A.No.7776/2017 is allowed and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) by the Appellant-Chhotu alias Nisar Pathan with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, his jail sentences shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail.The appellant is further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 22.11.2017 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court for the same purpose in future.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

B of the Indian Penal Code.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on I.A. No. 2279/15, second application u/S 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant-Rampal Singh for suspension of jail sentence.Appellant's first application I.A. No. 7058/15 was rejected on 08/12/2014 on merits with the liberty to repeat the same after three months.On behalf of the appellant this repeat application has been filed on the fresh ground that at the time of the first application for suspension of sentence it was not considered that offence under section 467 of Cr.P.C. is not made out against the present appellant and after a period of three months the appellant has filed this second application.The appellant submits that he has been in custody for more than eight months now.The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 27.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No.262/2013 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior and sentenced as under:- Under Section Conviction Imprisonment Fine imprisonment if Detail liew of Fine Sentence of deposited Rs.467 of IPC 5 years, RI 1,000/- 3 months R.I.Appellant has been convicted for keeping with him forged Cr.A. No. 922/2 0 1 4 (Rampal Singh Vs.State of M.P.) mark-sheets and also mark-sheets which are blank and does not belong to Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi.Cr.A. No. 922/2 0 1 4It is further argued that appellant-Rampal has received Rs. 3000/- from Anantram towards preparing a forged mark-sheet in the name of his sister-Saraswati.Co-accused Chotelal was acquitted by the trial Court.Apellant has been in custody since 27.08.2014 and during the trial he was in custody for about 32 days.In this manner appellant remained in jail for about 8 months.State of M.P.) of the trials and thereafter appeals in criminal cases, for no fault of the accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail.If an appeal is not disposed or within the aforesaid period of 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court, I deem it appropriate to allow the application.Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 2279/15) is allowed.I.A. No. 2279/15 stand disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(S. K. Palo) Judge neetu

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.This is application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant Dharmendra s/o Shri Madan Singh Gurjar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 44/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 325,329,341,323,294,506/34,149 of IPC registered at Police Station Bercha, District Shajapur M.P.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier case was registered under Section 341,323,294 and 506 IPC and in that case, the applicant has been released on bail.Subsequently, the Police has added the Sections under Section 325,329 and 149 of IPC.The offence under Section 329 IPC is non-bailable offence.It is submitted that after granting the bail, the applicant has not misused the liberty and the applicant is ready to co-operate with the trial.In such circumstances, he be granted anticipatory bail because he is apprehending that he may be arrested for the offence under Section 325 and 329 of 2 IPC.On the other hand, learned PL for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.Applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear, that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning 3 Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) VACATION JUDGE M.Jilla.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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.

Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.Both the previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 193/2012 registered at Police Station-Chachai, District Anuppur for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B and 326 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.There is possibility of compromise between the parties.The applicant has no criminal past.I have perused the case diary.It has been specifically alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the complainant by an Axe, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head.In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory.

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

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

The four complainants are partnership firms.The petitioners are facing prosecution/trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) in six different complaints filed by M/s. Super Enterprises, M/s. Shubham Traders, M/s. Decent Electronics and M/s. Trading Systems.M/s. Super Enterprises and M/s. Shubham Traders have filed two complaints each through their partner-Mr. D.P. Gupta.The petitioners herein had filed an application before the Trial Court with the following prayers :-This application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 30th July, 2007, recording that the six different complaints deal with six different cheques which constitute a different cause of action.It was recorded that the complainants are different and were not filed by the same person and therefore joint trial cannot be ordered.Learned Trial Court recorded that the application filed was under Sections 219/220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short).It was also noticed that this was a second application filed by the petitioners praying for the same relief.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner is shown as Accused No.6 in C.C.No.54 of 2013 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar.The de-factocomplainant in this case is the second respondent herein.2.Though the second respondent has been served and his name is also figuring in the cause list, he has not not chosen to appear before this Courteither in person or through counsel.It is seen that in respect of one of the propertiesbelonging to the second respondent, the first accused viz., Selvaraj executedPower of Attorney, dated 16.08.2005, in favour of the fourth accused, who inturn executed another Power of Attorney, dated 15.03.2007, in favour of thepetitioner herein.Thesecond respondent had moved the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The first respondent conducted investigation and laid the final reportunder Sections 120-B, 419, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 109 IPC.The petitioner isshown as 6th Accused in the Final Report.To quash the proceedings, insofar as she is concerned, thepetitioner/A6 has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the firstrespondent.But, in this case, the direction issued bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, was not only followed butlater, investigation was conducted and final report was filed and the samewas also taken on file in C.C.No.54 of 2013 by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.Therefore, much water has flown under thebridge and it is late, in the day, on the part of the petitioner to raise thepoint of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who issued directionunder Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But, then, the other contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.The learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner did not have any directlink with the first accused.The petitioner was not the Power of Attorney ofthe first accused.It was the fourth accused, who hadexecuted fresh Power of Attorney, dated 15.03.2007, in favour of thepetitioner.The only material to establish a joint conspiracy underSection 120-B IPC is the statement of one Palani.8.This Court went through the said 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.6 -Palani.It stretches the credulity of this Court.The said statement hasbeen prepared deliberately to rope in all the accused.The de-factocomplainant merely points out that A1 to A4 have joined together and createdfalse documents.The only allegation that is made against the petitioner bythe de-facto complainant is that the petitioner based on the false documentexecuted in her favour by A4, had executed a further sale deed.This Courtis of the view that there is no legally acceptable material to fasten anypenal liability on her.Therefore, the impugned prosecution in C.C.No.54 of2013 is quashed in respect of the petitioner alone.This Criminal OriginalPetition is allowed accordingly.2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

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

On the basis of information police raided the Scorpio vehicle near Vidhi Chandra Dharamshala THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) 2 Gwalior, seized incriminating documents under Zero FIR, detained ten persons, thereafter registered Crime No. 648/2012 on 30/09/2012, at Police Station Padav under Section 120B, 419 and 477 IPC.It was revealed during the investigation that MP Police had seized the 37 incriminating documents by raiding the Scorpio vehicle at around 1000 Hrs. including the Scorpio, detained the 10 persons sitting in the Scorpio, and brought 10 persons to the Police Station.All the documents were recovered from the vehicle.On arrival at the PS, a General Diary Entry No. 2045 at 1435 hours was made explaining the circumstances of the raid and thereafter, the instant Padav PS Case No. 648/2012 was registered on the 30/09/2012 against the 10 persons who were arrested u/s 120B, 419 & 477 of IPC vide subsequent General Diary Entry No. 2046 at 1445 hours on the same day.The documents seized by the local police also contained the Test Admit Cards of 31 candidates of PCRT- 2012 and some original Mark sheets, Domiciles certificate, etc. of other persons.Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Asstt.Solicitor General for the respondent no.2-CBI.(1) This criminal revision at the instance of accused persons is directed against the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Trial court declining to accept the closure with a direction that the trial shall continue.Bharat Singh, Constable and Vinod Singh, Head THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.However, with the matter being transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation, the investigation was further continued.That a supplementary report in final form was filed by the CBI on 21/07/2017 proposing closure of the case for want of prosecutable evidence on the ground that :"(a) There is no entry in the GD showing the departure of the raiding party on 30/09/2012 under SHO, Padav.(b) There is no entry at 1450 hours on 30/09/2012 showing the departure of STF THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) 4 officials from Padav PS which includes the names of two STF staff who witnessed the arrests made in between 1500 hours and 1555 hours.Thus, arrests made are suspicious.(c) There is no independent witness either to the seizure made at 1000 Hrs or arrests made thereafter in between 1500 hours and 1555 hours on 30/09/2012 despite the arrests having been made from a crowded place.(d) The Police Station Padav is only about 2 Km away from the alleged place where the accused persons were caught while impersonating.There is a delay in registering the FIR at 1445 Hrs although seizure was made at 1000 Hrs at the spot on Zero FIR.(e) The conspiracy among the accused could not be proved during investigation.No seizure has also been made from any of the 9 other accused persons.(f) No suspicious financial transactions have taken place among the accused persons during the relevant period, as revealed from the scrutiny of their bank accounts.(g) The evidence of the owner and the driver of Scorpio vehicle have contradicted the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) 5 allegations leveled by the Local Police.They were not examined by the Local Police.(h) Planning for commission of offences u/s 419 and 477 of IPC is not an offence as no evidence of any overt or covert action taken by any of the accused persons was found for commission of the alleged offences.(I) Out of the 37 items seized from the possession of accused Pintu Singh including the Scorpio, 31 items were the Admit cards of the candidates for PCRT Examination, 2012 and 13 them appeared in the said examination from different centers at Bhind, Morena and Gwalior, but failed.This fact disproves the allegation that accused Pintu Singh was planning to impersonate from Gwalior with other.Out of 18 candidates who did not appear from the different Centers, some were supposed to appear from the centres at Bhind, Morena also.So the arrested accused persons who were detained at Gwalior at 1000 Hrs could not have reached those places from Gwalior by 1100 Hrs when the examination was going to start.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

... for the petitioner.... for the State.The present petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order dated 25th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in connection with Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 107 dated 15th May, 2011 under Sections 323/341/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 394 of 2011 be set aside.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order the court below has committed grave error in not acceeding to the prayer made by the petitioner for further investigation.This Court on 14th March, 2013 had passed the following order :-Shri Sanyal is directed to requisition the Case Diary on the next date of hearing.Shri Sanyal is further directed to instruct the Investigating Officer to remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing and serve a notice upon Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 regarding pendency of this revision petition and the next date of hearing."Today Sri Shiladitya Sanyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instruction from Sk.Zakir Hossain, ASI, Bidhannagar (North) Police Station, submits that due to inadvertence seizure memo dated 2nd June, 2011, Annexure 'P-3' at page 23 of the paper book was not made as part of charge sheet.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that to rectify the said mistake, a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be filed and seizure memo dated 2nd June, 2011, Annexure 'P-3' shall be made part thereof.The question regarding validity of the seizure memo is kept open.Parties may advance arguments before the court below regarding the contents of alleged seizure memo at appropriate stage including its genuineness and mode.

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 2314 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.02.2019 in connection with Barrackpore Police Station Case No. 8 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/323/354B/379/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In Re: Dinesh Kumar Sahani ......... petitioner Mr. Debasis Kar ...for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned A.P.P., Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a dispute between family members and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further 2 condition that he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Partha Pratim Das CRM No. 4151/17 Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Pradipta Ganguly CRM No. 4157/17 Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddique CRM No. 4158/17 Since the petitioner is common in all the aforesaid bail applications, the same are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by a common order.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first three cases he was named in the FIR and not named in the last one.He further submits that he has been falsely implicated.On the other hand, from the side of the State prayer for bail is vehemently opposed and it is submitted this is a communal violation and petitioner's direct involvement and participation in the commission of the offence has been clearly transpired from the statement of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.According to those eyewitnesses, he played active role in the commission of the offence, may be that in one case, he has not been named in the FIR.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

( Jabalpur, dtd.23.04.2019) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-The instant appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for brevity `the CrPC'] challenging the judgment dated 23-5-2009 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No.100/2008 [State of M.P. vs. Ramphal and others], whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:302/149 of the Rs.100/- each, in default, further R.I. for Indian Penal two months each.Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 449 of the Indian fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to Penal Code.undergo further R.I. for two months each.Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 148 of the Indian fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, further Penal Code.According to the case of the prosecution, on the date of the incident, i.e. 16-4-2008 at about 08:00 a.m. the appellant - Ramphal went to the house of the deceased - Ganesh and enquired that 3 why was he suspecting him and his sons to fill boring.Some heated words were exchanged between the parties.It is alleged that the other accused persons armed with lethal weapons came at the place of the incident in furtherance of their common object in order to cause death of the deceased-Ganesh.They also caused injuries to Sheelabai and Dalchand, the wife and son of the deceased.Soon after the incident Munnalal - Kotwar of the Village, informed the Police Station at about 10:15 a.m. that Ganesh, Sheelabai and Dalchand have been subjected to beatings.On the said intimation a Roznamcha, Ex.P/49 was written by Rajesh (PW-12).The Investigating Officer (PW-13) after visiting the place of incident recorded in the Roznamcha, Ex.P/50 that the complainant and the family members of the deceased were not found at the spot, as they had already left for the Govt. Hospital, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.The report - Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/1 was recorded at 15:00 hrs.on narration of the incident in the Hospital by the wife of the deceased, Sheelabai (PW-01).She narrated that at about 08:00 a.m. when she was preparing tea and her husband Ganesh and son Dalchand were at home, at that time her brother-in-law (elder brother of the husband) Ramphal came to the house and asked for Ganesh and inquired about the boring.When her husband denied the same, Ramphal started abusing him.At that time, the accused persons, namely, Mathura, Lalman, Govind, Hirendra, Narendra alias Nindu, 4 Bori alias Premnarayan arrived there with deadly weapons.It is alleged that Mathura, Lalmani and Hirendra were carrying `farsas' and Nindu and Govind were having axes.Premnarayan alias Bori and Nindu had hit her son Dalchand on the back whereas Ramphal and wives of Mathura, Lalman and Ramphal hit on her back.She further alleged reported that Lalman had hit with 'farsa' on the head of the deceased and killed him.The incident was also witnessed by Moorat Kaurav and Sudama Kaurav.The incident was informed to Kotwar Munna.Her husband was taken to Gadarwara Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.Copy of Dehati Nalishi recorded by the investigating officer Shafiq Khan, PW-13 is Ex.The duration of recording of the Dehati Nalishi is 15 hrs.The spot map, Ex.P/2 was prepared by the investigating officer and in the said map the time is mentioned as 11:20 a.m. Sheelabai, PW-01 deposed that at about 8:00 a.m. in the morning when she was preparing tea at home, her husband Ganesh and son Dalchand were at home the accused Ramphal came to the house, called Ganesh and inquired about the boring.On exchange of some heated words 5 Ramphal abused him.It is stated that at that time Mathura, Lalman, Govind, Hirendra, Nindu and Bori alias Premnarayan came at the spot and Mathura, Lalman and Hirendra were armed with 'farsa' whereas the accused Ramphal, Nindu and Govind were having axes.Wives of Mathura, Lalman and Ramphal also came at the spot and they were having `lathis'.Mathura and Lalman had hit on the legs of the deceased with `farsa' and the accused Hirendra caused injuries on the hands.In the Court statement she stated that the accused Ramphal had given an axe blow on the head of the deceased causing deep incised injury.Govind and Nindu had inflicted injuries on the back of her son Dalchand with the backside of the axe.Ramphal had caused axe blow on her face and wives of Mathura and Lalman had beaten her.In the Dehati Nalishi she had not stated that Ramphal had caused any injury to the deceased on his head.She had stated that Lalman had caused injuries on the head of the deceased by means of `farsa'.The other injured witness PW-02, Dalchand deposed that when he was at home along with his father, the mother was preparing tea, his uncle Ramphal came to his house, called his father and inquired about the boring and thereafter he started abusing him.After some time, other accused persons, namely, Mathura, Bori alias Prenmarayan, Govind, Nindi and wifes of Lalman, Mathura and Ramphal also came at the spot.Mathura, Lalman and Hirendra were armed with 'farsa', whereas Govind, Nindu and Ramphal were having `lathis'.He stated that Mathura and Lalman had hit his father on legs with a `farsa' and Ramphal hit him with an axe on his mouth.Hirendra hit his father by means of a `farsa' and ladies present at the spot had also beaten him.R.I. for two months each.Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for six months 324/149 of the to each.In Criminal Appeal No.1086/2009 the appellant No.1, Ramphal and appellant No.4, Govind @ Baddu have been enlarged on bail as their jail sentence has been suspended.Thereafter, the accused Ramphal also brought an axe.The wives of the accused Lalman, Mathura and Ramphal also came at the spot with `lathis'.It is alleged that Mathura and Lalman hit on the legs of the deceased, Ganesh with a `farsa' whereas Hirendra hit on hands of Ganesh by means of a `farsa'.When he tried to intercede he was beaten by Govind, and Nindu and Ramphal had also beaten his mother.Thereafter he called his brother Hemraj and father was taken to the hospital.He also stated that the police had reached at about 11 o'clock and the father was taken to the hospital on the tractor of Moorat Singh. 7The investigating officer Safiq Khan, PW-13 stated that at about 10:15 a.m. a telephonic information was received from the Kotwar that Ganesh, Sheelabai and Dalchant of the village have been beaten.On the basis of the said information he went to the spot and when he reached at the spot he found blood, broken bangles and sickle.According to him the deceased and the injured Sheelabai and Dalchand had already left for hospital.Thereafter he came back to the police station and made entry in the Roznamcha and went to the District Hospital, Gadarwara where he recorded the Dehati Nalishi on the statement of Sheelabai.He admitted his signatures at `A' to 'A'.On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/1 and spot map, Ex.P/2 and the statements of the witnesses, PW-01, PW-02 and PW-13 learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in Ex.P/2, spot map the time is mentioned as 11:20 a.m., dated 16-4-2008, whereas Dehati Nalishi was prepared on 16-4-2008 at 13:00 hrs.As per statement of the investigating officer and roznamcha entry, when he reached at the spot the deceased Ganesh, Sheelabal (PW-01 and Dalchant (PW-02) had already left for hospital then how the map could have been prepared on the information of PW-01, Sheelabai at 11:20 a.m. It is submitted that the prosecution has cropped up a false story and the facts were known to the police immediately after the incident and intentionally Dehati Nalishi was recorded at 03:00 p.m. ( 15:00 hrs.).Further, in para 6 of the cross-examination PW-01 has stated that the police had come at 8 about 11:00 a.m. and had prepared the spot map at 11:00 a.m. Thus, when the investigating officer, PW-13 reached at the spot, the deceased Ganesh, Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) were present at the spot and then the report ought to have been registered at that time.on 16-4- 2008 whereas in the spot map prepared by the Investigating Office (PW-13) the date and time were mentioned as 16-4-2008 at 11:20 a.m. In the Roznamcha entry, Ex.P/50-A he mentioned that when he reached at the spot, the deceased, Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) were not at the spot.There is no explanation that how he could have recorded the spot map on the information of Sheelabai at 11:20 a.m. , when he met for the first time Sheelabai and others in the hospital in the afternoon at 15:00 hrs.Dalchand (PW-02) has stated that the police had come to his village at about 11:00 a.m. and spot map was prepared at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter they had gone to the 9 hospital.It is correct that there are certain defects and faults in the investigation, but taking into consideration the testimony of injured eye witnesses, Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) we are unable to disown the entire prosecution case merely on the ground of defective investigation.The law in this regard is well settled.The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply in Indian criminal law jurisprudence.Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the conviction with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "the IPC"] is not legal as there is no evidence to establish that there was any formation of unlawful assembly with a common object in order to cause death of the deceased-Ganesh, therefore, the trial Court ought to have examined the individual role attributed to the accused.The question that springs up for consideration in the present case is whether any unlawful assembly was formed with a common object to lynch Ganesh and if not, then what individual role is attributed to the accused-appellants ?According to the case of the prosecution the first report was registered in the form of Dehati Nalish, Ex.P/1, on the information given by Sheelabai (PW-01).She has stated that the incident had taken place at about 08:00 a.m. when she was preparing tea in the house at that time her husband, Ganesh (since deceased) and son Dalchand (PW-02) were at home.At that time her brother-in-law, Ramphal came to her house and called Ganesh and uttered that as to why he was suspecting about filling of boring by him.When the same was denied 11 by Ganesh, the accused Ramphal started him abusing.On a careful scrutiny of this statement, we find that Ramphal had gone alone to the house of the deceased unarmed.Ramphal was residing in the adjoining house at a close distance to the house of the deceased, as he is real brother of the deceased and the same is evident from the spot map, Ex.P/2 also.As per her statement, thereafter other accused persons, namely, Mathura, Lalman, Govind, Hirendra, Nindu and Bori alias Premnarayan arrived on the spot.They were armed with the weapons usually kept by the villagers in rural areas for cultivation and cutting purposes, i.e. sickle (hansia), farsa and axe etc. It is clear that Ramphal had come first without any weapon to meet the deceased, who is his real brother and thereafter, there was exchange of heated words between them.It is also stated in the report that ladies had also come at the spot carrying `lathis'.She has stated that when the accused persons started beating her husband - Ganesh, her son - Dalchand also brought a `lathi'.She informed that the accused Lalman had given a blow by means of farsa on the head of her husband.In her deposition in the Court PW-01, Sheelabai stated that Ramphal had caused head injury to the deceased with the help of a farsa, though in her first report - Dehati Nalishi she stated that Lalman had inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with a 'farsa'.There is material contradiction regarding fatal blow on the head of the deceased.PW-02, Dalchand deposed that Mathura had 12 given 'farsa' blow on the head of the deceased.In para 2 of his statement he also stated that Mathura and Lalman had given `farsa' blows on the legs of his father and the accused Ramphal had inflicted injuries on the face of his mother with an axe.On appreciation of the evidence of these two injured witnesses - Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) it is established that the accused Ramphal, who is the real brother of the deceased came alone in the house of the deceased unarmed.There was exchange of heated words between them.Thereafter, other co-accused persons - sons and wife of Ramphal and other ladies of the family reached at the spot and started inflicting injuries to the deceased - Ganesh, and Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) and Ramphal was unarmed at that time.It is alleged that after other accused persons reached at the spot, he brought an axe and Dalchand (PW-02) also brought a `lathi'.Thus, on assimilation of facts and evidence we do not find any evidence that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and made preparation and acted in furtherance of their common object in order to cause death of Ganesh.The facts and evidence reveal that the accused Ramphal reached first in the house of the deceased and inquired about the boring and there was exchange of heated words between them, which lead coming of other accused persons at the spot and then it is alleged that injuries were caused to the deceased and Sheelabai and Dalchand.In absence of any cogent and plausible 13 evidence that there was any formation of unlawful assembly with the common object to kill Ganesh or any other family members, we are unable to sustain the finding of the trial Court that there was formation of an unlawful assembly and, therefore, all the accused persons are responsible on the principle of constructive liability for being a part of an unlawful assembly without establishing individual role attributed to them.Since we have already held that there was no formation of unlawful assembly before causing death of the deceased - Ganesh.Therefore, all the accused persons cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.We have also noted that the accused persons have not trespassed in the house of the deceased.They are living in the same compound adjoining to the house of the deceased.The incident has taken place in the courtyard which was a common place.Now as per evidence in regard to the role attributed to the accused persons, the case of the appellants are examined and they are convicted and sentenced as under:In Criminal Appeal No.1086/2009 there are four appellants, namely, Ramphal, Lalman, Mathura and Govind.Appellant No.1, Ramphal 14 We have already noted that there were material contradictions and omissions in the allegations made by injured witness, Sheelabai (PW-01) in Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/1 and her court statement.In respect of Ramphal she had stated in the Dehati Nalishi that Ramphal had given axe blow on her face which had caused injury near the eye, but in her Court statement she stated that Ramphal had hit on the head of the deceased by means of an axe.In the Dehati Nalishi the allegation regarding causing injury on the head was made against the accused Lalman that he had given 'farsa' blow on the head of the deceased and on his legs.Dehati Nalishi is the first report in which information regarding commission of the offence was given to the Investigating Officer (PW-13).Whereas the statement in the Court was recorded after a period of more than four months.It is relevant to mention here that the accused-Ramphal is the younger brother of the deceased, Ganesh and, therefore, the statement made by Sheelabai (PW-01) that an axe blow was given on the head of the deceased by Ramphal after four months of the incident.But it is proved that Ramphal had caused injuries with the help of an axe on the face of Sheelabai (PW-01).Dalchand (PW- 1502) has also stated that Ramphal had inflicted injuries on the face.Dr. K.S. Rajput, PW-07, had conducted MLC of both the injured persons, Sheelabai and Dalchand.The report is Ex.He stated that on the examination of Sheelabai he found two injuries - one in the nature of swelling (xqEek) - 1 x inch on the left lumber region and contusion - x 1 inch at left forearm.As per postmortem report of the deceased, Ex.P/10 and the statement of the autopsy surgeon, Dr. Rajeev Rathoria the deceased had received as many as 13 injuries.The injuries No.1,2,3,9,10,12 and 13 were caused by hard and blunt object.All the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.In para 4 of the statement in cross-examination he stated that the injury No.1 was on the vital part of the body whereas other injuries were on non-vital parts.Thus, as per allegations made in the Dehati Nalishi by Sheelabau (PW-01) and the statement of Dalchand (PW-02) there is no allegation that the appellant No.1, Ramphal had inflicted head injury on the deceased.Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 302/149, 449 and 148 of IPC.The jail sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court and he is on bail.In view of extensive consideration of the allegations delineated in the Dehati Nalish, Ex.P/1 and the Court statement of the injured witnesses Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) the allegations against him are that he had given fatal `lathi' blows on the deceased and on the leg of Sheelabai (PW-01).The injured (PW-02) has also stated that the accused-Lalman had caused injuries with the help of a `farsa' and had given `lathi' blows on the head of the deceased.As we have already discussed that the Autopsy Surgeon (PW-05) - Dr. Rajeev Rathoria has stated that the injury No.1 inflicted on the head was at a vital part which had caused shock and haemorrhage.Considering the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant No.2, Lalman under Sections 302/149, 324/149, 323/149, 449 and 148 of the IPC are set aside.However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.2, Lalman are modified as under:In view of the analysis of the evidence in preceding paragraphs, we find that as per Dehati Nalishi he had inflicted injury on the leg of the deceased with the help of `farsa' and the injured witness (PW-02) stated that Mathura had given `farsa' blow on the head of the deceased.The appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 302/149, 324/149, 323/149, 449 and 148 of IPC.However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.3, Mathura are altered as under :However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.4, Govind are modified hereunder:In Criminal Appeal No.1152/2009 there are two accused persons, namely, Narendra @ Nindu and Harendra @ Heerendra, appellants No.1 and 2 respectively.It is alleged that the appellant No.1, Narendra alias Nindu had caused injuries by means of a `farsa' on the hands of the deceased and further he inflicted injuries to Dalchand (PW-02), but from his cross-examination, it is evincible that neither in the FIR nor in the Ex.D/1, statement of widow of the deceased and Ex.D/2 any allegation against the present appellant 19 regarding his involvement in respect of causing injuries to the deceased has been made.There are material lapse and omission in the statements of the witnesses from the case diary statement, Dehati Nalish and the FIR.Appellant No.1, Narendra @ Nindu:However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.1, Narendra @ Nindu are modified as follows :In the light of discussion on Dehati Nalishi and testimonies of PW-01 and PW-02, Sheelabai and Dalchand respectively, and the medical evidence as well, we have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove formation of an unlawful assembly, therefore, therefore, conviction with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is unsustainable.On individual scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the allegation against the appellant No.2, Harendra is that he had caused injuries on the left eye of the deceased by means of a `farsa', as per postmortem report, Ex.P/10 and testimony of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Rajeev Rathoria, the injury No.1 which was caused on the head of the deceased was on vital part of the body and other injuries were on non- vital parts.

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

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

(R9 impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2011 vide order dated 16.08.2011)(R10 to R17 were impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2011 vide order dated 06.07.2015.)Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to take steps forregistering FIR with regard to the illegal confinement, torture, violation ofHuman Rights and Malicious Prosecution in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file ofthe learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudiof the petitioners namely Koilpillai son of Vedhamani, Balasubramanian son ofKoilpillai, by the police personnel such as the Thoothukudi Rural DeputySuperintendent of Police Mr.Moorthy, the then Inspector of Murappanadu PoliceStation, Mr.Soosai Micheal the then Sub Inspector of Murappanadu PoliceStation, Mr.Vallinayagam Mr.Nagasankaran and Mr.Whether this woman appearing before thiscourt is, in fact, Mrs.Manimegalai or not is the basic issue in thesepetitions.There are three petitioners in these Criminal Original Petitions.Muthu @ Mookan, a resident of Isavankulam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk, TuticorinDistrict.Her mother was Mrs.Kannimariyal.They were residing at PerurVillage in Srivaiakundam Taluk.When Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was hardly three years old, Mrs.Kannimariyal deserted her husband - Mr.Muthu @ Mookan, along with her female child.Thereafter, she developed intimacy withone Dhanraj of Thirupparankundram and shifted to Thiruppur.Dhanraj wasdoing painting work in Thiruppur and Kannimariyal was working in a privatecompany as a daily wager.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was put in a school in Pattukottai, but, she later discontinued.Thereafter, she also joined aprivate banyan company in Thiruppur known as, ?JJ Company?.In course of time, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha had fallen in love with one Anandan of Thiruppur, who was also working in the same Company.Without the knowledge of her mother and Mr.Dhanraj, she married Mr.Hardly for 7 days, shelived with Mr.Anandan as his wife and then, she deserted him and came down toPerur Village.She stayed in Perur Village at the house of oneMr.Shanmugaraj, who was her mother's sister's husband, for few days andthereafter, left Perur Village for Thiruppur.But, she did not turn up inThiruppur.Her mother also, in the meanwhile, passed away.Her husbandMr.The body was highly decomposed and identity could not be made out.Inquest was held on the body and thereafter, it was sent forpostmortem.One Dr.Subbiah, an Assistant Surgeon, attached to Srivaikundam Government hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.04.2002 at 4.30 p.m. He found that the body was half burnt and therewere also injuries on the body.Clotted blood was found on the earth nearthe dead body.But, there was no bloodstain on the body.Hyoid bone wasintact.All the internal organs were also intact.Around the neck, therewas a ligature mark indicating that the deceased would have been strangulatedby using the ligature.The uterus contained a foetus of 6 to 8 weeks old.The Doctor finally opined that the externalinjuries found on the body would have been caused by a weapon, like knife andthat the deceased would have died due to cumulative effect of all theinjuries including constriction of neck.Based on the above, the Inspector of Police, altered the caseinto one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.During the course ofinvestigation, he examined few persons from Perur Village.The photograph ofthe body taken was shown to the relatives of Manimegalai @ Mekala.The body had already been buried.From and out of the photographs, the relatives andthe villagers could not make out the identity of the deceased.However, aclose relative of the deceased, by name, Shanmugaraj, told the police thatthe cloth materials found on the body were like that of the dress materialsof Manimegalai @ Mekala.Therefore, the Investigating Officer had suspectedthat the body would have been that of Manimegalai @ Mekala.Then, during thecourse of investigation, the Investigating Officer went to Thiruppur,examined her husband Mr.Anandan and collected a photograph of Manimegalai.Even Mr.Anandan was not in a position to say about the whereabouts ofManimegalai @ Mekala, because he himself was not informed of by Manimegalai @ Mekala before leaving Thiruppur.The photograph of Manimegalai @ Mekala collected by the Investigating Officer was then forwarded to the Forensic Labat Chennai for superimposition examination with the skull of the dead body.The report revealed that in the superimposition examination, it was confirmedthat the skull was that of the person in the photograph, thereby indicatingthat Mrs.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was the one, who was done to death.The accused 1 to 3 gave confessions in thepresence of the Village Administrative Officer concerned.Out of thedisclosure statement made by the 2nd accused, a knife was recovered.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the fouraccused.According to the final report, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha hadsold the house belonging to her mother - Kannimariyal to the first accused -Mr.A sum of Rs.10,000/- was due from the first accused toMrs.The final report further proceededto say that on 25.03.2002, by seducing Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha, the 2nd accused asked her to come to his house.Accordingly, on 04.04.2002, she came to the house of the second accused.He took Manimegalai at 8.00 p.m. from Ayathurai bus stand to Tuticorin.The accused 3 and 4 were alreadywaiting in Tuticorin bus stand.His wife is the sister of the mother of Mrs.Manimegalai.According to him, Manimegalai came to his house, stayed there for a few daysand then left for Thiruppur.But, thereafter, she was not found.He hasalso spoken about the land dealing between Manimegalai and the first accused.She had further stated that between 24.03.2002 to 25.03.2002, Manimegalai was staying with him at his house at Perur and from 25.03.2002 onwards, she wasfound missing.During the course of investigation by the MurappanaduInspector of Police, when the photograph of Manimegalai was shown to him, heidentified the same as that of Manimegalai.But, he was not able to identifythe dead body, as it was fully beyond recognition.He had further deposedthat the dress materials found near the dead body looked like that of thedress materials belonging to Manimegalai.3.9. P.W.6, one Pechimuthu is the Village Administrative Officer, whohas spoken about the recovery of material objects from the place ofoccurrence, like bloodstained earth, sample earth, Plastic Can, brokensyringe etc., on 05.04.2002 by the Inspector of Police of Murappanadu PoliceStation. P.W.7, one Abdul Khader, was the Village Administrative Officer ofMurappanadu.According to him, on 22.05.2004, at 7.00 a.m., atGnanamadankulam, the accused 1 to 3 were arrested by the Inspector of Police.It was only duringher visit in the month of February 2011, she came to know that it was made toappear to the public by the police, that she was murdered and that themurderers were the accused in the case.Then, on the advice of thevillagers, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha appeared before the DistrictCollector, Tuticorin on 11.02.2011 and made a representation.In the saidrepresentation, she wanted action to be taken in this regard.But theDistrict Collector did not take any prompt action to ascertain the truth ofthe matter.He simply referred the said complaint to the Superintendent ofPolice, Tuticorin District.The then Superintendent of Police, TuticorinDistrict also did not take any prompt action in that regard.In the reportnow submitted by the Superintendent of Police before this court, it is statedthat the said representation of the woman claiming herself to be Manimegalai@ Mekala @ Punitha forwarded to the Superintendent of Police was in turnhanded over to the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station.TheInspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station also did not take any promptaction to find out the truth.The District Collector, Tuticorin was directedto depute a responsible Officer to be present before this Court.The District Revenue Officer,Tuticorin was also present.The District Revenue Officer submitted that itis true that a woman claiming herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala W/o.Anandan appeared before the District Collector, Tuticorin on 10.02.2011 and presenteda representation that she is Manimegalai @ Mekala, who is stated to have beenkilled, for which, the accused in this case were all tried and acquitted.He has further stated that thereafter, he did not see CW1at all anywhere.He has also identified CW1 in Court.He has also identified CW1 asMrs.In order to make the process accurate, 3Dphotographs of the missing person is developed and overlaying of the same isdone with the virtual model of the skull.As per the scheme framed in the Stateof Tamil Nadu, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is the maximum amount, which could be awarded to the victim of a crime in a case of death.Having regard to thesaid legal position and having taken note of the judgment relied on by thelearned counsel for the petitioners and all the other attendantcircumstances, I am of the view that directing the Government to pay a sum ofRs.4 lakhs for each accused as compensation would meet the ends of justice.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed ofin the following terms:I am satisfied that though belated, justice isdone to the aggrieved at least now.As Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of theNation preached, ?Truth is a powerful weapon which unfailingly triumphs.? Inthis case, at last, truth has triumphed.1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department Secretariat, Chennai.2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.3.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Shastri Bhavan Chennai.4.The Additional Director General of Police (CBCID), Office of the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai.5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.6.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.Narayanan, the then police constables of Murappanadu Police Station Mr.Issac and Mr.Franklin, the thenSub Inspector of Srivaigundam Police Station Mr.Directing the respondent No.3 to entrust the investigation to anefficient officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police underthe direct supervisionj of the respondent No.3 to investigate the violationof Human Rights of 1) Koilpillai son of Vedhamani 2) K.Balasubramanian son ofKoilpillai, 3) Kurundhan @ Jeyakumar, and 4) Dhasan.Directing the respondent No.5 to initiate departmental proceedingsagainst the then Village Administrative Officer of Murappanadu Villagenamely, M.Abdul Kadhar, who is P.W.7 in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudifor given false evidence, by considering the representation dated 22.03.2011preferred by the petitioner.Directing the respondent No.1 to pay fair and just amount ofcompensation to the petitioners namely Koilpillai son of Vedhamani,K.Balasubramanian son of Koilpillai and other victims namely Kurundhan @ Jeyakumar and Dhasan for falsely implicating and for malicious prosecution inS.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of the learnred Additional Sessions Judge cumFast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi.Directing the respondent No.5 to pay a relief amount under Serial No.8Annexure I, Rule 12(4) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Rules, 1995 to the affected victims whose names are shown inprayer (b) pending the investigation.This is an unprecedented case where a living woman [Mrs.Manimegalai] has been driven from pillar to post for over a period of four years toestablish that she is alive and that the judicial declaration made by a courtof session in a judgment that she was murdered on 04.04.2002 is inconsistentwith her living body and soul.They are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.259 of 2005, on the file of thelearned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II,Tuticorin.The 4th accused, in the case, is one Mr.Dhasan.There were fourcharges framed in this case.The first charge was under Section 120(B) IPCagainst all the four accused.The third charge was underSection 201 IPC against the accused 2 to 4 and the 4th charge was underSection 302 read with Section 109 IPC against the first accused.The TrialCourt, by judgment dated 20.02.2007, acquitted all the four accused.Thatacquittal has become final.Now, the petitioners have come up with theseCriminal Original Petitions seeking various directions, including a directionfor registration of a criminal case against the police officials, whoinvestigated the case and filed final report, for payment of compensation andfor other reliefs.The background facts of these petitions would be as follows: One Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha is the daughter of one Mr.Anandan went in search of her to various places, including Perur Village,but could not succeed.Finally, on the complaint of Mr.Anandan, a case inCrime No.154 of 2002 was registered on the file of Srivaikundam PoliceStation for woman Missing.During the course of investigation of the case inCrime No.154 of 2012, the whereabouts of Mrs. Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha could not be located.While so, a half burnt dead body of a woman with injuries, agedabout 20 ? 25 years, was found near NaaluKani Bridge at Vellakulam Village,within the jurisdiction of Murappanadu Police Station.On the complaint ofone Mr.He preserved the skull for the purpose of superimposition in future.Theviscera was sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there was nopoison detected in the body.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha, on account of the said transaction.Mrs. Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was repeatedly pressurising the first accused to pay the said amount.In order to get rid off Manimegalai @ Mekala @Punitha, according to the final report, all the four accused, on 03.04.2002,at about 9.00 p.m., at the house of the first accused, hatched a conspiracyto do away with the deceased.Thus, according to the final report, all thefour accused are liable to be punished for the offence punishable underSection 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.Then, all of them, took Manimegalai in abus proceeding to Tirunelveli.When the bus reached Muruganpur Village, theaccused 2 to 4 got down from the bus along with Manimegalai and took her toVellakulam near the bridge.It is further alleged that the 4th accused strangulated her byconstricting her neck by a ligature.The 3rd accused closed her mouth toprevent her from making any alarm.The 2nd accused administered injection tomake her unconscious.Then, the 2nd accused cut the neck of Manimegalai with knife.Thus, according to the final report, the accused 2 to 4 committedmurder of Manimegalai, out of common intention and thus, they were liable forpunishment under Section 302 read with Secction 34 IPC.The final reportfurther proceeded to say that after the deceased had breathed her lost, theaccused 2 to 4, with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence, pouredpetrol on the body of Manimegalai and set fire.Then, the body was pushedinto a bush near the bridge.Thus, according to the final report, theaccused had committed offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.So far as the first accused is concerned, according to the final report, he hadconspired to kill the deceased along with others and thus, he was liable forpunishment under Section 302 read with 109 IPC.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed above.When the accused were questioned in respect ofthe charges, they denied the same as false.In order to prove the charges,before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16witnesses were examined, 22 documents were exhibited and 10 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 ? Mr.Muthurajan had spoken about the fact that the dead body of a woman aged about 20-25 years was found nearthe bridge and that he gave complaint to the police.He had further statedthat the body was found in a half burnt condition and there were injuries onthe body.P.W.2, a villager from Vellakulam, has also stated that the deadbody was found near the bridge on the crucial date.P.W.3 one Mr.Perumal,who was examined to speak about the fact that the said woman was found in the company of three men at Murugapuram bus stop, had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.4 was alsoexamined to speak about the same facts, but he also turned hostile and thus,he had also not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.3.8. P.W.5 ? Mr.Shanmugaraj was the star witness for the prosecution inthe case.On such arrest, all the three accused gave independent confessions.The 2ndaccused gave a disclosure statement, wherein he stated that he had concealeda knife in his hand bag.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, hetook out the knife from his bag and handed over the same to the Inspector ofPolice.It was recovered by the Inspector of Police under a mahazar.3.10. P.W.8, one Radharamani, was the scientific Assistant, RegionalForensic Sciences Lab at Tirunelveli.According to him, on 05.04.2002, on therequest of the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, he visitedthe scene of occurrence, where the dead body was found and he assisted the Inspector of Police for recovery of the said material objects.But, he couldnot extend any more help to the police for further investigation.P.W.9, oneGeetha, the Head Clerk of the learned Magistrate Court, has spoken to thefact that she forwarded the skull produced before the Court to the ForensicLab for superimposition examination.P.W.10, one Suresh, has spoken to thefact that he was a Constable, working in the Dog Squad of Tuticorin Districtand he had brought one sniffer dog to the place of occurrence, where the deadbody was found, but, the dog could not render any help for the detection ofthe culprits.P.W.11 is the Constable, who assisted the Doctor, when thebody was subjected to autopsy.P.W.12 - Dr.Subbiah has deposed that on 05.04.2002, he conducted autopsy on the dead body, opined that the death was due to cumulative effect of the injuries found and that the dead body washalf burnt with petrol.P.W.13 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached toMurappanadu Police Station, who had spoken about his handing over the FirstInformation Report and the other documents to the authorities concerned.P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who had spoken extensively about theinvestigation done by him and the report received by him from the ForensicLab. P.W.15 was the then Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam PoliceStation.He had spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.154 of2002 for 'woman missing'.P.W.16 was the Investigating Officer, who made furtherinvestigation.He had also spoken about the arrest of the accused and therecovery of the knife.He had finally spoken about the final report filed.When the above materials were put to the accused under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to markany documents.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Courtgave a specific finding in paragraph No.30 of the judgment that the dead bodyfound near the bridge was that of Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.The trialCourt also gave a finding that the death of Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punithawas caused by mechanical violence.Thus, according to the trial Court, ithad been clearly proved that Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was murdered.The trial Court, in its judgment from Paragraph No.31 onwards,proceeded to discuss the evidence in respect of the complicity of the fouraccused in the murder.The trial Court did not give much weightage for therecovery of the knife at the instance of the 2nd accused.While so, to the shell shock ofthe villagers, during first week of February 2011, a woman appeared in theVillage and claimed herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.Mr.Shanmugaraj, her mother's sister's husband had already died.Thevillagers were surprised to see the said woman coming alive.According to him, the petitioners herein toldhim that they would work out their remedy before the Court and therefore, heclosed it, he claimed.In those circumstances, the petitioners haveapproached this Court with these petitions claiming various reliefs includingthe relief of compensation and for registration of a case against the erringofficials.Though these Criminal Original Petitions were filed in the year2011, and though they were admitted as early as on 28.11.2011, these twopetitions have been kept pending on the file of this Court, approximately,for four years, for which, I take the blame.R.Alagumani, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners made a mention before me on 01.07.2015 that thesepetitions had been pending on the file of this Court for four years withoutany disposal and he wanted to have early disposal.By then, theSecretary, Home Department, Director General of Police, had not filed anycounter.Therefore, they were directed to file counter.On 06.07.2015, Mr.Ashwin M.Kotnis, the Superintendent of Police,Tuticorin, was present before this Court.He further stated with the reference to the records that by the proceedingsof the District Collector in Na.No.C2/9628/11 dated 14.02.2011, the saidrepresentation was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, fornecessary action.Ashwin M. Kotnis, the Superintendent of Police,submitted that the said representation was entrusted to one Mr.P.K.Ravi, theInspector of Police, who had not taken any action, since the petitioners toldhim that they would work out their remedy before the Court.She was accompaniedby her cousin Mr.Veilmuthu Stalin.Before this Court, she said that she isreally Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.She further stated that when she was three years old, her mother deserted her father Mr.Muthu and left forThiruppur.She further narrated her stay at Thiruppur, her marriage withAnandan and her returning to the Village Perur for some time and then leavingfor Chennai.She vividly spoke before this Court that she confined herselfin Chennai until 2011 , as she had converted to Islam and married oneShajaghan.She further told that she has got two children also.Veilmuthu Stalin also identified her as Manimegalai @ Mekala.When thephotograph which was used for superimposition was shown to her, she identified the person in the said photograph as herself.The Superintendentof Police, Tuticorin, further submitted that the biological father ofManimegalai @ Mekala by name Muthu had been located in Isavankulam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk.He further submitted that he was prepared to hold adetailed enquiry and to submit a further report, after ascertaining whetherthe woman in question is really Manimegalai @ Mekala.This Court, therefore,directed the Superintendent of Police to cause the appearance of the womanbefore the Dean, Government Medical College at Madurai for taking bloodsamples for the purpose of DNA examination.Similarly, the Superintendent ofPolice was directed to cause the appearance of Mr.Muthu, before the Dean,Government Medical College Hospital at Tuticorin, for taking blood samplesfor the purpose of DNA examination.He was further directed to produce theblood samples before the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai forconducting DNA examination.While so, on 07.07.2015, he made a request before this Court to modify the order since the DNA examination could beconducted at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai itself.Accordingly, this Court modified the earlier order, by order dated 07.07.2015and directed the DNA examination to be conducted at the Regional ForensicScience Laboratory, Madurai.The matter was, thus, adjourned.As directed by this Court, the blood samples were taken from bothand they were subjected to DNA examination.Muthu @ Mookan is the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala.The Superintendentof Police then submitted a detailed report before this Court on 14.07.2015,wherein he has vividly spoken about the details of the enquiry conducted byhim and the report of the Deputy Director of Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory on conducting DNA examination.In Paragraph Nos.14, 15 & 16, he has reported as follows;"14.I humbly submit that on 11.07.2015, I obtained the DNA result fromthe Deputy Director of regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai.Theresult states that "From the DNA typing results of the above blood samples,it is found that in the absence of identical twins, Mr.Muthu @ Mookan is thebiological father of Ms.Mekala @ Manimekala @ Mumtazbegum.15.I humbly submit that based on the enquiry conducted by me, thestatements of the witnesses and by the Paternity test report, it reveals thatTmt.Mumtaz Begum, W/o.Shahjahan who is claiming herself as Mekala @ Manimekala, is in fact Mekala @ Menimekala, the daughter of Mookkan and Kannimarial of Perur Village.16.I humbly submit that the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu P.S.conducted the investigation in the Murappanadu P.S. Crime No.147/2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. @ 302, 201 IPC on scientific evidence.The trial Courthas also given a specific finding that the prosecution had proved that thedead body found near the bridge was that of Mekala @ Manimekala.The above said facts clearly establish that the action has been bonafide.The policehad no motive to falsely implicate the above petitioners in the aforesaidcase.Today, when the matter was taken up, the Superintendent of Policewas present.The woman, claiming herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala, D/o.Muthu and W/o.Anandan, her biological father Mr.Muthu and her husband Mr.Anandan were present.It will appear as though Manimegalai @ Mekala @Punitha was murdered, however, these accused were acquitted for want ofevidence.The parties were affordedopportunity to cross examine them if they wanted.At Thiruppur her mothermarried CW3 ? Mr.Dhanraj, through whom she has got a son.She has further stated that she married Anandan (CW4) at Thiruppur and then, she lived withhim hardly for a weeks time.She has further stated that she came to Perurand then after having stayed there for few days, she left for Chennai.InChennai, she married one Shajakan, after conversion to Islam and she has gottwo children now.She has stated that she has changed her name as Mumtaz Begum.She has further stated that when she came down to Perur in the year 2011, she came to know about the case and then she made a representation to the District Collector.She has also admitted that on 06.07.2015 bloodsamples were taken from her by a team of Doctors at Government Medical College, Madurai for the purpose of DNA examination as directed by thiscourt.She identified CW3 and other relatives, who were present before thisCourt.CW2 - Muthu @ Mookan, who is the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala, has stated that he married Kannimariyal and CW1 was born to them out of the said wedlock.He has further stated that when the child was hardlythree years old, his wife deserted him and thereafter, her whereabouts wasnot known.He has further stated that he is not in a position to identifywhether CW1 - Manimegalai @ Mekala is his daughter or not, because aftershe was taken by her mother at the age of three years, he had no occasion tosee her at all.He has also admitted that on 07.07.2015 he gave bloodsamples at the Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin for DNAexamination as directed by this court.According to him, when CW1 was hardly three years old, her mother came to Thirupparamkundram along with CW1 and developed intimacy with him and then he took her to Thiruppur.Out of the intimacybetween him and Kannimariyal, a son was born.He has further stated that CW1 was put in a school at Thanajvur and then in Pattukkottai.He has furtherstated that without his knowledge, CW1 married Mr.He has further stated that after one week of the marriage, Anandan came and told himthat Manimegalai @ Mekala was found missing.The search made for her proved futile.Thereafter, he had no occasion to see Manimegalai @ Mekala at all.He has identified her in Court as Manimegalai @ Mekala, his adopted daughter.Anandan, who married Manimegalai @ Mekala.He has stated that CW1 was his wife.He has identified her in open Court.He hasfurther stated that the marital life lasted hardly for a week's time andthereafter, she disappeared.He has further stated that he went in search ofher to various places including Perur.Since he was not able to locate her,he made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam PoliceStation, on whose complaint the case in Crime No.154 of 2002 was registeredfor woman missing.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.Ashwin Kotnis.He hasstated about the enquiry held by him as directed by this court and hisreport.As I have already extracted, in his report, he has categoricallystated that CW1 is Manimegalai @ Mekala.He has further stated that the deadbody which was found near the bridge is that of some other woman andregarding her death, investigation needs to be reopened and conducted now.The oral evidences of these witnesses are duly corroborated by the expert opinion, based on DNA examination conducted by a team of three experts at the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Madurai.In this case, a peculiar question has arisen for the first time asto what is the weightage that could be given to the superimpositionexamination often conducted in this State, at the behest of the Police, whenthe identity of the deceased in any case could not be ascertained by thewitnesses.It is a common knowledge that as and when a dead body is beyond recognition, resort is made to send the skeletal remains of the dead bodyfor superimposition.In this regard, I may say that forensic anthropology isbest conceptualized, more broadly, as a field of forensic assessment of humanskeletonised remains and their environments.[vide W.M. Krogman and M.Y. Iscan - The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Springfield, 1986 - 2ndEdition].This assessment includes both the identification of the victim'sphysical characteristics and cause and manner of the death from the skeleton.The most important application of forensic anthropology is the identificationof the human being from the skeletal remains.The photographic supra-projection is a forensic process where the photographs or video shots of amissing person are compared with the skull that is found.It is done byprojecting both the photographs on top of each other.But, this method wasnot found to be accurate.But, here,in this case, he had taken every possible efforts to identify the skull bysending the same for superimposition.It may be questioned that as to why DNA examination was not conducted then, in order to conclusively prove that the dead body was that ofManimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.From the evidences placed before this Court, it could be culledout that CW1 was not even aware of her father Mr.Muthu, who was present before this Court, would say that he was not in a position toidentify whether CW1 is Manimegalai @ Mekala or not.Thus, neither thefather is able to identify his daughter nor the daughter is able to identifyher father.Anandan, who originally preferred complaint to the police inrespect of missing of Manimegalai @ Mekala, was all along under theimpression that Mr.Dhanraj was her father.Therefore, the investigatingofficer, who conducted the investigation on earlier occasion, was notinformed of that the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala is Mr.It is only on the direction of this Court, the Superintendent of Police hastaken efforts to collect these facts and to bring to light that Mr.TheDeputy Superintendent of Police, Mr.Dharmalingam, District Crime Branch,Tuticorin, shall take up the case forthwith for investigation, conduct athorough investigation in respect of the dead body, which was found on05.04.2002 on the road leading to Vallakulam Village.The InvestigatingOfficer shall ascertain as to whose dead body was that and bring to book theperpetrators of the crime.(v) The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, shall pay Rs.4 lakhs as compensation to each accused in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.II, Tuticorin, namely, Mr.Koilpillai, Mr.Balasubramanian,Mr.Kurunthan @ Jeyakumar and Mr.Dhasan, by means of demand drafts drawn in their respective name within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.(vi) These Original Petitions shall stand dismissed in respect of allthe other reliefs sought for.Before concluding, I would like to mention that this is the rarestcase, where a woman, who was declared dead has come alive before the Court seeking justice.This episode, in my considered opinion, will be an eye-opener for the police in this State that in the matter of investigation, theyshould be extra cautious leaving no stone unturned.I am only hopeful thatin the days to come, learning a lesson from this episode, the policedepartment in the State, will try to use all possible scientific means andmethods to unearth the truth in the matter of investigation, instead ofadopting simply the conventional method of investigation relying only ontestimonies of human beings.As the saying goes, men may lie but not thecircumstances.Similarly, the science shall never fail.Before parting with this case, I would like to place on record myappreciation for the excellent service rendered by Mr.Ashwin Kotnis, theSuperintendent of Police, Tuticorin, who, within a short span of time, asdirected by this Court, had taken all efforts to secure the witnesses so asto find out the truth, to get the report of the DNA expert and to submit afair report before this Court within the time frame.I also appreciate theteam of officers, namely,(i) Mrs.T.Vanitha Rani, Inspector of Police, AllWomen Police Station, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District, (ii) Mr.F.BernadXavier, Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, (iii) Mr.Hariharan,Inspector, Special Branch, (iv) Mr.Kandasamy, Sub Inspector of Police, SipcotPolice Station and (v) Mr.P.Arunsakthikumar, IPS, Assistant Superintendent ofPolice, who were in the team who shared the burden with the Superintendent ofPolice to collect all the necessary facts within the time frame.R.Alagumani andMr.E.Athisaya Kumar, the learned counsel, for having taken up the cause ofthese poor people to this Court.Similarly, I appreciate Mr.Had this woman, Mrs.Manimegalai not gone to the DistrictCollector, the travesty of justice declaring her dead would have beenperpetuated .But, for these petitions filed by the petitioners, this mockerywould not have been corrected.7.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station,Thoothukudi District.8.The Inspector of Police, Srivaigundam Police Station,Thoothukudi District.9.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.10.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 64/2018, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC registered at police station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavit of 1st February, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice".In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `25,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 2 of 3 within three days from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within two days thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.64/2018, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC registered at police station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MARCH 18, 2019 p'ma CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 3 of 3

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 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 S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.In this appeal by special leave, which is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court, the appellant No. 1, Kailash Prasad Kanodia has been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Appellant No. 2, Gatru Mal Kanodia has been convicted under Section 326 and has been sentenced to three years R.I. A detailed narrative of the prosecution case is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.The High Court as well as the Sessions Judge have accepted the prosecution case and have affirmed the conviction of the appellants as indicated above.The only point that was urged before us by Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Kohli appearing for the appellants, was that the entire case must fail because the statements recorded by the Officer In-charge D. P. Sharma (P.W. 12) on a rough piece of paper were not made available to the appellant at the trial which has caused serious prejudice to them.The High Court as well as the Sessions Judge considered this aspect of the matter and found that this infirmity was not sufficient to vitiate the trial.The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 4, 7, 10 and 12, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.So far as P.W. 12 is concerned, he was the informant and lodged the F.I.R. within minutes of the occurrence at the Police Station which is about 200 yards away from the place of occurrence.So far as the said eye-witnesses are concerned, there is no doubt that P.W., D.P. Sharma himself admitted that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he recorded the statements of eye-witnesses but did not make it a part of the diary.This was a serious lapse on his part resulting in his immediate suspension followed by a departmental enquiry.It was contended by Mr. Mukherjee that if the earlier statements would have been available to the appellant, they would have shown that the true version of the occurrence was not presented before the Court.Even so, we have excluded the evidence of the other eye-witnesses excepting P.Ws. 7 and 12 and we find that there was ample evidence on record to justify the conviction of the appellants.P.W. 12 has clearly stated in the F.I.R. that his father was assaulted with a bhala on the chest by the first appellant and his brother was given a blow by the second appellant.His evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 7 Vishwanath and the medical evidence fully supports his testimony.To some extent the evidence of these two witnesses is further supported by Lal Kanodia P.W. 2 who had also reached the Police Station soon after the F.I.R. was lodged.It appeared from the medical evidence that P.W. Bishwanath did not sustain any grievous injury.He has not received any serious injuries on any vital part of the body.The Doctor admits that he did not find any fracture of a serious nature.In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the charge under Section 326 must necessarily fail but the appellant No. 2 cannot escape conviction under Section 374, I.P.C. as that has been fully proved.Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that this is a fit case in which the second appellant should be convicted and awarded jail sentence.We, therefore, set aside the sentence of imprisonment passed under Section 326 and convict the second appellant under Section 324 and impose a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default one month's R.I. Out of the fine if realized the entire amount will be paid to P.W. Bishwanath as compensation.Two months' time is allowed for the amount to be paid as fine.With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.

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

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

asi Crl.O.P.Nos.25281, 25282, 25283,25284,25285, 25105, 25107, 25124 and 25126 of 201202.08.2018

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

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

C.No.680/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.[2] Brief facts of this case are that prosecutrix lodged report on 24.01.2017 at Police Station Meghnagar, District Jhabua averting that appellant sexually exploited her for two years in the pretext of marriage.He also gifted her one mobile phone valued Rs.10,000/-.Her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.02.2005 in Baran (Rajasthan) and after marriage she resided with the applicant in his house at Kota (Rajasthan), but the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.Respondent No.1 has no means of earning and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor sons.There he threatened deceased's mother to lodge court case against deceased.Nine or Ten days later, on 21/05/2016 deceased Firoz telephoned her daughter Roshney and applicant No.3 but applicant No. 2 did not let deceased talk with his wife applicant No.3 and daughter Roshni, due to which deceased Firoz committed suicide by consuming poison at his house in Alote.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of charge- sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case No.2130/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, on 09.01.2013 respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore that she had known the applicant since 2009 both liked to each other so they married on 04.07.2012 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore and started living together at Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter, Indore.The respondent No.2 was teacher at that time so she used to come to Satwas.After marriage they lived happily for two months, but from 15.09.2012 her husband started beating and abusing her and also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) and on 07.10.2012 her husband and his family members were going to engage her husband with Usha Rathore, then she informed Usha Rathore that she is the wife of Mukesh and applicant and his family members are trying to get her married to him by fraud.Thereafter Usha Rathore's family refused to do the engagement.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.During investigation it was found that applicant ill treated deceased Firoz.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant before the trial court averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her.After marriage she lived with her husband only for one & half year .Later applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her from there.Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain herself.Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum.But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.They demanded dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty.Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Ishak Kha.Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.1628/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Ishak Kha S/o Rajjak Kha for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, Distt.Ujjain in ST No.6/15 and grant of bail.[2] Appellant No.3 Ishak Kha has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.[3] As per prosecution story, on 25.09.2014, complainant Bhadar Khan and his younger brother Mubarik came to Bargundaseri Badnagar Cattle Haat for selling a cow.At 9.30 a.m., appelland Ishak and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber came there and abused Mubarik.Javed assaulted Mubarik by knife on his throat.When Bhadar Kha tried to rescue him, Ishak and Zuber caught hold Bhadar Kha and Azad inflicted knife blow on his left palm and Javed also beated him by stick.On hearing the hue and cry Mehboob Kha, Mohd. Azhar, Irfan Kha came to rescue them, then accused ran away.On the report of complainant Bhadar Kha, Crime No.403/14 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber for the offence under Section 307, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Badnagar.[4] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of so called eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) are not reliable.Hearing of the appeal will take time, so sentence awarded by the Trial Court be suspended and appellant Ishak be released on bail.[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant Ishak was present at the spot and also took part in the incident.Learned Trial Court after evaluating all the evidence rightly convicted applicant Ishak and prays for rejection.[6] From the statements of eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) it is clear that appellant Ishak was also present on the spot at the time of incident along with other co-accused and took active part in the incident in which Mubarik was murdered and Bhadar Kha (PW-1) also sustained injuries.So we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail to appellant No.3 Ishak.Hence, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Civil Revision No.46/2017 15.03.2017 Shri V.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.None present for the respondent.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.1400037/2016, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1400037/2016 before the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani seeking declaration and injunction with the averment that suit property was purchased by him in the name of his sister late Sardar Bi D/o Dildar Khan on 04.02.1988 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. on which he did some construction.In the year 2012 Khurshid Bi wrongly got her name recorded on the said plot in the Municipal Register and sold that plot by registered sale deed dated 28.02.2012 to applicants No.1 & 2 without any legal right.So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit plot and in alternate plaintiff also sought relief that if learned court finds Sardar Bi owner of suit plot then it be declared that plaintiff is having half share in the suit plot as heir of Sardar Bi and applicants No.1 & 2 also be directed to not to interfere in his possession on suit plot.Although plaintiff also sought other alternative relief, but which is contradictory.So plaintiff is also not entitled for that alternative relief.Plaintiff also did not value the suit property according to value of sale deed, challenged by the plaintiff' in the suit.So suit is rejected.[4] Plaintiff/respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the prayer observing that the objection raised by the applicant cannot be decided without recording evidence.Plaintiff is not a party to that sale deed against which plaintiff sought cancellation.So he is not bound to valued his suit according to value of that sale deed.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent clearly pleaded in his suit that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of Late Sardar Bi.So it is not a case where plaint could be rejected on the ground raised by the applicants at this stage.Hence, the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar wherein learned judge had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 and trolley attached to it seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996( hereinafter referred to as rules).[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garage, on the way, near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR, Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Rule 53 of M.P.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involved in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal had prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against this applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision observing that according to Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for granting vehicle into custody but no intimation was sent by the authority under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules.So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules come into play when the vehicle is seized by the authority mentioned in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but said vehicle was seized by the police.Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that police who seized the said vehicle also sent intimation regarding seizure of that vehicle to the Magistrate.So learned Additional Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's Revision only on the ground that no information was sent by the authority to the concerned Magistrate.[4] Likewise learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also committed mistake in rejecting the application only on the ground that National Green Tribunal had imposed ban on mining activities as National Green Tribunal imposed ban only on mining activities and not on transportation of sand, therefore, transportation of sand does not come under ban imposed by the National Green tribunal.Even otherwise whether said vehicle was carrying illegal sand or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be ascertained without evidence at this stage and shall be decided by the court at the time of judgment of the case.[6] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.[7] It appears from the record that when learned Trial Court rejected the application of applicant charge-sheet had not been filed, but now charge-sheet has been filed so petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of filing of fresh application by the applicant before the Trial Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle in custody the Trial Court will decide that application according to law without taking notice of his earlier order.A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Trial Court for compliance.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1238/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Nitendra Vajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.870/2017, an application to replace the surety gives in the High Court in the matter of Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court's order dated 19.02.2014 applicant's surety was given by Smt. Saroj Singh on her plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.Now, Smt. Saroj wants loan on that property that's why she may be permitted to give surety on commercial shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain in place of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.After due consideration, prayer is allowed.She be permitted to give surety of appellant on shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain instead of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain and C.J.M., Ujjain is directed to permit the surety of appellant Smt. Saroj Singh to replace the property on which she earlier given surety of appellant.But, it is made clear that earlier property of surety only be discharged when CJM is satisfied with the property on which Smt. Saroj Singh wants to give new surety.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) ns Judge M.A.No.2308/2014 15.03.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are avoiding service and they remained ex parte before the lower court and were not interested to contest the claim application.So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be dispensed with.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial court, so IA No.742/2017 is allowed.Service of notice to the respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1202/2014 15.03.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appeal is already admitted, so list the appeal for final hearing in due course.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1723/2013 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file report regarding factum of death of appellant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.846/2012 15.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.558/2015 15.03.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC.No.861/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1608/2015 15.03.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tejulal before this court.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tejulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R. No.80/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of order of Second Appeal.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.484/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file appropriate application regarding appearance of appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.574/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Heard on IA No.4253/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 338 days.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the application.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.648/2016 15.03.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed along with recovery report after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A. No.57/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Harish Pal.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.97/2017 15.03.2017 Ms. Varunika Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded amount within one month.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.99/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for 7 days time to pay process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A. No.2086/2016 15.03.2017 Shri A.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 15.03.2017 Shri P.K.Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after Three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1579/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3255/2016 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016 15.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Arguments heard.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 15.03.2017 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.72/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.194/2017 15.03.2017 Petitioner present in person.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.232/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Four weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1308/2017 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.286/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent filed a Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain seeking declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant null and void, averting that he purchased one Maruti Car through invoice dated 08.01.2014 worth Rs.6,20,438/-.The applicant completed all the formalities of registration and insurance of the vehicle and delivered the car to him.Later on, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had prepared a new invoice dated 08.01.2014 for RTO purpose wherein there was change of Rs.26,998/- from the original invoice.That invoice was prepared for saving the tax and the petitioner had no right to prepare two invoices for one vehicle.So invoice of Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant on 24.08.2015 be declared null and void.The respondent valued his suit at Rs.5,51,232/- and paid a fixed court fees of Rs.1,000/-.[3] During trial of the suit Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court averting that applicant is bound to pay ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of Rs.5,51,232/-.[4] Respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 31.08.2015 rejected the prayer observing that applicant filed the suit only for seeking declaration, so the provisions of Article 17 of Schedule 2 of Court Fees Act are attracted according to which respondent is only bound to pay fix court fees and rejected the applicant's application.Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent seeks a declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void which has money value, so he is bound to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit.Respondent is not the party of that invoice, therefore, he is not bound pay ad valorem court fee on the suit value.[5] Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others V/s Awadh Narayan and others reported in I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2454 held that, Court Fees Act (7) of 1870, 7 (iv) C and Article 17 Schedule II -- If plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simpliciter from the court.In the instant case also Plaintiff neither executed nor is a signatory to the invoice which he wants to be declared null and void and claimed only the relief of declaration, So Plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee.Learned trial did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer.So the revision has no force.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.368/2014, whereby he rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from respondent.Since then she has been living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself, while respondent runs business of selling cloths and earns Rs.30,000/- per month and able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause.So, respondent be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant.Respondent in his reply denied the all allegations and averted that he and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and respondent does not drink wine.Applicant herself threatened respondent to implicate him in false case as she did not want to live in Biaora.so she herself left respondent's house voluntarily without any sufficient cause and is living with her parents.Respondent tried to take her back but she refused.Applicant does sewing work and is able to maintain herself.On the other hand, respondent is an employee in a cloth shop and only earns Rs.2,500/- per month and is unable to maintain the applicant and pray for rejection.Learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties rejected the application observing that since applicant has been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get maintenance.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty and owing to their ill-behaviour applicant was forced to live separately from the respondent.Learned trial court without appreciating the evidence only on the basis of some minor contradictions mistakenly disbelieving the statement of applicant and his Father Hari Om (PW-2) and wrongly assuming that applicant voluntarily lived separately from respondent rejected applicant's prayer.He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.As far as trial court's finding that the applicant has no sufficient reason to live separately from respondent is concerned, although applicant had deposed that respondent's behaviour became bad with her after one and half months of marriage and that he used to beat her for dowry besides her father Hari Om (PW-2) also deposed that behaviour of respondent and his family members turned bad with applicant after one year of marriage and they demanded dowry and used to beat her and tell her that her father had not given them any cash at the time of marriage and demanded Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand due to which he brought his daughter back from her matrimonial house and that she has been living with him for the past two years during which respondent never came to take her back.But Applicant averted in the plaint that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 03.04.2012 and that he expelled her from his house one year back from the date of filing of application i.e. 15.04.2014, which shows that applicant is living separately from 15.04.2013 meaning thereby that applicant lived with respondent only from 03.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 i.e. 1 year 12 days, while applicant herself averted in her application that behaviour of respondent and his family members was good with her upto one year from her marriage.So the statements of applicant and her father Hari Om regarding demand of dowry and ill-behavior of respondent and his family members becomes doubtful.Even regarding harassment and demand of dowry the statement of applicant and her father is contradictory.Applicant stated that respondent and his family members started torturing her only after 1 or 2 months of her marriage, while applicant's father stated that respondent started torturing his daughter after one year of marriage.Likewise Hari Om (PW-2) stated that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, while in the application it is mentioned that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and one Car.Applicant also stated that she does not remember the year or month or day her husband beated her.She filled report against respondent one year after returning from her parents' house.If respondent had demanded dowry and used to beat her and expelled her from his house after beating then she would have lodged the report of incident soon after the incident.So statements of applicant and her father Hari Om (PW2) that respondent and his family members used to beat her and demanded dowry are do not appear to be correct.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.R.No.313/2015 after two weeks.R.No.1510/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet and argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.A.No.554/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9484/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.163/2014 10.03.2017 Learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks time to file affidavit.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2535/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1357/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8915/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after three weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5654/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.164/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after second round.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.On 30.06.2016, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to cure the defects, but till today counsel for the applicant has not cured the defects.Today, none present for the applicant even after second round.It appears that applicant does not want to prosecute this petition, therefore, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.744/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant Raghusingh on 06.03.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.11/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.581/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants No.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Notice of respondents No.2 to 5 received unserved.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.431/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1271/2009 10.03.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant not received as yet.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report of bailable warrant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.54/2007 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Aviral Vikas, learned counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1373/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1270/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in S.T.No.344/2015, whereby learned A.S.J. framed charges against applicants under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC.[2] Brief facts which are relevant to this petition are that on 26.06.2015, at 11.30 p.m., when complainant Indersingh was satting on dice (chabutara) of Ram Mandir with his brother Liladhar and niece Dhirajsingh at Village Jabiya Gharwas, Kalapipal, applicants came there armed with farsi, lathi and rod and abused and beated Indersingh.Applicant Mansingh assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him while Mahendrasingh assaulted on his head by rod and Raghuveer Singh, Pappu and Santosh also beated him by lathi.When complainant's brother Leeladhar came to rescue him, Hindusingh also assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him and applicants Kapal Singh, Peer Singh and Raghuveer also beated him by lathi.Indersingh and Leeladhar sustained injuries on head and other body parts.On hearing hue & cry Praveen, Narendra Singh came there and tried to save them with the help of Dheerap Singh and admitted them in the hospital.On that report of injured Indersingh Crime No.250/2015 was registered at P.S. Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC against the applicants and after investigation police filed charge-sheet against the applicants.On that charge-sheet ST No.344/2015 was registered and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur by order dated 05.08.2016 framed charges against applicants under 307/149 (in two counts) and 148 of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report injuries sustained by Indersingh and Leeladhar are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.46/2017 08.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on any Wednesday after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2452/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.836/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9195/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.On 06.02.2017 none present for the applicant and today also none present for the applicant even after second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1143/2014 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant and respondent No.1, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1267/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9829/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garrage, on the way near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Section 53 of M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 against Ganpat S/o Bhimsingh Bhilala.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involving in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against which applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3984/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with status report after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to supply the copy of judgment of trial court to the counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file affidavit of technical person, who is aware of the technology relating to the working of computer.Office is also directed to call for the status report of Criminal Case No.10053/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1119/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1187/2016 08.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12709/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch vide judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003 convicted the accused for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.Against that judgment applicant filed Cr.So, Jailor of District Jail, Neemuch be directed to release the accused.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during trial applicant remained in detention from 28.09.2005 to 05.03.2007 in other Sessions Case No.09/07 in Central Jail at Arthor Road Jail, Chinchpokli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).No written information regarding that detention has been received as yet from the said Jail.So applicant could not be released.[6] Considering the aforesaid, the Jail Superintendent District Jail, Neemuch is directed that if the applicant Mohammad Iqbal has undergone whole sentence awarded by the court in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003, excluding the period for which he was detained in other Special Sessions Case No.09/2007 then he be released, if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the petition is disposed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8748/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the non applicant.Heard finally at motion stage.[1] This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in brief "Code") against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.564/15; whereby learned Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and directed him to take cognizance against applicants for the offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC .[2] Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed a private complaint against the applicants under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC alleging that the applicants had published defamatory news against the non- applicant/complainant.Being aggrieved from that order applicants have filed this petition.A copy of the order be sent to the Revisional Court as well as to the concerned Magistrate for compliance.Thus, the revision is allowed as indicated above.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE ns M.Cr.C.No.2098/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for applicant on 06.05.2016, 16.07.2016 & 01.08.2016 and on 29.08.2016 applicant seeks adjournment, then on 06.09.2016 none present for the applicant, thereafter on 28.11.2016, 14.12.2016, 03.01.2017 none present for the applicant.On 31.01.2017 applicant seeks adjournment and today also none present for the applicant even in the second round.C.No.7084/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11666/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4259/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11664/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 28.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on that ground.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12041/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.C.No.13029/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.22/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel comes from Delhi and prays for a fixed date in the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.404/2017 07.03.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.410/2017 07.03.2017 Shri H.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.970/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Harshit sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.649/2007 07.03.2017 Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of respondent No.2 Dilip received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 28.04.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.400/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No.62/2016, whereby Learned A.S.J.framed charges against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC..[2] As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2015, at 5.30 p.m., when complainant Omprakash and his family members were working in the field situated at Rajgarh near National High Way 12, applicants came there armed with lathi and farsi and applicant Ramprasad assaulted Omprakash on his head by farsi with an intention to kill him while Hukum Singh assaulted on Omprakash's hand by lathi and Kanchanbhai by stone.When complainant's son Jaiprakash came to rescue him Ramprasad inflicted farsi blow on Jaiprakash's head and other applicants also beated them.On that report Crime No.617/2015 in P.S. Kotwali, Rajgarh was registered under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet before the court and on the basis of charge-sheet S.T.No.62/2016 was registered and then learned A.S.J. framed charges against the applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants No.2 Kanchanbhai No.3 Hukum Singh & Vishram Singh under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC.Being aggrieved by the orders of framing charges under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC applicants have filed this Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report, injuries sustained by Omprakash and Jaiprakash are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.In the X-Ray report it is clearly mentioned that they have not received any bony injury, therefore, there is no evidence on record to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC.Learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that Omprakash and Jaiprakash received incised wounds by farsi on their head which is vital part of body.Therefore, learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants and prays for rejection of Revision.[5] For framing of charge strong suspicion about commission of offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient.On merits, materials/documents filed by accused can not be considered.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns 07.03.2017 Order passed signed and dated.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce registration of vehicle and other necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record of Criminal Case No.616/2013, which is disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar - Malwa by judgment dated 28.11.2016 before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.652/2006 06.03.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.869/2011 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file rejoinder.He is directed to file rejoinder positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1322/2015 06.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.15/2016 06.03.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to produce the case diary.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.702/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to produce the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.Office is directed to send back the record to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016 06.03.2017 Smt. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.100/1993 06.03.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.765/2001 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tulsibai before this court.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tulsibai.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.895/2000 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Karulal before this court.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Karulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9742/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard finally at motion stage.This leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No.3517/2001, whereby he acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC.[2] Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is clearly proved that at the time of accident respondent/accused rashly and negligently drove the vehicle bearing registration No.MP09-K-7976 and dashed against Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries and one of them died.From the statement of Tarachand (PW-2) it is also proved that at the time of accident vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar.So, learned trial court committed mistake in acquitting the accused Mazhar from the aforesaid charge.[3] On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is not proved that driver of the vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving said vehicle rashly and negligently, at the time of incident.Also it is not proved that vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was being driven by the respondent at the time of accident.Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that respondent Mazhar was the driver on said vehicle on the date of accident but he is not an eye witness of the incident so only on the basis of his statement, it cannot be assumed that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and pray for rejection.[4] This court perused the record and considered arguments put forth by the parties.Hemsingh (PW-1) only stated that at the time of accident driver of vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed and dashed against the Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries but he did not specifically deposed in his statement that as to at what speed the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven at the time of accident.So, only on the basis of statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) that driver of vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed, it cannot be assumed that the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident.Hemsingh (PW-1), who is an eye witness of the incident, did not even depose that the said vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, from his statement it is also not proved that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.[5] Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that on the date of accident respondent Mazhar was the driver on his vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 but he is not an eye witness, so without any other corroborating evidence merely on the basis of his statement it cannot be assumed that the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused from the aforesaid charge.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of this order.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1558/2016 03.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.958/2017, which is an application for conversion of this Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After due consideration, application (IA No.958/2017) is allowed.Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After incorporation of necessary amendments, office is directed to register this Criminal Revision as a Criminal Appeal.Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.397/2013 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the appellants/State is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2997/2013 and IA No.2998/2013 to the counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11362/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.192/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.221/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.537/2017 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1541/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole copy of order-sheets of criminal case.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1783/2013 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Vishvakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.720/2014 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.R.No.1121/2016 03.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9384/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 13days.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7863/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8510/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9386/2016 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11943/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.679/2017 02.03.2017 Ms. Isha Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.185/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.857/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Service report of respondent No.1 is still awaited.Office is directed to list the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.9/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.Lower court record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2340/2014 02.03.2017 Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 not appeared before the trial court and remained ex-party to the trial court.Service of notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1450/2015 02.03.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to verify the factum of death of applicant Mukesh.Office is also directed to call for report regarding death of applicant Mukesh from Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1575/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.555/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1103/2015 02.03.2017 Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Kumar Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.Status report of MJC (Criminal) Case No.15/2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas is still awaited.Office is directed to call the status report positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the status report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Session Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision No.111/2016, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar rejected applicant's Criminal Revision No.111/2016 and maintained the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar in Criminal Case No.49/2016, wherein learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant for dishonor of cheque averting that petitioner and respondent were known to each other and out of that friendship when petitioner was in need of money, respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to him.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the cheque given by the petitioner was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.So action be taken against applicant.[3] During trial of the case applicant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. averting that though respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- but he did not file any documentary evidence regarding that amount so respondent be directed to file all documents relating to his income, expenditure and income tax return.In his reply respondent opposed the prayer.Learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23.09.2016 rejected that application observing that application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was not maintainable at that stage against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.111/2016, which was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar observing that the impugned order was an interim order against which the Revision is not maintainable.Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner averting that respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the said cheque was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.Applicant wants to cross-examine the respondent on the point that whether respondent actually has the capacity to give Rs.20,00,000/- to the applicant for which documents regarding income and expenditure and his income tax return are required.so they be called from the applicant.Learned trial court committed mistake in rejecting his application.[5] It appears from the record that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant averting that applicant took Rs.20,00,000/- from him and to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.So prima facie burden for proving this fact lies on respondent and what documents he wish to file to prove this fact depends upon his will.In his application applicant has not mentioned the year/years for which he sought respondent's income tax return and regarding what documents or for what period he wants income and expenditure details of respondent.His application is vague, so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.132/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.1006/2016, which is an application for stay.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.805/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.933/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5, even after service of notice.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Soumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1131/2016 01.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2266/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of statement of prosecutrix and wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1295/2012 01.03.2017 Shri R.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the report from the Central Jail, Indore regarding detention of appellant Hemu @ Hemant.Let the matter be listed in the next week along with the report.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3685/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.122/2000 01.03.2017 None present for the appellant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.On 13.01.2017, 13.02.2017 and 22.02.17 none present for the appellant even in the second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.212/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D. mode on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1595/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.R.No.214/2017 be listed along with this petition.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.214/2017 after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6381/2016 01.03.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and also wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1054/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.594/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Let the matter be listed after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to this petition are that, applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent before the J.M.F.C., Mahidpur, Ujjain averting that marriage of his daughter Heena was solemnized with respondent Firoz on 09.02.2013 at Mahidpur.In the marriage he gave jewellery, cloths, electric goods, almirah, fridge, T.V., washing machine, a cooler and other home appliances worth Rs.3,50,000/- to his daughter.On 20.04.2013, respondent Firoz gave divorce to his daughter Heena but he did not return the aforesaid house-hold goods, which he gave to his daughter as dowry at the time of marriage.That Revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur by order dated 12.05.2015 wherein it set aside the trial court's order observing that applicant's daughter Heena voluntarily left her matrimonial house in the night of 19.03.2013 and she clearly admitted in a letter that she does not want to live with respondent Firoz.She wanted to live with Nilesh Suryawanshi and also admitted that respondent Firoz Khan had voluntarily given divorce to her and she had received all house-hold goods which were given by her father as dowry.So offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the respondent.Being aggrieved with that order applicant filed this petition.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad respondent himself promised to return the house-hold goods which were given by the applicant as dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage but he did not do so.The affidavit filed by the respondent before the Revisional Court alleging given by Heena is fake.Learned A.S.J. committed mistake in rejecting the trial court's order by relying on that fake affidavit.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act a list of articles which were given in dowry at the time of marriage should be made but there is no such list.On the contrary Heena at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad clearly admitted before the Police Officers that she got all articles which were given to her at the time of her marriage.So no question of returning the articles arises.Learned A.S.J. rightly rejected the applicant's prayer.[5] First of all applicant himself averted in the application that he gave house-hold goods and other articles to her daughter in her marriage.So those articles are the property of her daughter and not the applicant.According to Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as under :-Section 6 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.--(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman-- --(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman--"(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage;(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; orAlong with the complaint applicant also filed a copy of the notice given by him to the respondent before filing of complaint wherein it is mentioned that a list of articles given to the respondent at the time of marriage was prepared, but no such list was produced by the applicant before the court.The complainant filed complaint against nine persons alleging that all of them received the gifts given to Heena at the time of marriage.It is incredible that all the nine persons together received the gift items while in the notice it is mentioned that all gifts were received by respondent Firoz which is contradictory so in the opinion of this court learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake in rejecting the trial court's order.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.224/2017 28.01.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Bail Application No.16/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Mohammad Zeeshan S/o Mohammad Anees under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.28/2017 registered at Police Station-A.J.K., Jhabua, District- Jhabua for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 & Sections 3(2), 5(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)On 24.01.2017, at 1.00 p.m., at Meghnagar Bus Stand, when she asked appellant to marry her, he refused and abused her and clearly stated that he can't marry her.When she told appellant that she will lodge a report, he threatened to kill her.The appellant filed Bail Application No.16/2017 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for getting bail.Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua rejected that application.Being aggrieved appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant is major and she is a consenting party.She has wrongly lodged the report against the appellant.Appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime.Charge-sheet has been filed.The appellant is in custody since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, counsel prayed for grant of bail.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State and complainant/prosecutrix opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that complainant was minor at the time of starting of the incident and that appellant sexually exploited her for last two years on the pretext of marriage and pray for rejection.[5] Looking to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time and that on the date of lodging report prosecutrix was major so without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.[6] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact 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;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, Cr.A. No.224/2017 is disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1176/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8886/2016, which is an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for service of summon on respondent No.3 by paper publication.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that service of summon on respondent No.3 has not been effected by ordinary process.So, summon be issued on respondent No.3 by way of publication.After due consideration, application is allowed.On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice to respondent No.3 by way of publication in the local newspaper published in the local area in Indore where respondent No.3 is said to be resided.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to supply copy of documents to respondents No.1 & 2, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after publication of notice in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.938/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.1640/2017, which is an application to add complainant Saradar Mohammad as party to the petition memo.After due consideration, application is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.141/2017 28.02.2017 Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12636/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.289/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Prafulla Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016 28.02.2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohara, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.75/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Bourasi, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1552/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Anushri Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1706/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9548/2014 28.02.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.859/2016 28.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Matter is already admitted, therefore, let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 21.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1614/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2231/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report of respondents No.1 to 7 is still awaited.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10576/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay fresh process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.113/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.214/2016 22.02.2017 Shri K.K. Koushal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rohit Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2015, whereby he rejected the applicant's/defendent's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.6-A/2015 before the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore for seeking arrears of rent and eviction of applicant from the part of suit house and in alternative for seeking a declaration to declare them owner of that part of the suit house and also declaring that part of the suit house in dangerous state and that it be demolished after eviction of applicant averting that respondents are the owner of the suit house No.181 situated at Netaji Nagar, Indore.In the back side of the suit house No.181 two rooms and kitchen were built in 14x20=280 sq.ft.Area, which was given by the respondents on rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant in the year 1993 by an oral agreement.In the year 2010 Municipal Corporation also gave a notice to the respondents that the said construction is in dangerous state and can't be used for human dwelling.That being so, applicant was directed to give vacant possession of that part of suit house to respondents and pay arrears of rent.[3] During trial of the suit applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averting that the land of suit house was given to applicant's mother Munni Bai by the State Government on lease so the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act would not apply on the suit land.Respondents also did not file any documentary evidence showing that the respondent is owner while applicant is a tenant in his suit house, so respondents' suit is not maintainable.Even otherwise on one hand respondents filed a suit averting that applicant is a tenant in the suit house and for his eviction from the suit house and also for getting arrears of rent while on the other hand applicant sought that he be declared owner of the suit house and it be declared in a dangerous stage and a mandatory injunction be issued against the applicant to vacate the suit house which is contradictory so suit is not maintainable.[4] Learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that respondents sought contradictory relief.To decide other objections it requires evidence which cannot be decided at this stage.Being aggrieved of that order applicant filed this Revision.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court has committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application without appreciating the fact that the respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit and that without amending pleading of the suit, the same is not maintainable.[6] Respondents in their reply opposed the prayer.[7] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.Although it appears from the averment of the plaint that respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit but the suit cannot be rejected only on that ground that there is no such provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.Likewise the suit cannot be rejected only on the ground that respondent has not filed any documentary evidence showing his ownership or landlordship over suit property.It is a matter of evidence so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant.Hence, the revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1397/2014 27.02.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.As per office report, notice of respondent No.2 received unserved for want of correct address.Respondents No.1 and 3 are served.Notice of respondent No.4 received unserved.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along with the correct address within 15 days.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 4 on payment of process fee within 15 days, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 27.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to file copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.C.No.1704/2015 27.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.84/2016 27.02.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.231/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7096/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel along with Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.349/2017 27.02.2017 Shri G.K.Neema, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.131/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1356/2014 27.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.857/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1283/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1518/2016 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1570/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7743/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8500/2016 27.02.2017 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2143/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of whole complainant and copy of statement recorded by the trial court on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.375/2009 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for securing presence of respondent on furnishing correct particulars along with process fee within within 7 days, returnable within 8 weeks.Let the matter be listed after eight weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.621/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.627/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Issue fresh notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9393/2011 27.02.2017 Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1126/2007 22.02.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already suffered sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, he does not want to press his appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1029/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1266/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Office is directed to call for the report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, whether appellant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1901/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Tribhuvan Kulmi, learned counsel for the applicant.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.R.No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.By the common order dated 24.12.2016 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain decided Cr.R. No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.So office is directed to examine whether one single petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Five different Criminal Revisions.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1611/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Kaivalya Ratnaparkhe, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh in M.Cr.C.No.200/2015, whereby he allowed the application of respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondent.Applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns Rs.40,000/- per month.He also runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and earns Rs.30,000/- per month.He is also having 10 shops at Kota and earning Rs.50,000/- per month as rent from those shops and he is able to maintain his wife and children but has refused to do so without any sufficient cause, so applicant be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegations levelled by the respondents in his application and averted that he never demanded dowry from respondent No.1 and never harassed her.Respondent No.1 herself is voluntarily living with her mother without any cause.She is working as a Teacher in R.K.Academy, Biaora and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself and her children, while applicant is a Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns only Rs.17,685/- per month and his parents also depend on him.Therefore, prayed for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties observed that respondent No.1 is having sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant and is not able to maintain herself and her children while applicant is able to maintain respondents but has refused to do so, therefore, he directed the applicant to give Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to each respondent.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[5] Only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is on higher side.He submits that it is clearly established from the evidence produced by the applicant that applicant earlier worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he left that job and presently has no means of earning so he is not able to maintain respondents.[6] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicant himself in his reply admitted that he works as Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.17,685/- per month.The Certificate (Ex.D/1) filed by the applicant is not correct.It is clear from the record that applicant is having many means of earning.He runs one talkies and also has many shops in the market and earns much and is able to pay Rs.15,000/-maintenance as awarded by the learned Trial Court.[7] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.Learned trial court itself in Para 22 of its judgment held that applicant earns Rs.17,685/-per month as salary but it awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, which is clearly on higher side.Although respondent No.1 Dipika Chourasiya deposed that applicant runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan).He is also having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) and also has one house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor, which earns him rent.But applicant in his statement clearly denied the fact that he runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) or has any house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor which earns him rent.[8] Respondents have not filed any document which shows that applicant possess the aforementioned immovable property.So respondents' statement that applicant is having the aforesaid immovable property and he is earning from that property does not appeared to be true.Likewise although respondent No.1 stated that applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.40,000/- per month as salary and applicant also admitted in his reply that he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he got only Rs.17,685/- per month as salary from that job.Respondents have not filed any documentary evidence which shows that applicant's salary is Rs.40,000/- per month.[9] Although applicant in his statement deposed that earlier he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but form 15.11.2015 he has left his job and also filed Ex.D/1 resignation letter from that job.Applicant filed reply of respondents' application on 10.08.2015 in which he clearly admitted that he works at Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and got a salary of Rs.17,685/-.Although on the stage of his evidence on 18.11.2016 applicant filed Ex.D/1 showing that he resigned from the said service from 15.11.2015 but has not produced the person, who gave Certificate (Ex.D/1) in this regard, so this Certificate is not believable.Even otherwise it appears strange that he left his job at the time of evidence without any cause so it is incredible and does not appear to be correct.[10] So from the evidence produced by the parties applicant's income appears only as Rs.17,685/- per month.Learned trial court also in Para 22 of his judgment held that applicant's income is Rs.17,685/- per month.In these circumstances, the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side looking to the income of applicant.So it is appropriate to reduce the maintenance amount.[11] Hence, Revision is partly allowed and applicant is directed to pay a maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3 instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as directed by the trial court.Remaining conditions of the trial court's order shall remain same.Accordingly, Revision stands disposed of.as per rules.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6771/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.268/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1872/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1417/2017 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1067/2016 22.02.2017 Shri M.S.Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2016, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.R.No.1535/2016 22.02.2017 None for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5739/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Office to verify and thereafter list the matter in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 to 4 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.33/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.42/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.129/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Arti Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.238/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1184/2017 22.02.2017 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1338/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the parties seek time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1245/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State has filed copy of Handwriting Expert's report, alleged suicide note and copy of charge-sheet, which are taken on record.It appears that applicant has not filed whole copy of charge-sheet, so applicant is directed to file whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1549/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and also seeks time to produce the complainant before the court regarding compromise application.Let the matter be listed on 24.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1042/2014 21.02.2017 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya tomorrow at 5.00 p.m.. Parties are also directed to co- operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya is directed to submit her report after mediation process.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017 along with the Mediator's report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 09.03.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1422/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10446/2016 21.02.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.108/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.881/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.249/2015 21.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.934/2015 21.02.2017 Shri R.K.Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.R.No.1069/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel from the applicant.Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.120/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Kaushiyal Malya, learned counsel for the complainant.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act District - Rajgarh, in Criminal Case No.13/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Gopal S/o Shankarlal Jat under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station - Malawar, District - Rajagarh for the offence under Section 376, 294 and 506 of IPC & Section 3(1)(B)(2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (further refer as "Act").[2] As per prosecution story, on 30.08.2016, prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station A.J.K., Bhopal averting that appellant Gopal is threatening her since 1 years and keeps asking her to come to his field otherwise he would kill her husband.In the month of August, 2016 four days before Rakhi between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m., when she went in Gopal's field for taking kanda (dung cake) Gopal caught her and raped her and threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody.She narrated the incident to her husband, who asked Gopal as to why he raped his wife, on which Gopal abused them and also tried to kill her husband.On this Police of P.S. A.J.K., Bhopal sent report to P.S. Malawar, Distt Rajgarh, where Police registered Crime No.184/2016 for the offence under Section 376, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) & 3(1)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and investigated the matter.During investigation it was found that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant Gopal.In these circumstances, Police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the court of Special Judge, Rajgarh.On that report Special Judge Rajgarh took cognizance against the appellant and registered Special Case No.13/2017 and issued arrest warrant for securing the presence of appellant in the case.Learned Special Judge also rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. observing that from the case diary it prima facie appeared that appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and got FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) filed in this case using his influence.From the case diary, provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act get attracted.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant to harass him.During investigation, from the statement of prosecutrix herself it appeared that prosecutrix filed false report against him, so police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the crime.Learned Trial Judge wrongly took cognizance against the appellant and issued warrant and that provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted from the case diary and prayed for anticipatory bail.Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited.[9] So appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail, his appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgarh, in pursuance of the arrest warrant issued by the learned Special Judge Rajgarh or if he surrenders before Special Judge Rajgarh in S.T. No.13/2017 the present appellant namely Gopal Jat S/o Shankarlal Jat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Atrocity, Rajgarh.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-Accordingly, Cr.C.No.583/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1053/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 03.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed 02.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on IA No.470/2017, which is an application filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.After due consideration, application is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record of Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.680/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the applicants is also directed to file the copy of charge-sheet and present status of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondents /State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file the reply of the petition on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.672/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2..Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10928/2015 20.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3552/2016 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.243/2014 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.239/2015 20.02.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.313/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1813/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.On 18.10.2016, learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment and on 31.01.2017 also none present for the applicant even in the second round.It shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7539/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the status report of Crime No.161/2013 of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and case diary of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.793/2016 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.52/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1892/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1838/2014 17.02.2017 Shri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per report of non-bailable warrant of arrest of appellant Jitendra Mukhi, appellant is in custody in District Jail Phulwani (Orisa).(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.348/2015 17.02.2017 Shri P.Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of appellant No.3 Mohan before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.532/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce applicant Sohan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the applicant Sohan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1020/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.284/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 17.02.2017 Shri S.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the intervener.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.26/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1275/2016 17.02.2017 Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1331/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 17.02.2017 Shri V.Asava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11593/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12691/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.25/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.484/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, applicant is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance instead of Rs.5,000/- as directed by the learned Family Court.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.780/2017 17.02.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to verify the factum of death of applicant No.1 Smt. Shakuntala Khandelwal positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.3466/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 246 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.3466/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.Let the matter be listed for admission in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.825/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Suresh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant on 03.02.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 17.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10551/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Pawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.619/2016, whereby he affirmed the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006, whereby he rejected the applicant's prayer that since he has already undergone whole sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine so recovery proceedings be not carried out against the applicant.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque.On the complaint Criminal Case No.1801/2001 was registered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and after trial Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore found applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, against which applicant filed Cr.That appeal was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by judgment dated 29.09.2004 and affirmed the order of Trial Judge, against which applicant has also filed Cr.No.777/2004 in this court which was also rejected by this court by order dated 24.08.2005 and the judgment of the Trial Judge became final.Applicant has undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.[3] After that respondent filed Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006 to procure the compensation amount from the applicant.During prosecution of this case applicant filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore averting that because applicant has undergone one month's RI in default of payment of fine so the recovery proceedings of compensation amount cannot be carried out against the applicant.[4] Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore rejected the prayer observing that even after undergoing the sentence in default of payment of compensation court issued recovery warrant against the applicant for recovering of compensation amount, against which applicant filed Cr.R. No.619/2016, which also was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this petition.[6] He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in Ramnath V/s.Jagdish Prasad Garg and another reported in 2000 Bank J. 29, in which court held that, "Petitioner having already undergone the punishment awarded minus the fine; petition becomes infructuous as no other mode of realisation of amount under criminal law is provided.Complainant may if he desires file civil suit for recovery."But in that case point whether the accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and so recovery proceeding be not carried out was not in issue that Criminal Revision was filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court against him.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision regarding this issue.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :Warrant for levy of fine.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.[7] Even in the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in Y.Vishnu V/s."Section 421 of Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine by one of the two ways or by both of them.The second mode of recovery is to issue a warrant to the Deputy Commissioner of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue.[8] So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in issuing recovery warrant to procure the fine amount from applicant.Hence, petition is rejected.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.466/2007 15.02.2017 Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.Heard on IA No.1084/2017, which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 Kalyanmal S/o Laxminarayan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7010/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file the reply of the petition.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9680/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Singh Jhala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the document within one week.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.28558/2014 pending before the learned ACJM, Indore be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.367/2017, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment of trial court.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks, along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.91/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply.He is directed to file reply positively before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.161/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.861/2015 15.02.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.81/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.403/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Jai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Bherusingh is in jail and he wants time to file an appropriate application in this regard.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.474/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Surendra Patwa, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10571/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Case No.13654/2016 be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1723/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.837/2017 15.02.2017 Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1410/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None present for the respondents No.2 to 5 even after second round.Heard on IA No.8314/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 287 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.8314/2015) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8642/2015 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9564/2015 15.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.266/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 290 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.266/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.53/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1171/2016 15.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant even in the second round, case is adjourned.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for admission along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.725/2016 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Second A.S.J., Jaora, Link Court, Alote in S.T.No.119/2015, whereby he framed the charge against respondents under Section 306 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C..During investigation it was found that applicant no. 1 and 2, are the parents in law of deceased and applicant no.3 is the wife of the deceased.she is also having one daughter Roshni aged 3 years.Due to some dispute between applicant no3 and deceased their matrimonial life got strained.So applicant no. 2 came to deceased's house at Alot and took applicant No. 3 and her daughter Roshni with him.He also left a suicide note.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.From the statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet, only allegation against the applicants was that applicant No.3 wanted deceased to live with her parents at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicant No.2 took his wife applicant No.3 and daughter with him to their house since deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.On that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.Applicant No.2 took applicant No.3 and her daughter Nine or Ten days before the incident.[7] In the matter of Babbi @ Jitendra V/s.Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not sustainable."[10] So in the considered opinion of this court evidence collected against the applicants by the prosecution are totally insufficient to infer that the applicants abetted for suicide, they may be cause for the suicide but not the abetted.Resultant, the petition is hereby allowed.The impugned order framing charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside.On the said refusal the applicant beat and threatened her.Then on 09.01.2013 she lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Indore against the applicant.On that report Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.2/2013 for the offence under Section 498-A, 294 and 506 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2130/2013 was registered before the J.M.F.C., Indore and J.M.F.C., Indore framed charges under Section 498A of the IPC against the applicant and tried the matter.The case is pending for evidence before the trial court.Respondent did love marriage with applicnt and after marriage she never resided with the applicant.From the very same day she returned to Satwas.Before that report respondent also filed a report in Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that applicant solemnized temporary marriage with her and soon after the marriage applicant left her.She had lived with applicant only three hours after marriage then applicant left her.So there is no question of applicant's demanding money or torturing the respondent.The FIR lodged by the respondent is false.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the FIR prima facie case under Section 498A of the IPC is made out.On the charge-sheet learned trial court prima facie found that offence under Section 498A, 506 and 294 of IPC is made out and framed the charge against the applicant for those offences.So there is no question of quashment of criminal case.The respondent filed another application before the Mahila Thana averting that she only lived with the applicant for three hours after marriage is not a part of charge-sheet under which circumstances, that application is filed, is a matter of evidence.The application filed by the applicant along with petition is not a part of charge-sheet.The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.218/2012 14.02.2017 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.None present for the respondent.Heard on IA No.997/2017, which is an application for taking legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal on record under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC.Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a Death Certificate of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal along with the application.After due consideration, application is allowed.Legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal be taken on record.Necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.The matter is already admitted for final hearing, therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.619/2011 14.02.2017 Shri K.K.Kaushal, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the copy of IA No.978/2017, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for legal representatives of respondent No.5 Narendra Kumar to be brought on record.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and also prays for a fix date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Bhagwan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 03.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant Bhagwan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.229/2007 14.02.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants No.1 Khima and No.3 Hurji are present in person before the Court and they have been identified by their counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 04.01.2017 is hereby condoned.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 10.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.830/2013 14.02.2017 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of respondent Pradeep by order dated 03.02.2017 be recalled.Applicant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed along with the record for hearing on admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.126/2015 14.02.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.447/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Nana @ Dilip is not present.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of applicant Nana @ Dilip before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.822/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Section 421 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973Warrant for levy of fine.(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.M.C.C.No.931/2016 14.02.2017 Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9418/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 5 days.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to calculation mistake he could not file the petition in time.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.After due consideration, application (IA No.9418/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned..The M.C.C. is for restoration of SA.No.68/2015, which has been dismissed on 27.10.2016 for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.10.2016 he was engaged on another board, therefore, he could not appear for arguments on 27.10.2016 and Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and SA No.68/2015 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.931/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.2/2001 13.02.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.728/2017 13.02.2017 Shri Amit bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1669/2013 13.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.664/2004 13.02.2017 Shri Bharat Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to secure presence of appellants Bhawla and Keru before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.69/2005 13.02.2017 Ms. Archna Jadiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.158/2008 13.02.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent.Today both the parties submitted that new arbitrator Shri S.N.Sharma be appointed in place of Shri N.K.Porwal.Office is directed to take his consent for the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns NATIONAL LOK ADALAT 11.02.2017 Since settlement is not possible, therefore, the case is released from the National Lok Adalat.List the matter before the regular Bench.Criminal Revision No.981/2015 10.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Complaint No.26409/2015, whereby he took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 506 and 393 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents averting that on 30.01.2015, at 2.45 p.m., applicant went to Life Insurance Corporation's Office, Indore, where respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla abused and beated him and another 25-30 persons confined the applicant and respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla tried to loot money from applicant.On that applicant informed Aditya Garg on phone then he came there.Respondents No.1 Sunil Jhinjhore, No.2 Abdul Jalal Mulla and No.3 Bhupendra Rathore with the aid of other persons beated Aditya Garg also and tore his shirt.Applicant and Jitendra lodged report about the incident at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore but Police did not lodge the FIR.So cognizance under Section 294, 506, 323, 342 and 393 read with Section 34 of IPC be taken against the respondents.Learned trial court recorded statements of applicant and Aditya Garg under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C., then by order dated 01.07.2015 on the complaint took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 342, 506 and 393 of IPC against them.Being aggrieved from that applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the complaint and statements given by the applicant and Aditya Garg (PW-2) offence under Section 393 and 506 of IPC is clearly made out.[4] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no prima facie evidence on record to take cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC, so learned trial court has not committed any mistake in not taking cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC.[5] This court perused the record and arguments put forth by both the parties.[6] Applicant only deposed that at the time of incident respondent Sunil Jhinjhore, Abdul Jalal Mulla and Dilip Jain tried to snatch money from him and respondents also threatened to break his legs that if he lodged the report in Police, he would break legs and hand of him.Words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it is does not appear from the statement of complainant that complainant felt, as reasonable man, that the accused was going to convert his words in action, on the contrary complainant himself stated that after the threat of respondent to break his hands and legs if he lodged the complaint, he went to Police Station Tukoganj, for lodging the report which shows that respondent's threat caused no fear to complainant.So trial court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance under Section 506 of IPC, likewise complainant deposed that respondents tried to snatch money from him but it is not stated that from where respondents tried to snatch money either from his pocket or from his hand.Moreover he did not even disclose the amount he was carrying that respondents tried to snatch and where he kept that money.Due to this reason he committed suicide in his house.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected by the Police against the applicant that deceased Firoz died due to consuming poison.The statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet.Only allegation against the applicants was that applicants want to deceased live with them at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicants took his wife and daughter with them in their house because deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee is serving in school, due to this reason applicants not sent their daughter with deceased, apart from that evidence there is no any other evidence against the applicants that they ill treated the deceased.Only on the ground that applicants not sent their daughter with deceased it cannot be said that applicants abetted deceased Firoz for committing suicide.He further submitted that as per prosecution case deceased Firoz was Driver by profession and he was habitual for consuming liquor and after consuming liquor he beated his wife and forcefully took with him.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee stated to deceased that if he leaves liquor and not ill treat her.Due to this reason Firoz has committed suicide, so as per whole charge-sheet there is no whisper of evidence collected by the prosecution under Section 107 of IPC and there is no evidence of any abetment or instigation for committing suicide found by prosecution.But despite this learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Firoz himself in his letter mentioned that he committed suicide because applicants not sent her wife and daughter with him and applicants are liable for his suicide.So, there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC and reject their prayer.[5] It appears from the record that only allegation against the applicants is that applicants who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased took their daughter with them and not sent with deceased Firoz on that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard also placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Hariom S/o Ramesh Kumar V/s.State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) M.P.L.J. Page 195 in which this court held that, "Abetment to commit suicide - Proof - The act of the accused must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of IPC.It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide.In the present case there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of applicant and the act of deceased of commission of suicide.Applicant is said to have entered the house in the night, but the deceased hanged herself in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. It appears that under great stress and depression and feeling ashamed by the conduct of applicant, she committed suicide.Apparently, the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against applicant merely on the ground that deceased felt ashamed by the said conduct of accused.However, there is material on record to indicate that applicant had entered the house of complainant in the night.from the time of quarrel - Act of did not fall within the ambit and scope of abetment as defined under Section 306 Penal Code - No prima facie case of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 Penal Code is made out - Order of trial Court directing framing of charge against set aside - Revision application allowed."(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge F.A.No.682/2015 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State.The M.C.C. is for restoration of FA.No.322/2016, which has been dismissed on 20.07.2016 in compliance of peremptory order.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 20.07.2016 office-in-charge could not attend the office, so defect could not be cured, because of that FA no.322/16 was dismissed.His absence is bona fide, so FA No.322/16 be restored to its original position.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and F.A.No.322/2016 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.717/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.854/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.10019/2016, which is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to renew applicant's passport.The applicant, who is an MLA is required to travel abroad for many government official works, therefore, he may be permitted to renew his passport.Prayer is allowed with the condition that the applicant will not leave India without permission of this court.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.978/2016 10.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1185/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1431/2017 10.02.2017 Mrs.K.Mundra, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1498/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned counsel for the applicant.The M.Cr.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1512/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.222/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants/State.None present for the respondent.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This matter has wrongly been listed today.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1136/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1138/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Record is not received as yet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1347/2015 09.02.2017 Shri Kantesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.306/2016 09.02.2017 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.38/2017 09.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1445/2015 08.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in M.Cr.C.No.432/2014, whereby he allowed the application of respondent's filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are minor children of the applicant.Earlier they filled M.Cr.C.No.52/2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant, In that case trial court vide order dated 19.05.2010 directed the applicant to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance for each of the respondents.On 04.12.2013, respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court for enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that the awarded amount is not sufficent for maintaining them, so amount of maintenance be enhanced.Although applicant opposed the prayer but learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties allowed the application and enhanced the amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- for each of the respondent.Being aggrieved with the order applicant has filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that applicant is not able to give enhanced amount because his income is on lower side, on the contrary respondents are living with their mother and their mother running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and she is able to maintain the respondents wrongly enhanced the amount of maintenance.[4] It is appeared from the evidence on record that applicant himself admitted that between the year 2010 to 2015 went inflation has doubled and also admitted that the respondents are gradually getting older so need of respondents are also growing.There is no reliable evidence on record which shows that mother of respondents is running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.Although applicant deposed that he is a laborer and only earns Rs.4,500/- per month.but he also admitted that his mother having shop he works in the house of his mother.It is not believable that applicant is working as labourer in the house of her mother, so it appears that applicant for hiding his income wrongly deposed the facts.in these circumstances learned trial court has not committed any mistake in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Hence, the Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, the respondents had filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (henceforth the code) in Criminal MJC No.21/1999 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Neemuch which was allowed and Respondent No.1was granted Rs.1300/- per month from 10.9.1996 and respondent No.2 was granted Rs.700/- per month from 10.9.1996 till attaining majority or till her marriage.This proceeding was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch.[3] The applicant raised the objection that respondent No.2 has become major so she has no right to get the maintenance.Even otherwise in view of section 125(3) of the code recovery of the amount should be confined to one year prior to filing of the application.The rest of the amount stands time barred in view of subsection (3) of section 125 of the code.[4] The Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch, by order dated 21.11.2015 rejected the applicant's objection by observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and she filed the application on 02.01.2013 within one year of attaining majority.So her application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.The applicant is bound to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 from 10.09.1996 to till attaining the age of majority and of her marriage.Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed Cr.R.No.1591/2015, which was decided by this court vide order dated 14.12.2016 and maintained the order of the trial court observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and respondent No.2 filed the said application on 02.01.2013 i.e. within one year of attaining majority which is well within time.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant in the revision filed before this court took an objection that respondent No.2 had become major before filing of execution but respondent No.1 Rashida filed an execution on behalf of respondent No.2 as guardian hiding the fact that she is a major.The minor could have filed an application within a year after attending majority and claimed maintenance from 1999 but the application was filed by her mother which cannot be filed after lapse of so many years.The application is time barred so impugned order may kindly be recalled.The application for getting maintenance was filed by both the respondents.Hence, this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, along with the record.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.110/2017 08.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 08.02.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1648/2015 07.02.2017 Smt. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant filed a copy of statement of respondent Smt. Pooja Sarkar recorded by the trial court in MJC No.120/2015, which is taken on record.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.No.3881/2015, whereby applicant is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for getting maintenance from the applicant and also filed an application for getting interim maintenance during trial of the case.Learned trial court observing that respondent is the legally wedded wife of applicant and presently living separate from the applicant and it is the duty of the applicant to maintain her, directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that respondent voluntarily without any cause is living separately from the applicant, so she is not entitled for any maintenance.Even otherwise respondent helps her parents in business and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and she is able to maintain herself while applicant is unemployed and unable to give maintenance to the respondent.Thus, learned trial court has wrongly ordered the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that applicant without any cause refused to maintain the respondent.So learned trial court has not committed any mistake in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It is admitted that respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant and at present living with her parents.In that circumstances, respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.Whether respondent is voluntarily living separately from the applicant or she is able to maintain herself is a matter of evidence.It cannot be decided at this stage without evidence.Although applicant stated that he is unemployed presently and it is admitted that applicant is a Software Engineer.It is not the case of the applicant that he is unable to do work because of any inability.So under these circumstances, if learned trial court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case to the respondent, it cannot be said to be wrong.So, Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per report received of non-bailable warrant of appellant, Remsingh has died on 03.01.2016, so appeal is abated against appellant No.1 Remsingh.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 Remsingh from appeal memo.Learned counsel for the appellants wants time to produce appellant No.2 Vinod before this court.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Vinod.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 07.02.2017 Shri P.K.Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.998/16 in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1324/2017 07.02.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 07.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8654/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the parties seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 23.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the court on the next date of hearing.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.846/2012 07.02.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply of IA No.1715/2016, IA No.1716/2016 and IA No.1717/2016 positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1688/2014 07.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Sanjay before this court.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant Sanjay.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Chakrawarti Swami received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 30.03.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.146/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.3 Ramlal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1273/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.After due consideration, application (IA No.9277/2016) is allowed.Appellant is directed to change his appeal into leave to appeal.Necessary amendments be carried out.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 28.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.89/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Heard finally at motion stage.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a Civil Suit No.30-A/2014 before the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagda against the respondents for declaring him owner of suit land and restraining the respondent to interfere in his possession in the suit land.For setting aside that judgment and decree respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 01.09.2015 before the trial court and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application before the trial court.In reply applicant opposed the prayer.But Learned trial court allowed the application observing that the disposal of case should be on merits and not only on technical grounds.Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court wrongly allowed the application of respondents without giving an opportunity for producing evidence.[4] It appears from the record that the applicant in his reply opposed the prayer of respondents.The application filed by the respondents is also time barred and respondent also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.In that circumstances it is the duty of the court to give opportunity to the parties to give evidence in support of their contentions.Learned trial court without giving proper opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions decided the application, which cannot be said to be correct.Thereafter, give an opportunity to the applicant for rebuttal and then again decide the application on merits.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned First A.S.J., Mandleshwar in Special Case No.18/2013, whereby learned Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant Nawal Singh for further cross-examination.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for taking bribe from complainant Naval Singh for correcting entries of revenue record.[3] During trial of the case on 22.09.2015 applicant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. averting that according to the information received by the applicant from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone complainant did not file any application before the office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone for correcting the revenue entries and procuring new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika.So, he wants further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[4] Respondent in his reply opposed the prayer and averted that from the documents produced with charge-sheet it is clear that the work of complainant was pending before the applicant at the time of incident and pray for rejection.[5] Learned trial court rejected his application observing that earlier also applicant had filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2015 which was rejected by this court.Applicant again filed the application on the same ground.There is no need to recall the complainant for re-examination and that applicant is free to file document in his defence.Being aggrieved from this applicant has filed this petition.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial for allegedly demanding and taking illegal gratification for correcting revenue entries of complainant's land and issuing new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika while the information received from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone after completion of examination of complainants Naval Singh (PW1) before trial court shows that no such work of complainant was pending before the revenue authority at the time of incident.So it is essential to cross examine the complainant on the point on the basis of information received.The trial court wrongly rejected his application for further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he has filed this application only for delaying the trial.Learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer.At that time trial court gave full opportunity to the applicant to cross- examine the complainant.Applicant himself averted in the petition that he received the information on 11/11/14 while applicant filed the application for further cross examine the complainant before trial court on 03/06/15, almost seven months after receiving the information.Applicant also had full opportunity to file the said documents in his defence.So trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the prayer.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Criminal Revision No.1422/2015 03.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.C.No.552/2013 whereby he allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent.Applicant and his family members asked for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- cash, a tractor and a car from the parents of respondent for taking her back.Aggrieved by such behaviour of the applicant and his family members respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Indore for restitution of conjugal rights.Learned Trial Court allowed the applicant's petition.In compliance of that order applicant took the respondent along with him on 01.02.2013, but his behaviour with the respondent remained same but after sometime he left the respondent at her parental house.Then respondent lodged the report against the applicant in Police Station Malharganj.On the report Crime No.251/2013 was registered, which is already pending against the applicant.Applicant is also having business of selling milk and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain respondent, but has refused to maintain the respondent without any sufficient cause.So, the applicant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegation levelled by the respondent against him and averted that family members of the respondent solemnized the marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that she is handicapped .Also, at the time of marriage applicant was minor, so applicant's marriage with respondent is void.Applicant never demanded any dowry and never harassed the respondent.Respondent made false allegation in this regard in her application.Respondent works as Beautician and also works in a private company and earns Rs.13,000/-per month and is able to maintain herself, while applicant earns only Rs.30000-35,000/- per year and he is not able to maintain respondent and prays for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties allowed the application of respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent observing that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant who is able to maintain her is not maintaining respondent without any sufficient cause.[5] Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this revision.[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Trial Court by the order dated 18.03.2015 wrongly closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent due to which because applicant was debarred from his right.It is also proved from the evidence that respondent was minor at the time of marriage and the family members of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped.Since applicant was minor at the time of marriage, so marriage of respondent with applicant is void.In these circumstances respondent has no right to claim maintenance.Even otherwise it is clearly proved from the evidence produced by the parties that respondent is able to maintain herself while applicant is having only 1/6th share in 10 Bigha of his agriculture land and only earns Rs.30000-35,000/- per annum.Trial Court without appreciating the fact wrongly awarded Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-.There is no need for interference in that order and pray for rejection of the petition.[8] The court perused the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It appeared from the record that learned Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2015 closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent but at the same time it also appeared from the record that on 22.09.2014 respondent and her brother was present in the court for giving evidence but applicant sought time to cross-examine.On that date applicant yet again sought time to cross-examine the respondent whereupon trial court gave one more opportunity by way of last indulgence and case was fixed for 18.03.2015 but again on that date applicant sought time to cross-examine the respondent.Then Trial Court closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.Where, even after taking four opportunities the applicant did not cross-examine the respondent, the trial court did not commit any error in closing the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.[9] Although applicant stated that parents of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with him deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped so marriage is void but it does not appear to be correct.Because applicant himself admitted that after marriage respondent lived with him for three years and if parents of respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped then applicant should have filed the suit for declaring the marriage void on that ground then and there.[10] Applicant also stated that at the time of marriage he was minor so his marriage with respondent is void but as per hindu marriage Act the marriage of a minor is not void.It is not the case of applicant that he after attaining the majority filed any suit for annulling the marriage on that ground.[11] Respondent clearly deposed that after marriage she lived with the applicant for three years but after that applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her back.Then she filed the petition before the Family Court.On the order of Family Court applicant took her but after one & half year applicant again left her in her parental home.Since then respondent is living with her father.The statement of respondent is corroborated by the statement of Pradeep (PW-2).Respondent also deposed that applicant did natra with Pooja and at present Pooja is living with the applicant as his wife.Applicant himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that he was not ready to keep respondent with him which shows that applicant himself not willing to keep respondent with him.[12] Respondent also deposed that she is handicapped and she has no earning.Although applicant stated that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20000 to 22,000/- per month but respondent clearly denied this fact.Applicant did not produce any cogent evidence which proves that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20,000 to 22,000/- per month.[13] So it is clearly proved that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant is able to maintain respondent but has refused to maintain her without any sufficient cause.In these circumstances respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.[14] As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned.It appears from the record that learned trial court on the basis of Ex.P/4 and P/5 revenue papers of agricultural land of applicant assumed that applicant is having sufficient income but it is clear from Ex.P/4 and P/5 that applicant has only 1/6th share in total 2.516 hectare land mentioned in Khasra and Khatoni.So the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the applicant appears to be on the higher side.It is appropriate to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the applicant is reduced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-per month.Remaining conditions of the trial court order shall remain the same.The revision is disposed of accordingly.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.135/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.193/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent No.9/State.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.861/2016 06.02.2017 Shri M.J.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, lerned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application before the Juvenile Justice Board .Prayer is accepted.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9813/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 06.02.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the First A.M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar whereby he rejected applicant's application to pay the amount of Rs.57,375/- in cash which was kept by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in the name of the applicant in the Nationalized Bank.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant and other person filed the Claim Case No.3/2012 before the Trial Court in which the Trial Court awarded him Rs.4,25,000/-.The Trial Court deposited Rs.4,25,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank for five years.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant's dwelling house has been damaged because of heavy rains and she wants money to repair the same.[4] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected her application.Hence, the Revision is allowed.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.134/2017 03.02.2017 None present for the applicant.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.351/2016 03.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.74/2015 03.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on IA No.10593/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 180 days.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.765/2014 03.02.2017 Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Respondent wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 02.02.2017 Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - present in person.None present on behalf of respondent No.2, even after service of notice.seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.793/2016 02.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the .Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Respondent No.3 - Shri Irfan Ahmed Khan is present in person with learned Panel Lawyer wants four weeks time to file reply.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.226/2012 02.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for the surety.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.663/2013 02.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1115/2016 01.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Abid.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.714/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Abid S/o Abdul Patel for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Appellant Abid has been convicted under Sections 148, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively.According to prosecution story, on 21.6.2016, at 5.30 p.m., in village Multanpura when injured Fajju (PW-4) and deceased Afzal were putting sticks on bullock cart, accused Ishaq, Yusuf armed with swords, Abid, Salim armed with guns, Shabbir armed with Axe, Ahmed armed with Dhariya, Akilabi, Shamshadbi, Abdul Salam, Rafique armed with Lathis came there and beated Fajju and Afzal with their weapons with an intention to kill them.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated.Since co-accused Shamshad, Abdul Salam and Akila Bi were released on bail by this Court and appellant's case is similar to their case, therefore, on the ground of parity appellant also deserves to get bail.Hence application for suspension of sentence be allowed.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5), Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun and he also beated Fajju along with other co-accused and prayed for rejection.This Court has carefully gone through the case and judgment delivered by the Court below and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties.The case of the appellant Abid is not similar to other co-accused, who have been earlier granted bail by this court.It is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged by eye witness Ibrahim (PW-2) that Abid was also present on the spot with gun and assaulted deceased Afzal by butt of gun in his legs.Injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5) and Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun.He also beated Fajju (PW-4) along with other co-accused and injured Fajju (PW-4) also deposed that Abid break the leg of deceased Afzal.According to the postmortem report, deceased Afzal sustained 13 injuries including on legs, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not appropriate to release the appellant on bail, hence, the application is rejected.The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Heard on IA No.697/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.The appeal is barred by 2,283 days.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.183/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two months.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.1604/2016 on 13.02.2016, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of the respondent No.7 Sunil before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.159/2015 01.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce the applicant Javed before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1765/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Akash Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.53/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.94/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Office is directed after curing the defect record be called.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1430/2016 01.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.160/2006 01.02.2017 Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5799/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 30.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 01.03.2017, with the consent of both parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6710/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR of Crime No.69/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC against the on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt. Neha.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2016, respondent No.2 Smt. Neha lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant.Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.02.2010 at Sagar.Earlier also she had lodged report against the applicant regarding demand of dowry but after some time in June, 2013 she compromised with the applicant and started residing with him and she also got the case disposed of in compromise.But, applicant again tortured her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- as dowry and in the month of February,2016 applicant by force got divorce papers signed by her and expelled from house.Since then she has been living with her parents at Indore.On 10.04.2016, applicant came to her parental house at 73, Ashish Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and abused her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- and also threatened to kill her.On that report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant.After investigation charge- sheet was filed.Being aggrieved with the FIR applicant has filed this application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier also respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and after some time she compromised with the applicant and again after some time to harass the applicant lodged a false report against the applicant.Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha herself tortured the applicant by her act.Earlier respondent No.2 and applicant had filed an application under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce with consent.But after that respondent No.2 wrongly lodged the FIR mentioning that applicant forcibly got the divorce papers signed from her.So, this report be quashed.[4] Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that on the report of respondent No.2 Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of IPC against the applicant and after investigation of that crime charge-sheet has been filed by the Police before the court.Let the matter be listed after two months.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.813/2016 31.01.2017 Dr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.261/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1468/2013 31.01.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 and 2 even after service of notice.As per office report, respondents No.4 and 5 died.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1691/2016 31.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the chargesheet has already been filed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary and probation officer's report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.81/2015 31.01.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13068/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.[2] It is appeared from the record that on 11.01.2017 this court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar in its report dated 23.01.2017 has stated that complainant/respondent and s No.1 to 3 admit that they amicably settled their dispute.It appears from the record that it was a land dispute which was amicably settled between the parties.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record from the Family Court, Neemuch.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after receiving of the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.971/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of fresh process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.39/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the appellant even after service of notice.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.Let the matter be listed after six weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1287/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court regarding amount.Thus, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1376/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1635/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8585/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on IA No.8271/2016, an application for condonation of delay in filing petition.After due consideration, application (IA No.8271/16) is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of Cr.R.No.353/2016, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 30.04.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due to some reason, so Cr.R.No.353/16 has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and Cr.R.No.353/2016 is restored to its original position.A.No.1735/2016 27.01.2017 Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.C.No.13007/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed along with MCC No.980/16, MCC No.981/16 and MCC No.982/16 in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.106/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call the report from the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mandsaur regarding appellant Lalchand @ Sudama S/o Banshilal resident of Garoth, District Mandsaur, whether he has suffered the sentence imposed against him in S.T.No.106/08 or not?Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9304/2014 27.01.2017 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 &Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.776/2015 27.01.2017 Shri Shivendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Applicant is also directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.981/2015 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1370/2015 27.01.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5859/2015 27.01.2017 Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file inquiry report conducted by the Police Mahila Cell, District Ratlam as desired by the counsel for the applicant on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.165/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Meanwhile, execution of the impugned order remain stayed till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.224/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.966/2001 25.01.2017 None present on behalf of the sole appellant Rajesh.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Rajesh before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 25.01.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Thus, the application (IA No.587/2017) is dismissed as withdrawn.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.151/2014 25.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2016 25.01.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.475/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice.In the absence of respondent matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1017/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.9982/2016 after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.595/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report along with the record on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8348/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11620/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13019/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Anita Gaud, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.300/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1133/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2490/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.85/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondents No.1 to 5 received unserved and notice of respondent No.6 not received yet.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to service on respondents by hamdast mode.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.460/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, non-supply of copy of appeal memo notice not issued to the respondents.is directed to produce the copy of appeal memo within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1460/2010 24.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Mohammed Salim before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1025/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Deepesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Naushad received unserved.Again issue non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the applicant Naushad before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1497/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the respondent.By way of last indulgence, time is given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to pay process fee.Prayer is accepted.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1761/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1634/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7009/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.128/2017 24.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.849/2017 24.01.2017 Shri J.C.Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8480/2016, which is an application for conversion of this First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Due to mistake in legal advise the original appeal was filed as "Civil First Appeal" under Order 41 read with Section 96 of CPC.It should have been filed as a "Miscellaneous Appeal" under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC.So, this First Appeal be converted into Miscellaneous Appeal.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.Amendment be carried out within three days.Let the matter be fixed after Four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.125/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.It is also directed to reflect the name of Shri Sunil Yadav as counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1135/2015 24.01.2017 Ms. Prerana Kataria, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12415/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake and oversight the case could not be marked by the counsel and, therefore, on account of this bona fide mistake the counsel for the applicant could not appear at the time of hearing of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 which was dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 is restored to its original position.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 13.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.C.No.422/2017 23.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.58/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.104/2017 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.One month's time is granted to pay remaining court fees.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, with the consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8921/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Vinod Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.396/2014 23.01.2017 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.5/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.454/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.726/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.765/2016 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017 as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.864/2016 23.01.2017 Ms. Sophiya Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for both the parties seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.201/2006 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Appellant Lavkush is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.Heard on IA No.454/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 05.10.2016 and for recall of order dated 12.01.2017 for issuing non-bailable warrant.Appellant submits that he was in jail on 05.10.2016 in other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on the said date.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, application is allowed and absence of appellant Lavkush on 05.10.2016 is hereby condoned and order for issuing non- bailable warrant is recalled.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.746/2013 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, notice of respondent No.1 received unserved in absence of correct address.Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2675/2013 23.01.2017 Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.None present on behalf of the respondent though served.The appeal is already admitted.List for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.246/2015 23.01.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Pappu Mansuri on 02.01.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Appellant Abdul is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Abdul on 02.12.2016 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.475/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.No one is present on behalf of proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1, even after service of notice.Respondent No.2 is also not present, even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.7815/2016, which is an application for taking legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, IA No.7816/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of filing application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and IA No.7817/2016, which is an application for setting aside of abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC.After due consideration, IAs (IA No.7815/16, IA No.7816/16 and IA No.7817/16) are allowed.Applicant is directed to incorporate the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 in place of respondent No.1 in appeal memo.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.725/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.None present for the respondent.Service report of respondents is awaited.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 23.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC No.39/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.C.C. No.42/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Kaushal Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.84/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.125/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.144/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.146/2017 20.01.2017 Shri M. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant.As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.67/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.75/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.109/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.He is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.654/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, which is an application for stay.Applicant's counsel submits that the non-applicant has filed a private complaint against the applicants and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.10.2015 took the cognizance for the the offence under Section 420 of IPC and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants.He prays that the further proceedings before the trial Court be stayed till the next date of hearing.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the non-applicant on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, returnable within four weeks.Meanwhile, learned trial Court is directed that if the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants, it be recalled.Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.680/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.698/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Apporva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.List after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.755/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.78/2014 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks two weeks' time to file reply of the petition.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR.No.93/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR. No.100/2016 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent, even in second round.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.214/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent(s) seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.535/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.539/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file compliance report.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.581/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Notice issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is received unserved with a note that they are not residing at given address.Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.628/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply.List after two weeks.List after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6044/2016 20.01.2017 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6905/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.10120/2016 20.01.2017 Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11297/2016 20.01.2017 Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.12948/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.29/2017 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/ State is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.77/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi F.A No.123/2005 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.He is directed to file positively on next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.513/2010 20.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/State.After due consideration, application is allowed.Counsel for the respondents is directed to delete name of respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the appeal memo.Necessary amendment be incorporated within three working days.Office is directed to call for the record.Office is also directed to send reminder.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.2168/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment will be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1384/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.On payment of PF within 15 days issue notice to respondent, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11242/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sijonia, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.44/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Vinay Sharaf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the State is directed to produce case- diary before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.824/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri B.L. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the respondent.In absence of counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1029/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondent received unserved.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay PF within seven days.On payment of PF issue notice to the respondent within one week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Item No. 11And In the matter of: Fulbashi Sarder Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Prasanta Bishal For the Petitioner Mr. P.K. Dutta Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 274 dated 26.10.2012 under sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.We have perused the case diary.The husband of the deceased is on bail.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Arindam Sinha, J) 2

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

17-11-14 32/skp (Allowed) C.R.M. No. 9903 of 2014 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th August, 2014 in connection with Deganga P.S. Case No. 391 of 2014 dated 07.06.2014 under Sections 447/325/354B/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Kasem Mondal & Ors.... Petitioners.Md. Younush Mondal ... for the petitioners.Ms. Ratna Ghosh ... for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on false allegation due to strained relationship between the parties.We have heard the learned Counsel for the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

I.A. No.22076/2020, an application for urgent hearing is allowed.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10/11/2020 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Indarganj, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.328/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 411 and 413 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, Mobile phones and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.He is permanent resident of Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.Learned counsel for the State is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.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 (and) ANAND SHRIVAST AVA 2020.12.02 11:29:33 +05'30'

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On 19.08.1990, the appellant Chat Pal was found wearing one HMT Supria wrist watch on his wrist.However, we find that Exhibit PW21/B, which is the personal search memo of the very same appellant Chat Pal, does not mention any watch being recovered on the personal search being conducted.Exhibit PW21/G, which is a seizure memo, indicates that Narain was wearing the HMT watch on his left wrist, but Exhibit PW21/A, which is the personal search memo, does not mention any watch and only a sum of ` 20/- is said to have been found on the person of the appellant Narain.Here again, the witnesses of the seizure memo and the personal search memo are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh.Similarly, in the case of the appellant Chet Ram, we find that the seizure memo Exhibit PW22/E mentions a gold ring with the words Darshan Lal engraved on it as well as a rexine purse containing ` 550/-.It is also mentioned in the seizure memo that the gold ring was worn by Chet Ram on the ring finger of his left hand.However, Exhibit PW22/A, which is the personal search memo of the same date, that is, 30.07.1990, has only a reference to a sum of ` 17/- in cash plus one bus ticket worth ` 20/- and one dagger.It is, therefore, clear that the personal search memo is at complete variance with the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram also as in the case of Chat Pal and Narain.AND + CRL.A. 332/1997 CHET RAM ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent AND + CRL.A 236/1998 NARAIN ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma with Mr Gaurav Bhattacharya For the Respondent/State : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:-HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGHWhether 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? Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)These three appeals are being disposed of together by a common judgment inasmuch as they arise out of the same FIR and are directed against the common judgment dated 10.07.1997 passed by the CRL.The three appellants, namely, Chet Ram, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal and Narain along with Chakori Lal were charged under Sections 120B, 302 read with 120B, 392 read with 120B IPC.However, the Trial Court acquitted Chakori Lal of all charges.We may also point out that when the charge-sheet was filed, one Lakhan Pal was also named as an accused but he passed away before the framing of charges.The appellant Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal were also charged in the alternative under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC.By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Satpal have been convicted for having committed the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC.All the three accused were awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of ` 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC and in default of payment of the fine, the appellants were also required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.In respect of the offence under Section 394/34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as were liable to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default whereof, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.With regard to the offence under Section CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.2 of 20 302 read with 34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C was to be given to the appellants and their sentences were to run concurrently.The appellants have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.In the alleged incident, which is said to have taken place on 23.07.1990, Smt. Kamla Kakkar was found dead in her house by her daughter PW1 Renuka Sethi at about 1:45 pm.It is on the basis of her statement Exhibit PW1/A that the ruqqa and subsequently the FIR was registered.The case of the prosecution was that the appellants along with Chakori Lal (since acquitted) and Lakhan Pal (since deceased) were doing some construction work at the residence of the said Smt. Kamla Kakkar and that with the intention of committing robbery, they committed the murder of Smt. Kamla Kakkar, who was alone in the house when the incident took place.The prosecution has sought to bring home the conviction on the basis of the testimonies of PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar, PW10 Rakesh Kakkar, PW1 Renuka Sethi and PW4 Surjeet Kaur (Chawla).Apart from the testimonies of these witnesses, the prosecution has also sought to prove its case by virtue of the alleged recoveries made from the appellants.It is alleged that one CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.3 of 20 HMT watch of Supria make was recovered from Chat Pal; one gold ring, which had Darshan Lal engraved in it, was allegedly recovered from Chet Ram and one HMT gold-plated stainless steel watch was said to have been recovered from the appellant Narain.On the basis of the testimonies of PW5 and PW10, which were regarded as the last seen evidence and on the basis of the supporting and corroborative testimonies of PW1 Renuka Sethi and PW4 Smt. Surjit Kaur as well as on the basis of the alleged recoveries made from the said appellants, the prosecution has attempted to bring home the guilt of the said appellants in the said offence.Only a sum of ` 20/- is said to have recovered at the time of the conduct of the personal search.The witnesses of the seizure memo Exhibit PW21/E and the personal search memo Exhibit PW21/B are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.4 of 20 Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery of the said watch becomes very doubtful.While the seizure memo says that he was wearing the watch, the personal search memo does not disclose any watch.The CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.5 of 20 witnesses to the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram as also the personal search memo were also the same, namely, SI Manohar Lal and SI Ram Kanwar.Considering the aforesaid contradictions between the seizure memo and the personal search memo, as also the fact that the said articles were not recovered pursuant to any disclosure but were alleged to have been found on the persons of the appellants, we feel that no reliance can be placed on the said recoveries as they appear to be extremely doubtful.Consequently, the question of identification of these articles at the instance of PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar is also of no relevance.This leaves us with the testimonies of PW5, Darshan Lal Kakkar and PW10 Rakesh Kakkar, who have been produced in the witness box as the last seen witnesses.PW5 Darshan Lal Kkkar in his testimony has clearly stated that work had been going on at his flat and one Chakori Lal had been fetched by his son Rakesh Kakkar and work had been done for about eight days.Chakori Lal had brought the other accused for the purposes of the said construction work and it was Chakori Lal who had supervised the work.However, since rains had started, the work had been discontinued.He further testified that about four days prior to 23.07.1990, at the instance of Chat Pal, work was resumed under the said flat.He stated that on that day at about 10:30 CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.6 of 20 am, Chat Pal @ Satpal had come to his flat and had told him that he could get the work completed otherwise they would be going to their village.The witness further stated that considering the fact that these persons were already known to him, he thought it better to get the work completed from them and as such, he told Chat Pal @ Sat Pal to bring his labour and to complete the job.At about 11 am, Chat Pal brought with him Narain, Lakhan Pal and Chet Ram and they started doing their work in his flat.He further stated that soon thereafter, Chakori Lal also came to his flat and after talking to Chat Pal, Narain, Chet Ram and Lakhan Pal went away.He stated that thereafter, he also left his flat leaving Chat Pal, Narain, Chet Ram and Lakhan Pal at his premises besides his wife Kamla Kakkar and his son Rakesh Kakkar, who was also present at the flat.He had left his flat to attend his work at Patiala House.The witness also stated that on the same day, that is, on 23.07.1990 in the afternoon, he received information that his wife Kamla had been murdered.PW10 Rakesh Kakkar had corroborated whatever had been stated by his father PW5 Darhsan Lal Kakkar.He further stated that he remained in his house up to 11:45 am on 23.07.1990 and that his father remained in the house up to 11:30 am and then went to Patiala House Courts.After 11:45 am, he left the house and went to attend his job.He returned at 3 pm and at that point of time he saw a crowd had CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.7 of 20 collected outside the house as well as inside and his sister Renuka Sethi met him there.He stated categorically in his examination-in-chief that when he left his house at 11:45 am, then, only his mother was in the house and the accused persons were working there.He stated that when he returned to the house at 3 pm his sister told him that their mother had expired and the police had taken her to hospital in a vehicle.In cross-examination, this witness, however, stated that he had not stated to the police that when he left his house at 11:45 am on the day of occurrence, then only his mother was in the house and the accused persons were working there.The learned counsel for the appellants sought to infer from this statement made in cross- examination that PW10 Rakesh Kakkar had made improvements in his statement before Court.However, we do not feel that such an inference can be drawn.The testimonies of PW5 and PW10 have to be read in conjunction and once that is done, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to establish that on 23.07.1990 the appellants along with Lakhan Pal had started work at the flat of the deceased and that till 11:30 am on that date, both PW5 and PW10 along with Smt. Kamla Kakkar and the accused persons were present in the flat.At 11:30 am, PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar left the flat to attend his work at Patiala House Courts and that at 11:45 am, PW10 Rakesh Kakkar also left the flat leaving his mother alone with the accused persons who were doing construction work in the said flat.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.8 of 20 PW10 is the witness who last saw his mother alive and at that point of time, she was alone in the flat in the company of the accused persons who were doing construction work.The next important witness is PW1 Renuka Sethi, who stated that as usual she used to have lunch with her mother at the said flat.She reached there at 1:45 pm and found her mother to be dead.At that point of time, she became hysterical and raised an alarm whereupon, PW4 Smt. Surjeet Kaur also known as Smt. Chawla, who was residing in the ground floor, had apparently told her that Sat Pal and two others had come to the said flat.Although this part of the testimony is hearsay and no reliance can be placed thereon, it is clear that when PW1 Renuka Sethi arrived at the flat at 1:45 pm, her mother was dead.The time gap between Smt. Kamla Kakkar having been seen alive and when she was found dead was 11:45 am to 1:45 pm, which is only a period of two hours.When she was alive, Smt. Kamla Kakkar was in the flat along with the appellants, who were working there.The said appellants were supposed to work for the whole day but, when an opportunity was given to them under Section 313, Cr. P. C, they have not given any explanation as to why they were absent when PW1 Renuka Sethi arrived at the flat at 1:45 pm.In fact, each of the appellants has given a blank denial to all the circumstances which were put to them in the course of their making their Section 313 statements.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.9 of 20Coupled with this very important circumstance of the last seen evidence, is the fact that each of the appellants was absconding after the said incident.All of them, as mentioned above, refused the Test Identification Parade.In view of the foregoing, we do not find any fault with the decision of the trial court in returning a finding of guilt insofar as the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Sat Pal are concerned.They have been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.The matter, however, does not end here.We find that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had made a plea that he was a juvenile before the trial court.Unfortunately, that plea got lost in the records of the trial and no finding was returned by the trial court, although the ossification report clearly suggested that he was only 14-15 years old.The order-sheet reveals that on 21.01.1991, as no report had been received, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Superintendent, Tihar to appear before the CRL.On 04.03.1991, the complainant had filed an application stating that the X-ray report should not be accepted and a prayer was made that the appellant Chat Pal be referred to the Board of some government hospital.The order dated 11.11.1991 records the factum of an application of treating Chat Pal as a juvenile.Then, we have an application of the Jail Superintendent dated 22.03.1996 stating that Chat Pal has been behaving abnormally and has become mentally upset and even had attempted committing suicide.A prayer was made that in case he committed or attempted to commit suicide, then the jail administration shall be placed in an embarrassing position.In the meanwhile, we find from the lower court record, that on 22.02.1991, Dr B. K. Dey, Medical Officer, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi had submitted a report with reference to the letter dated 05.01.1991 regarding age estimation of the appellant Chat Pal.It was returned that his age was between 14-15 years on 23.01.1992 according to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi conducted by Dr S. K. Khanna No. 32/91 dated 23.01.1991 at 12:30 pm.The age estimation report from Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Department of Forensic Medicine, dated 23.01.1991 is also on record and the opinion clearly CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.11 of 20 shows that based on physical, dental and radiological findings, when taken together, the age of the person examined (Chat Pal) was between 14 and 15 years.It is, therefore, abundantly clear that as on 23.01.1991 Chat Pal was 14-15 years old, which would make him 13-14 years old on 23.07.1990, which is the date of the occurrence.Clearly, Chat Pal was a juvenile within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).When the said Act come into force, the impugned judgment and order on sentence had already been delivered / passed.Consequently, Section 20 of the said Act would be relevant for our purposes.Section 20, as amended up to date, reads as under:-Special provision in respect of pending cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.It is, therefore, clear that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal, being a juvenile in conflict with law, could have, in the maximum, suffered a detention for a period of three years only.But, from the nominal roll on record of the appellant Chat Pal, it appears that as on 02.03.2002, he had already been in custody for a period of 11 years, six months and 23 days and had also earned remission of 1 year, 4 months and 26 days.But, as he could not arrange for the surety, an application, being Crl.By an order dated 21.02.2003, the surety amount was reduced to ` 10,000/- and the requirement of the number of sureties was also reduced to one.Despite this, as the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was extremely poor, he could not arrange for the surety and moved another application, being Crl.M. A. 3178/2003, for modification of the said order dated 21.02.2003 for further reduction in the surety amount.This application was allowed by an order dated 19.12.2003 and the surety amount was reduced to ` 5,000/-.As the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was not being able to arrange even a surety of ` 5,000/-, CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.17 of 20 an application, being Crl.M. A. 5875/2004 had been moved for reducing the surety amount to ` 1000/-.Unfortunately, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court on 19.07.2004 when the Crl.M.A. 5875/2004 came up for hearing.On that day, the Court, however, rejected the application for any further reduction in the surety.This is when Chat Pal @ Sat Pal could not have been kept in detention for a period of more than three years by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, while we uphold the finding that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had committed the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is set aside.Since he could not have been kept in detention for a period of more than three years and because he has already been in custody for 13 years, 10 months and 27 days, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal cannot be kept in detention any further.He is to be set at liberty.In this case, an application had been moved claiming that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was a juvenile and, in fact, the medical report was also available on record, but the trial court, unfortunately, did not pursue the matter any further.This sort of an attitude would result in a great travesty of justice.This Court had, by its order dated 21.04.2010, directed the concerned Additional Sessions Judge to initiate proceedings against all the three appellants as also proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the sureties.In so far as the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal is concerned, those proceedings are to be dropped.However, the same would continue in respect of the other two appellants so that they are apprehended and they are made to serve out the rest of their sentences.The appeals are decided accordingly.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J FEBRUARY 10, 2011 SR/P CRL.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the applicants/accused has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants/accused.The learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE

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

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

The Petitioner in the first petition is a Senior Inspector of Police and at the time of the filing of the petition was attached to Thane Railway Police Station.He joined the Maharashtra police in 1975 as Police Sub-Inspector.Thereafter, his services were made over to Bombay police in 1977 on the same post.It is the case of the petitioner, that, he had a successful career of 27 years of Police service.The same is clean and unblemished.It is alleged that one Altaf Kadir Shaikh had purchased Shop No. 1, 63/65, Sayed House, Cadel Road, Mahim, Mumbai-16 in October 1999 from one Khalid Ahmed Basekhan.In June, 2000 one Iqbal claimed rights in his shop and alongwith Khalid Ahmed Basekhan started harassing and threatening Altaf Kadir Shaikh.Altaf Kadir Shaikh also received threats from unknown persons.He lodged a N.C. at Mahim Police Station.The complainant Ahmed Ismail Shaikh @ Raja Shaikh was helping the complainant Altaf and therefore he also received threats.On 16.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs the complainant Ahmed alongwith Altaf Shaikh attended the Mahim Police Station and as per the instructions of P.I.Shri Sanghai, PSI Shinde recorded the statement of Altaf Shaikh.The Complainant came to know that an offence has been registered at Mahim Police Station against him and three others.PSI Rajendra Naghbire had registered at Mahim police station, C.R. No. 230 of 2000 under Section 454, 457, 380, 451, 506(II), 34, 120(B), I.P.C. r/w. 23, 25 Arms Act on complaint of Shri.The further investigation of this case was handed over to P.I.Sanghai as per the orders of Sr.P.L.Jedhe of Mahim Police Station.After confirmation on 20.7.2000 at 16.30 hrs, the complainant alongwith Altaf Shaikh met D.C.P. Zone IV, Mumbai Shri Kadam and informed him about the offence registered against them and submitted representation to DCP Zone IV.On the same day at 19.00 hrs the complainant met P.I. Shri Sanghai at Mahim police Station, P.I. Sanghai called PSI Shinde.At that time P.I. Sanghai told the complainant that Altaf Shaikh would not get the shop valued Rs. 40,00,000/ so easily.In order to avoid arrest of complainant, Altaf Shaikh and 2 others, an amount Rs. 20,00,000/ be paid as bribe.After discussion the bribe amount was reduced to 10,00,000/-.The complainant showed his inability to pay the bribe amount.The facts are undisputed.JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.Both petitions involve identical questions of fact and law and were heard together.They are being disposed off by this common judgment.It is directed against an order dated 7.5.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2002 by Special Judge Mumbai in Complaint ACB/BMU Criminal No. 29 of 2000 and the Sanction Order dated 6.12.2002 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Mumbai.Therefore, PSI Shinde told the complainant to come after 2-3 days.At 19.30 hrs the complainant was produced before Sr.P.I.Shri Jedhe.The complainant has stated that Sr.P.I.Jedhe told the complainant that his work will be done and he will have to pay the amount as per the say of PI Sanghai and the complainant was allowed to go.When the complainant attended Mahim Police Station on 25.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs as per the call from PSI Shinde, he met PI Sanghai.Thereafter PSI Shinde was called by P.I. Sanghai.P.I. Sanghai then demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for not arresting the complainant and others.The complainant accompanied by panch witness Shri Dhumal met P.I. Sanghai at Main gate of Mahim Police Station at 18.25 hrs.At that time P.I. Sanghai asked for amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.Over this the complainant told that he will pay Rs. 3,00,000/-after taking the same from Shri Dhumal, who is his relative.The complainant was asked to wait till the arrival of PSI Shinde.Thus, it is alleged that on 26th July, 2000 at about 6.00 p.m. Shri Sanghai (Petitioner in first petition) attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for himself and on behalf of the Petitioner in the second petition from the Complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do official Acts or for showing favour or for bearing to show disfavour in exercise of their official functions to the Complainant in the matter of not arresting him and others in an offence registered against him at Mahim Police Station.I.P.C. r/w. 3, 25 Arms Act.On 27.7.2000 the Petitioner was arrested but was released on bail on the following day as per the order of the court.During the course of the investigation, statements of various persons were recorded.A draft sanction order was sent to the Competent Authority for getting sanction to prosecute the Petitioner Accused and one P.S.I.Shinde.However, the Learned Special Judge while rejecting this Application observed that the matter be referred to the Sanctioning Authority for Re-consideration.The Special Judge directed that after the Sanctioning Authority takes necessary steps, the A.C.B can approach the Special Court.The order passed on 7.5.2002 and the subsequent act of the Sanctioning Authority of grant of sanction is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The second Writ Petition is by co-accused Dilip Shinde and the facts and circumstances narrated therein are identical.After making such observations, the Special Judge rejected the application of the prosecution and referred the matter back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.Thus, the Special Judge granted one opportunity to the Authority to consider the matter of sanction afresh.The Sanctioning Authority has reconsidered the whole matter and accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners before me.I have perused the application which was preferred by the prosecution before the Special Judge.The petitioner did not make any application before the Special Judge but the prosecution applied for closure of the case.On the prosecutions application the Learned Judge made the observations as above and rejected the same.The Learned Judge only referred the matter for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.The other argument is that the Special Judge did not grant any opportunity to the petitioners before observing that the matter deserves to be referred back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.In my view, the Learned Judge was considering the application of the prosecution for closure of the said case/proceedings therein.

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The material facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition, are as follows:-The Petitioners are the Secondary Grade Teachers, working in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram District.The 2nd Petitioner worked in the said School from 28.7.2004 to 13.9.2005 as a Science Teacher and he has been transferred and posted at Kumanantholu in Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in PRC.No.1/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ulundurpet and quash the same.The 1st Petitioner is working in the same School.On 14.7.2005 at about 12.15 p.m., one Rani, Anganvadi Teacher reported to the Teachers that some one had taken a sum of Rs.1200/- from her bag, which was kept in the Balvadi Class and suspected that some of the students of the IX Standard A of the School, who visited the Anganvadi, might have stolen the money.Accordingly, the Petitioners called for those students and their bags were searched.A few minutes thereafter, a student by name Udaya alias Saranya, the deceased herein gave Rs.100/- to the Petitioners, claiming that the said amount was found in the bag of one Kavitha, a co-student.Thereafter, Udaya @ Saranya and six other students were taken to the male staff room and they were enquired by the lady teachers.At that time, Udaya @ Saranya took Rs.600/- from her Churidhar pocket and handed over the same to the Petitioners.Another amount of Rs.500/- was also handed over by Udaya @ Saranya to one Jayanthi, PET Teacher.After, the said incident, the deceased Udaya @ Saranya was in the School during lunch period and attended the post session classes and left the School at 4.20 pm.Thereafter, on an enquiry, the Petitioners had come to know that Udaya @ Saranya had immolated herself and was taken to the Government Hospital at Villupuram, where she had given a dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate, stating that since the Petitioners scolded her that she had stolen the money and the 2nd Petitioner remarked to her to go and die and as she was so ashamed, she had immolated herself.On the complaint given by the father of the deceased girl, FIR was registered in Cr.Later the deceased died on 16.7.2005 and the offence was altered into one under Section 306 of IPC and the Petitioners have been arrayed as the accused.According to him, the conduct of the Petitioners was very natural, as any prudent man would only try to find out as to who has stolen the money and the real fact is that the deceased girl had stolen the money and the same was exposed before the other students, which had led her to commit suicide.

['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.

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.271 of 2018 on the file of the respondent for offences under Sections 379, 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.271 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379, 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the remand itself rejected for want of documents to prove the illegal transportation of river sand, and the petitioners had valid licence to transport river sand.Considering the submissions, the petitioners are directed to produce all the relevant documents before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.On receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider those documents and file final report after completing the investigation within a period of two weeks thereafter.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.With the above directions, the criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lok Note: Issue order copy on 06.03.2020The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurinjipadi Police Station, Cuddalore DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.2875 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

MANMOHAN, J :The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 13th October, 2006 passed by Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the revision petition filed by the Respondent-CBI has been allowed and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 17th November, 2004 has been set aside.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 1 of 11M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 1 of 11Briefly stated, the fact of this case are that on 24th February, 1998 CBI registered a case bearing RC No. 4(S)98/SIU.I.After hearing the matter on various dates, the learned trial court on 1st June, 2001 framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 120B, 419 and 420 IPC read with Sections 120B, 468 IPC read with Section 120B, 471 IPC read with Section 120B, 511 IPC.By this order no charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 120B read with Section 465, 467, 474 and 380 read with Section 411 of IPC and Section 12(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3 of Passports Act. However, no reasons for not framing certain charges were given.The order dated 1st June, 2001 is reproduced hereinbelow:-"Present : PP for CBI Both accused on Bail with counsel.Arguments on the point of sentence heard.Prima facie case is made out against both the accused for offence under Section 120B IPC, 419, 420 r/w section 120B IPC, 468 r/w section 120B IPC, 471 r/w section 120B IPC, 511 r/w section 419, 420 r/w section 120B IPC and accordingly charge framed to which accused pleaded not guilty.To come for PE for 8.8.2001, 9.8.2001 and 10.8.2001 Sd/-M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 2 of 11On 6th August, 2001 the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition bearing CR (R) No. 29/2001 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge against the order dated 1st June, 2001 framing charges against the Petitioner- Accused.Before receiving any notice of Petitioner's revision petition, on 8th August, 2001, which was the next date of hearing before the trial court, CBI filed two applications.While the first application was filed to place on record some documents, the second application was filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. contending that the trial court had inadvertently not framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 120B read with Sections 465, 467, 474, 380 and 411 of IPC and Sections 12(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3 of PassportsWhile the application under Section 216 Cr.The Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment and order dated 7th January, 2003 concluded that the trial court had rightly found a prima facie case against the Petitioner-Accused for the offences for which he had been charged.On 17th November, 2004 the trial court dismissed the CBI's application filed under Section 216 Cr.While setting aside the order dated 17th November, 2004 the Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial court to pass a reasoned order on CBI's application under Section 216 Cr.Mr. Ajay Burman, learned Counsel for Petitioner has contended that for the Sections for which the Petitioner has been discharged vide order Crl.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 4 of 11 dated 1st June, 2001, no application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was maintainable as the order framing charges had attained finality.P.C., the order framing charges dated 1st June, 2001 had attained finality.He further submitted that in case CBI was aggrieved by the order framing charges dated 1st June, 2001 the only recourse open to it was to file a revision against the said order - which it had failed to do so till date.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 4 of 11He further pointed out that by the impugned order dated 13th October, 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge had revised the initial order framing charges.Having heard the parties and having perused the file, I am of the opinion that the initial order dated 1st June, 2001, by virtue of which the charges have been framed, is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order.The said order records that arguments on the point of sentence have been heard.A perusal of the first revisional order dated 7th January, 2003 clearly shows that the said court only applied its mind to the offences for Crl.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 10 of 11 which the Petitioner had been charged.Moreover, in my opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner by the impugned order as evidence in the present case is yet to be recorded and the Petitioner would have full opportunity of meeting the charges and putting forward any defence open to him on the charges preferred against him.Therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.MANMOHAN, J September 12, 2008 rn Crl.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(c) At that point of time, A-1 to A-3, who belong to a Muslim association, way-laid the deceased and questioned him as to what is his name so as to know his religion.The deceased replied that his name is Ramasamy.From the name of the deceased, the accused found out that the deceased is a Hindu.Then he shouted that some Hindus must be finished off in order to teach a lesson to them.(d) Then, A-1 stabbed on the left chest, A-2 stabbed on the stomach and A-3 stabbed on the chest of the deceased with knives.When the deceased shouted, A-3 took a reaper wood and beat on the head of the deceased.Then, he threw the reaper wood in a nearby ditch.Since P.Ws.1 and 2 cried aloud, all the accused persons ran away from the scene.(e) The deceased fell down on the ground.On seeing that the intestines of the deceased came out from the stomach, P.W.1 Subramanian tied a towel around the stomach of the deceased and took him to the Government General Hospital, Coimbatore.(f) P.W.9 Doctor found that the deceased was dead.He issued Ex.P-18 accident register.(g) Then, P.W.1 Subramanian went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint to P.W.10 Head Constable, who registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and then, P.W.10 sent the message to the superior officers.(h) P.W.11 Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence.There was no sufficient light.Therefore, on 2.12.1997 at about 6.00 a.m., he prepared observation mahazar, drew rough sketch and observed all the other formalities.(i) Then, P.W.11 Inspector of Police went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased.During the course of inquest, he examined the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P-21 inquest report.(j) P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found as many as four external injuries and three internal wounds.He issued Ex.P-17 post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock of wound Nos.2 and 3 and corresponding internal appearances described thereunder.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Samsu alias Samsudeen, the appellant in Crl.A.No.401 of 2000 and Sarafudeen and Hakkim alias Abdul Hakkim, the appellants in Crl.They have filed these two appeals, seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction imposed on them by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment each.Short facts leading to conviction are as follows:(a) Two days prior to the date of occurrence, one Constable Selvaraj was done to death by some Muslim fundamentalists.In retaliation, the Muslim people were attacked and there was a law and order problem throughout the area.The Police also announced that public should not come out, in view of the said law and order problem.(b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1.12.1997, the deceased Ramasamy, along with his wife, P.W.2 Parvathamani, went to the Government Sewerage Farm to cut grass.P.W.1 Subramanian, the elder brother of the deceased, was working as an employee in the Municipality.After the work was over, P.W.1, who came by that way, accompanied P.W.2, the wife of the deceased and the deceased, while returning home.(k) On 3.12.1997, P.W.12, the Special CB-CID Officer (Inspector of Police) took up further investigation and examined P.W.3 and others.On 27.12.1997, P.W.12 Inspector of Police arrested all the three accused and on their confession, M.Os.2,3 and 4, the bloodstained knives, were recovered.He sent the material objects for chemical analysis.After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.(l) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-21 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked.(m) When the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime.They stated that they were taken to custody ten days earlier to the date of arrest and had been illegally detained in the Police Station.However, no evidence was adduced on the side of defence.(n) The trial Court, after assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found all the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.Hence, these appeals.R.Sankara Subbu and Mr.A.K.S.Thahir, learned counsel for the appellants in the respective appeals, would submit that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, would not be sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution; the testimony tendered by eye-witnesses, is not trustworthy; in the absence of conducting test identification parade, their evidence cannot be accepted.In support of their contentions, both the learned counsel for the appellants would cite the following authorities:(c) 1994 (2) CRIMES 875 (Madras High Court)(Mathy and Anr.(d) 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 456 (State of Rajasthan vs. Kishan Singh).On the above aspects, we have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor.We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.On a perusal of the entire records and on consideration of the respective submissions made by learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused, as the evidence adduced by the prosecution, would not inspire confidence.As such, the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are liable to be acquitted of the charges.The reasons for our conclusion are as follows.According to prosecution, when P.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied the deceased, all the three accused way-laid them and on coming to know that he belongs to Hindu religion, they attacked the deceased.The deceased was taken to hospital by P.W.1 Subramanian and other witnesses at about 5.45 p.m. Ex.P-18 is the accident register relating to the injuries on the deceased, issued by P.W.9 Doctor.It is mentioned in Ex.P-18 that P.W.1 told P.W.9 Doctor that some one attacked the deceased and the deceased was found with injuries in the place of the incident and that he and P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, brought the deceased.From the evidence of P.W.9 Doctor and Ex.P-18 accident register, it is clear that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not tell P.W.9 Doctor as to the details of the occurrence; as to how the deceased sustained injuries, the number of persons involved in the occurrence and the identity of those persons.Only after receipt of information about the death of the deceased from the Doctor, P.W.1 Subramanian went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint.In the complaint, P.W.1 Subramanian stated that himself and P.W.2 were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they saw that one among the three identifiable accused, caused injury on the deceased and all the three accused ran away from the scene.The same statement has been made by P.W.1 Subramanian to P.W.11 Inspector of Police during the course of investigation.Similar statement was made by P.W.2 Parvathamani also to P.W.11 Inspector of Police.Strangely, P.Ws.1 and 2 would depose in the Court that they saw A-1 stabbing on the left chest of the deceased; A-2 on the stomach of the deceased and A-3 on the right chest of the deceased.Thereafter, A-3 took out a reaper wood and caused injury on the hand of the deceased and then, ran away.Thus, the reason given by the High Court for distrusting the evidence of Dr.According to prosecution, while the deceased was way-laid, the accused asked the name of the deceased in order to verify as to whether he belongs to Hindu religion.This shows that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency was able to conclude that three persons participated and out of three, only one attacked the deceased.On the contrary, P.Ws.1 and 2 had stated before the Court that all the three accused persons attacked.Thus, it is manifestly clear that the investigating agency has not done their job properly to find out as to who are the real assailants.As such, this Court is left with no other alternative except to give the "benefit of doubt" to all the accused persons.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A-1 to A-3 are liable to be set aside.

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

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

It is ordered accordingly.6.Having said the above, it is pertinent to point out that the trial was in respect of an occurrence dated 17.9.2004 having taken place at 8.15 am.As per written report Ex. Ka-1 presented by P.W.1- Kapildeo Yadav before the Officer-in-Charge of Bahariawar police station, the informant and his uncle Deep Chandra Yadav @ Lal Ji Yadav (P.W. 2) were taking tea at the tea-stall of one Doodhnath where his co-villagers Rajai Yadav (not examined) and Paltan Yadav (P.W.3) were also present.His uncle deceased Shyamdeo Yadav along with other deceased Devkinandan Yadav, came by a motor cycle from his house and no sooner the two had reached the road than the three accused persons, namely, Shiv Pujan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav also came by another motor cycle which was being driven by appellant Suresh Yadav.Appellants Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker also came by another motorcycle which was being driven by appellant Rajesh Yadav and all the five persons surrounded deceased Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav.Shiv Pujan Yadav is said to have remonstrated by stating that both of them be killed upon which Shyamdeo Yadav, the uncle of informant P.W.1, leaving his motorcycle aside ran into the field north of the road upon which Shiv Pujan Yadav armed with his gun and Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav both armed with country made pistols started chasing Shyamdeo Yadav and also kept firing at him.When Devkinandan Yadav, the other deceased, ran towards the shop of Doodhnath Chauhan, both Rajesh Yadav and Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker followed him and fired shots at him and all of them sped away towards east after committing the murder of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav.7.The informant stated that both Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav had died at the spot.There was a panic all around and the shop-keepers downed their shutters and people started running helter and skelter, during which course, the accused persons also kept firing shots and might be, that someone amongst the public should have received an injury.The whole environment was charged with terror.8.On the basis of Ex. Ka-1, F.I.R. of the case (Ex.Ka-5) was drawn up by P.W. 7-Constable Mool Chand Sharma, who was posted as Head Moharrir in the Bahariawar police station.P.W. 7 stated that after drawing the F.I.R., he created the copies of the written report and the F.I.R. by carbon process and made entries regarding the contents of those documents in the General Diary dated 17.9.2004 of the Police Station.9.It appears that S.I. Amarendra Nath Bajpayee (P.W.13), who was the Inspector of Police and was the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, took up the investigation of the case and recorded the statement of the informant at the police station itself.He along with some constables set out for the village of occurrence and held inquest upon the two dead bodies of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav by preparing inquest reports (Exts.Ka-13 and 14).He also drew up the sketches of the dead bodies and prepared the dead body challan as also letter addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Ghazipur.After having sealed the two dead bodies, he forwarded them for post mortem examination through Constables Surendra Singh (P.W.11) and Surendra Nath Tiwari (P.W.12).The Investigating officer, thereafter, inspected the place of occurrence and during that course found blood splattered at places where the dead bodies of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav were found and seized blood by preparing seizure memos.He also found empty cartridges of 12 bore made of brass and two caps of the cartridges lying near the dead body of Shyamdeo Yadav and he seized them by preparing seizure memo (Ext.Ka-26).The Hero Honda motorcycle, which was used by Shyamdeo Yadav, was also seized by the Investigating officer (P.W.13) and he found that his left slipper was lying near his dead body while his right slipper was found near the Hero Honda motorcycle.Those two slippers were also seized by P.W. 13 by preparing seizure memo (Ext.Ka-27).The seizure memo in respect of motorcycle appears marked by the learned Trial Judge as Ext.Blood found near the dead body of Devkinandan was seized by preparing seizure memo Ex.Ka-29 and P.W. 13 found two empty cartridges of brass along with two cartridges of copper lying near the dead body of Devkinandan Yadav and those were also seized by preparing seizure memo Ext.P.W. 13 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan, which was marked Ext. Ka-31 by the court below.P.W. 13 recorded the statements of different witnesses and noted them into the case diary along with all the steps of investigation carried out by him.10.P.W.13 stated that he learnt that one Om Prakash Kumhar had also been injured in the incident but he could not trace him out for recording his statement.1 and 2 had stated that they had set out from their house together on a motorcycle and had come at the chowk from their village by the chak-road which has been shown in the site plan as also which has been described by P.W. 1 to run from his village which was situated to the South of the place of occurrence and which merged into the pitch road.On the right side of the chak-road, was installed the pump set of Doodhnath and to the south of the road, there were structures in one of which the clinic of Dr. S.K. Lahsar was located and in the other room of the same structure, the miscellaneous articles shop of Doodhnath Chauhan was situated.The tea shop was located to the east of the miscellaneous articles shop of Doodhnath Chauhan and, as per P.Ws.1&2, when they had come in front of the tea stall of Doodh Nath Chauhan, they were invited for a cup of tea by Rajai Yadav (not examined) and Paltan (P.W. 3) and as such they parked their motorcycle and went inside the tea stall to have a cup of tea.But, it further appears that they had come out of tea stall on to the road in front of it and started sipping tea.The second motorcycle was driven by appellant Rajesh Yadav and appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker was the pillion rider armed country made gun.It is stated by witnesses that appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav remonstrated to kill the deceased upon which deceased Shyamdeo Yadav, leaving aside his motorcycle on the road, ran into the field north of the road and was chased by appellants Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav who started firing at him and, accordingly, Shyam Dev Yadav was hit and fell down there.The other deceased Devkinandan also ran for safety towards the tea-stall, but he was chased by appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker and appellant Rajesh who also fired simultaneously by their respective fire arms and Devkinandan fell near the tea-stall and died there.Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 had stated that they hid themselves behind the tea-stall and were thus spared and after having achieved their goal, the appellants ran towards east and then had went back in the western direction.The sketch map Ext. Ka-31, is part of the prosecution evidence and the description of different structures as per the sketch map tallies very well and completely with the evidence of P.W.1 as appears from deposition at page 69 of the paper book.These were the places where blood was found and seized by preparing seizure memoes.Margin of the wound was inverted.Blackening and tattooing was also present around the wound in an area of 3cm x3cm.Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha, J.)2.Five appellants of the three appeals were put on trial in the above noted Sessions Trials after being charged with committing various offences and were held guilty by the impugned Judgment.Appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav had been charged with committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149 and 302/149 I.P.C., 25 of the Arms Act as also Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act while appellant Suresh Yadav was charged with committing all the above offences for which the above noted four accused persons had been charged, except that under Section 302/149 I.P.C. All the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Appellant Suresh Yadav of Criminal Appeal No. 3154 of 2011 was also not held guilty of committing offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act but he was held guilty of committing offences under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. and was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and two years respectively under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. while he had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years as also had to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for being held guilty of offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge directed that in case of default in paying the fine, the appellant Suresh Yadav had to undergo simple imprisonment for another term of eight months.3.So far as the other appellants, like, Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav were concerned, they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for terms of one and two years respectively under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight years under Section 307/149 I.P.C. In addition to the substantive sentence, each of them was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- else to suffer simple imprisonment for six months in respect of their individual conviction under Section 307/149 I.P.C. As regards their individual conviction under Section 302/149 I.P.C., each of the four appellants was directed to be hanged by his neck till he was dead and was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- or to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.4.So far as the conviction of appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Mahendra Yadav and Shiv Pujan Yadav under Section 25 of the Arms Act was concerned, each of them was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and had also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, else to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.This is how the learned trial judge made the reference to this Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of sentence of death which was inflicted upon the four appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav who also preferred their appeals to challenge their conviction as may appear from the array of appellants in the connected four appeals.5.Before we proceed to set out the facts of the case, we want to note that appellant Suresh Yadav of Criminal Appeal No. 3154 of 2011, though, had been convicted for offences, like, 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. and was impressed also that he was being tried for being a member of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit twin murders of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav, as may appear from the heading of charges framed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur on 18.7.2005, which is available to the court at pages 56 and 57 of the paper book, and besides being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he along with other accused persons in prosecution of the common object had caused or had known the two murders to be caused, as appears from question no. 2 put to appellant Suresh Yadav, the trial Judge had omitted to frame a charge under Section 302/149 I.P.C. against appellant Suresh Yadav.As such, no conviction of that appellant under Section 302/149 I.P.C. was recorded.This is the reason that Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 443 of 2011 was brought by the informant of the case, namely, Kapildeo Yadav with a prayer that his sentence be enhanced accordingly.In our opinion, in absence of any conviction of appellant Suresh Yadav under Section 302/149 I.P.C, the appeal against acquittal seeking the enhancement in sentence by convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. was not maintainable and, as such, before we proceed further with the present Judgment, we have to dismiss Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 443 of 2010 as not maintainable.However, what we find is that the said Om Prakash Kumhar was examined by a doctor, but there is no evidence as to what was the injury found by the doctor.11.P.W. 13 searched for the accused persons during which, he came to know that appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker was likely to come to the village from some other place and, accordingly, he was arrested on 22.9.2004 at about 5.05 am and, on search of his person, a country made pistol of 3.15 bore (marked 1/2005 for comparison and testing by FSL) was recovered along with a couple of cartridges (marked LC-1 & LC-2 by FSL for comparison).For the recovery of the arms and ammunitions, a separate case was instituted under the Arms Act.12.P.W. 13 learnt that appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Rajesh Yadav had surrendered themselves to the custody of C.J.M., Ghazipur and, accordingly, he came to District Jail, Ghazipur on 16.10.2004 and questioned appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav who pointed out that his gun was lying in the custody of his wife at his house.Accordingly, P.W.13 came to the house of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav and seized the gun there in presence of witnesses by preparing seizure memo.The SBBL gun was marked by FSL as 4/2005 for comparison and testing.Appellants Mahendra Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were taken out of jail by order of remand passed by the court of C.J.M. and it appears that during the questioning by P.W. 13, both Rajesh Yadav and Mahendra Yadav led the Investigating Officer, P.W. 13, to different places and they produced the country made pistols, which they had concealed at two different places, before the Investigating Officer.The two pistols produced by Mahendra and Rajesh Yadav were marked 3/2005 and 2/2005 respectively for testing and comparison.This evidence of production of weapons by Rajesh and Mahendra Yadav appears at page 131 of the paper book.The two weapons were also seized by preparing two different seizure memos Exs.Ka-35 and 36 respectively.13.It appears further that the seized arms and ammunitions as also the empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) through P.W. 10-Constable Suresh Chaube.After examining them, the FSL submitted its report, which is available on the lower court records.It was found that the SBBL gun, which was seized from the house of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, had been used in firing the disputed empty of the cartridges marked EC-3 whereas the three different country made pistols, which were recovered from Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker , Rajeh Yadav and Mahendra Yadav, had also been used in firing different cartridges.Besides, on chemical analysis of the materials, which were found in the barrel of the weapons, i.e., the three country made pistols and the SBBL gun of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, they were containing firing residue nitrate, Lead and Copper and that indicated that the guns had been used recently in firing shots.These reports of FSL with the report on serological examination of bloodstained earth are at pages 48 to 52 of the paper book with its original on the lower court record which are admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. as evidence due to being the report of FSL, Lucknow submitted under the signature of its Joint Director.We are not sure whether these reports were marked exhibits for the prosecution but assuming that they had not been marked as such, we have read them in evidence by virtue of Section 293 Cr.P.C.14.It appears that P.W.13 was transferred from the police station as a result of which the investigation was taken up by P.W. 8-SI Hari Ram Mishra who did not do any substantial part of the investigation and submitted the charge sheet only.The investigation of the case registered for recovery for arms from the accused persons was carried out by P.W. 14-SI Ram Bharose Yadav who had also submitted charge sheet after obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecuting the appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav for being in possession of different arms.This is how the trial was taken up which ended in the impugned Judgment and gave rise to the death reference and connected criminal appeals.15.It appears that defence of the accused persons was that the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav had many enemies and possibly they had taken advantage of the cover of darkness in the night and had killed him.As regards appellant Suresh Yadav, who has not been found guilty and sentenced under Section 302/149 I.P.C. as he was not charged and tried under Section 302/149 I.P.C., he appears to have taken a specific defence of alibi by pleading that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and rather he was present in Pathankot with his Unit of 51 Brigade of the Indian Army and his implication was out and out false.16.In order to proving the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were eye witnesses to the occurrence.Sanjay Kumar Rai had held autopsy on the two dead bodies and had issued post mortem examination reports (Exts.Ka-2&3).P.W.5-Ram Siromani Verma was the Pharmacist who was posted in December 2004 in Sri Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Kabir Chauraha, Varanasi where Dr. B.B.Prakash (not examined) was working as a Radiologist and who had submitted the radiological report Ex.The evidence of P.W. 4 is completely silent as to in whose respect the report had been submitted, but on looking to the evidence of P.W. 6-Dr.B.P. Bouhare, we find that the Radiologist's report was in respect of injury suffered by one Om Prakash, who was examined by P.W. 6 for his injuries in S.S. P.G. Hospital, Varanasi and had advised X-ray of his injuries.P.W.7 was the Constable Moharrir Mool Chand Sharm, who had drawn up the F.I.R. P.W.9-Constable-Munshi Prakash Chand had registered the cases under the Arms Act on the basis of the written report submitted in the police station with the seizure memos by P.W. 13-S.I. Amarendra Nath Bajpayee.P.W.10-Constable Surendra Nath Bajpayee had brought the seized arms and ammunitions and other articles to the court of C.J.M. for getting it forwarded to the FSL and took the seized articles to the FSL, Lucknow.P.W.11-Surendra Singh and P.W.12- Surendra Nath Tiwari had accompanied the two dead bodies to the mortuary for post mortem examination.P.W.13-Amarendra Nath Bajpayee, we have already noted, was the first Investigating Officer of the case and, on his transfer, the investigation was carried on by P.W.8-S.I. Hari Ram Mishra.P.W.14- S.I. Ram Darash Yadav had investigated the case under the Arms Act.The defence examined the solitary witness Dalveer Singh, who was an employee of the Indian Army and who had brought certain records from his Unit 330 Brigade and stated that on the date of occurrence, the appellant Suresh Yadav, posted in the Indian Army as Hawildar, was present in Pathankot with 51 Brigade of the Army.18.After considering the evidence available to him, the learned trial judge recorded the finding of guilt and passed the order of sentence upon the appellants and made the reference which has been noted at the very outset of the present Judgment.19.Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeals and in opposition of the death reference, took us through the evidence of witnesses and submitted that the witnesses were not reliable as their presence at the place of occurrence was itself doubtful.It was contended by Sri Chaturvedi that both the witnesses Kapil Dev Yadav (P.W.1) and Deep Chand @ Lalji (P.W.3) were chance witnesses and the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence appears stated for the first time during trial and as such the court should reject their evidence.It was contended that P.W.3- Paltan Yadav had supported the prosecution story during his examination-in-chief, but during cross examination on 9.1.2006 and 8.11.2006, he turned round to go to the extent of stating that even those statements which had been made by him on oath before the learned Sessions Judge on 14.11.2005 during his examination-in-chief, had not been made by him and he did not have any reason to say as to how the learned trial court recorded those statements in his deposition sheets.During the course of his cross examination on 8.11.2006, submitted Sri Chaturvedi, P.W.3 stated that neither he was present at the tea-stall of Doodhnath Chauhan nor he was taking tea and, as such, the claim of P.Ws.1 & 2 that they were invited to have a cup of tea by P.W.3 Paltan and Rajai Yadav (not examined), appears not established.It was contended that the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav was the full brother of P.W.2-Deep Chand @ Lalji.P.W.1-Kapil Dev Yadav was the son of Musafir, who was the elder brother of Deep Chand @ Lalji (P.W.2) and the deceased Shyamdeo.The evidence was ample that there were some good number of witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence, which was a small place of business-activity where many establishments were located, but none of those independent persons came to support the prosecution story.Submission was that evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 being that of interested and inimical witnesses, the court should reject the same and hold the charges not substantiated.The submission also was that the enmity between the accused and the prosecution party was undisputed and this could be the reason for the false implication of the appellants.The deceased Shyamdeo had many enemies, which has been admitted by P.W. 1 in his evidence, and possibly, he was killed sometimes in the night and an antedated report was collusively made and evidence in support of the false story was led, which ultimately ended in the impugned Judgment and the reference made by the learned Trial Judge under Section 366 Cr.P.C. Sri Chaturvedi, lastly, submitted that it could not be a case which should be the rarest among the rare ones and it was an ordinary murder out of enmity without any element of depravity as regards its execution and the learned Trial Judge, submitted Sri Chaturvedi, had misdirected himself on law in sentencing and has inflicted punishment, which was not proportionate to the act.20.We had the privilege of hearing Sri A.K.Srivastava and Sri A.N. Mulla, the two Additional Government Advocates in opposition of the appeals.It was contended on their behalf that it is true that the deceased Shyamdeo was the full brother of P.W. 2-Deep Chand @ Lalji and uncle of Kapildeo Yadav (P.W.1) too, but on a cautious scrutiny of their evidence what appears is that they were telling the truth and they had assigned good reasons for their presence and that does not appear seriously challenged.Their evidence is consistent on the manner of occurrence and the enmity is admitted and that was the motive for commission of the offence.The evidence was sufficient to indicate that the charges were proved to the hilt.21.P.W. 1 Kapil Dev Yadav had stated in his evidence that his father Musafir Yadav had two brothers Deep Chand Yadav @ Lalji (P.W.2) and Shyamdeo Yadav (the deceased).Thus, the inter se close relationship between the deceased and the witnesses is admitted.What we further find is that it was a well-knit family till the date of occurrence.It appears that the family was residing under one roof.They dined in one-mess and probably they were running the business or other affairs of the family jointly.It was a day-time murder.Thus, the question of the witnesses or the family members, who were very close to the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav, to have spun out an imaginary story, appears a far fetched situation.23.We approached the evidence of both the witnesses with an alert mind as the witnesses have admitted, as appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 at page 70 of the paper book, enmity between the parties.Likewise, one Raj Narain had been murdered and it was suggested to P.W. 1 that the deceased Devkinandan was one of the accused in the case instituted for the said murder of Raj Narain.The two deceased Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav arrived by one motorcycle.No sooner the two had arrived there, the five appellants are also said to have arrived there by two motorcycles.On one motorcycle appellants Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav were sitting with SBBL gun and country made gun respectively which was driven by appellant Suresh Yadav.The empties of cartridges were also found near the dead bodies and they were also seized by preparing seizure memoes.P.W. 1 described the existence of shops, etc. at different places and their location in respect of the road which was in north of them and parallel to them and the same descriptions appear recorded by the Investigating officer of the case.These evidences of the P.W. 1 do not appear challenged.What is found from the sketch map further is that the dead body of Shyamdeo was found in the field north of the road whereas that of Deokinandan was found lying at point B also on the road and in front of the tea-stall of Doodhnath.These evidences of P.W.1 and the objective findings of P.W. 13 recorded in sketch map are corroborating each other on important aspects of the case.26.Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated that they had started from their house for going to Hurmujpur Halt where they had a shop of tether and other rope materials.The submission was that this fact had not been stated in the F.I.R. by P.W.1 and that P.W.2 had not stated this fact during the course of investigation to the Investigating Officer.27.We find from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that he had admitted that he had not stated this fact in the written report.We do not find it unusual that this fact was not mentioned in the written report.P.W. 1 had stated in the F.I.R. that he and P.W. 2 Deep Chandra @ Lalji had left their house on 17.9.2009 and stopped at the tea-stall of Doodhnath Chauhan for taking tea where Rajai Yadav (not examined) and Paltan Yadav were also taking tea at about 8 am.It is too well known to be stated that all facts need not be stated in the F.I.R.. In fact, during his cross-examination, P.W. 1 had admitted that he had not stated that he was going to Hurmujpur halt, but no question was put to him that that particular fact was not stated by him before the Investigating Officer.So it becomes very difficult for us to reject the claim of the witness as regards the purpose in connection whereof he happened to be at the place of occurrence while he was on way to Hurmujpur halt.Likewise, attention of P.W. 2 was drawn to a statement which was allegedly made by him to the Investigating Officer when he stated that he and Kapildeo Yadav had gone to Laxmanpur Chatti for taking tea.The witness denied that he had made the statement.In order to verifying as to whether the witness had made that particular statement and the further statement, we went through the evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 8 S.I. A.N. Bajpayee and S.I. Hari Ram Mishra respectively and we find that no proof of that fact was obtained by cross-examining the two police officers to that fact.The next fact which was put to P.W. 2 in his cross-examination was that he had not stated that he was going to Hurmujpur halt by the motorcycle and the witness said that he had made that statement to the Investigating Officer.Again, we find the proof of that particular fact regarding going to Hurmujpur halt and making no statement to that effect was not proved by cross-examining P.Ws. 8 and 13- the Investigating officers.Thus, in absence of any evidence from the Investigating Officers that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had not stated before them that they had proceeded on a motorcycle for Hamijpur halt together and they had stopped at the tea stall of Doodhnath Chauhan at the request of Rajai (not examined), we have to accept that they had the same purpose and they had, accordingly, set out together from their house as is claimed by P.W.1 at page 71 and by P.W. 2 at page 78 of his deposition.28.Sri Chaturvedi was criticising the evidence of two witnesses as chance witnesses.What Sri Chaturvedi was arguing was that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 had no reason to remain present at the scene of occurrence and they being inimical might be motivated to make a false statement.A chance witness is one who by co-incidence or chance happens to be present at the place of occurrence at the time when it had taken place (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2032, Bahal Singh vs State Of Haryana) and if such person happens to be the relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused, then he being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion.The other view, which appears from Jai Singh Vs.State of Karnataka reported in 2007 Criminal Law Journal 2434 at pages 2435 and 2436, was that where, if such witnesses did not explain the circumstances which brought them to the place of occurrence from the village coupled with the fact that they did not inform the incident to anyone even though one of them was related to the deceased being a cousin and kept silent for about six days, it was held that such witnesses were not reliable.Therefore, what appears from Jai Singh(supra) is that if the witnesses are giving sufficient reasons, which may be acceptable to the courts regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence, then the evidence of such witnesses could not be rejected by merely lebelling them as chance witnesses.Here in the present case both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that they started from their house for going to Hurmujpur Halt for looking after their small business of tether and rope materials.The evidence which we have scanned in the previous paragraph of the present Judgment, appears satisfactory as regards their claim for leaving their house by a motorcycle to go to that place.There is no denial or even a challenge by the defence that they did not have any such establishment at Hurmujpur Halt and there was no cross-examination further to show that there was no establishment of the witnesses there as was claimed by them.Moreover, the presence of both P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the place of occurrence may appear per chance but their stoppage there also appears on account of a particular reason.P.W. 3, who turned hostile after more than two months of giving evidence in examination-in-chief, had also stated that when P.Ws. 1 and 2 arrived there by the motor cycle, he and Rajai invited Deep Chand @ Lalji (P.W. 2) and Kapil Dev Yadav (P.W.1) to have tea and, accordingly, they came to the tea stall and started sipping the tea.P.W. 2-Deep Chand @ Lalji had stated that if he and P.W. 1 would not have been stopped for having tea by P.W. 3 and Rajai, both of them ought not have stopped there.This evidence appears in the last paragraph of cross-examination dated 13.9.2005 of P.W. 2 at page 82 of the paper book.Thus, their stoppage at the place of occurrence might have been per chance, but the reason for their stay appears quite convincing and, on that account, we do not find their presence improbable.29.In our opinion, if a witness claims his presence at the scene of occurrence merely due to that reason, he should not be trusted.The Court should still hold an inquiry by scanning the evidence given by such a witness as to whether the reasons which were assigned by him for his presence at any particular place was really acceptable and convincing.If the court found the witness trustworthy on that claim, then only the witness could be said to be reliable else his evidence could not be utilized for any purpose.Here in the present case, we find that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that while they were on way to Hurmujpur Halt for attending to their small business there, they stopped near the place of occurrence on account of being requested to have a cup of tea by P.W. 3 and Rajai Yadav and we do find the reasons sufficient to accept the same.Thus, what we find is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not mere chance witnesses.They had good reasons to stop and for remaining present at the scene of occurrence.Might be, the occurrence had taken place at the time when they were very much present at the scene of occurrence.30.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was scanned by us quite deeply and we find that the cross-examination of P.W. 1 on the manner of occurrence which appears at page 74 of the paper book further inspires our confidence.The witness was put many searching questions on the manner of occurrence and he was responding convincingly by describing the manner in which both the deceased were chased and killed.P.W. 2 was also cross-examined on the manner of occurrence as appears from the perusal of his evidence at pages 83 and 84 of the paper book and we find that the evidences of both the P.Ws. are quite consistent with each other and not even a single line was found by us which could discredit them as eye witnesses.31.P.W. 3, of course, had turned hostile, so much so that he had the audacity of saying that the evidence, which was given by him in his examination-in-chief on 14.11.2005 and which was recorded by the learned trial Judge was never stated to the Court as appears from his cross-examination done by the prosecution after recalling him.But we have to consider some of the circumstances.The examination-in-chief of P.W. 3 was completed on 14.11.2005 and when the turn came for the defence to cross-examine the witness, an application was filed on that very day for adjourning the hearing of P.W. 3 as a result of which the case was adjourned and the witness did not turn up on many dates till he appeared finally on 9.1.2006 when he made statement in cross-examination completely nullifying the effect of his evidence in examination-in-chief.He had stated that he and Rajai were sitting in the tea shop of Doodhnath Chauhan on the date of occurrence at about 8.15 a.m. when P.Ws. 1 and 2 came there and they were requested by him and Rajai to have a cup of tea.Accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 2 stopped there when the two deceased came by a motor cycle and immediately succeeding them came the five accused persons and surrounded the two deceased, and on remonstration of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav to kill them, the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav, leaving aside his motorcycle ran into the field situated in the north of the place of occurrence who was chased by appellants Shiv Pujan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav who were respectively armed with regular gun and country made guns and was shot dead.Likewise, when Devkinandan the other deceased ran towards the shop of Doodhnath Chauhan, appellants Rajesh Yadav and Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker also chased him and fired at him and killed him.During the cross-examination on 9.1.2006, he stated that he was never present at the place of occurrence,i.e., in the tea shop of Doodhnath and P.Ws. 1 and 2 had never come and he had not witnessed the occurrence.The prosecution recalled him for cross-examination and he appeared after 10 months of his turning round on his evidence in examination-in-chief during his cross-examination on 9.1.2006, and what we find is that he did not have any hesitation in even stating that whatever was recorded in his examination-in-chief evidence had not been stated by him on oath before the learned trial Judge and he does not know how the same was written by the learned Judge.Thus, the witness appears so completely gained over by the defence that he was not even hesitating in branding the learned Judge who was recording his evidence as partial.The time which was purchased by the defence after filing an application for adjournment on 14.11.2005 and two months which intervened between 14.11.2005 and 9.1.2006 was more than enough for the defence as appears from the conduct of P.W. 3 to produce him and make statements in cross-examination not only to nullify the effect of his evidence in examination-in-chief but also to shamelessly castigate the court proceedings.We have to discard the evidence of P.W.3 in cross-examination and we have to hold that he was also supporting P.Ws. 1 and 2 on material parts of the prosecution case.32.The evidence of P.W. 4-Dr.Sanjai Kumar Rai, who held post mortem examination on the two dead bodies, has also to be considered so as to finding out as to whether the medical evidence was supporting the oral testimony.P.W. 4 stated that he found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Devkinandan Yadav :-(i) A wound of entry 0.5cm x 0.5cm x bone deep on the right side of face two cm below the right eye the margins of the wound was inverted and collar abraded.(ii) A wound of exit measuring 2.5cm x 2cm x bone deep on the right side of forehead just lateral to the right eye.Margin of the wound was everted.(iii) A wound of exit 2cm x 1cm x cavity deep on the right side of back 22 cm below the right shoulder.Margin of wound was everted.(iv) A wound of entry measuring 0.5cm x0.5cm x cavity deep present on the right side of the chest.Margins were inverted and blackening and tattooing were present in an area of 4cm x 4cm around the wound.(v) A wound of entry 0.5cm x 0.5cm x bone deep on the left palm three inch below the wrist.(vi) A wound of exit 3 cm x 1cm x bone deep present on the back of left hand 3cm below the left wrist.Margins were everted.33.P.W.4 stated that injuries nos. 1 and 2 were communicating to each other.In the opinion of the P.W. 4, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.During the dissection the doctor found that the left lung had been lacerated.Sanjay Kumar Rai found the following ante mortem fire arm injuries on the dead body of Shyamdeo Yadav:-(i) A wound of exit 2.5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present on the forehead 4 cm above the root of nose.Margin was everted.(ii) A wound of entry measuring 1 cm x 1cm x bone deep resent on the right side of chin.Margin of the wound was inverted and the collar was abraded with blackening present around the wound and 3cm below the lower lip.(iii) A wound of entry measuring 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep on the right side of back.Margin of the wound was inverted and collar was abraded.The would was located 28cm below the right shoulder.(iv) A wound of exit 3 cm x 3cm x cavity deep present on the left side of abdomen 16 cm below the left nipple.The margin of the wound was found everted.(v) An abrasion measuring 1cm x 1cm in front of right leg 7.5 cm above the right ankle.35.P.W. 4 stated that injury no. 1 was communicating to injury no. 2 and injury no. 3 was communicating to injury no. 3 and all the injuries on the dead body were caused by fire arms.36.During dissection of dead body of Shyamdeo Yadav, the pleura was found lacerated with the pedium.Mandible, palate and the frontal bone of the head were found fractured.The membranes and brain matter were found lacerated along with the fracture of skull.In case of Devkinandan also P.W. 4 had found that his maxillary bone was fractured and the right lungs was lacerated.In the opinion of P.W. 4, death of the two deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem fire arm injuries found on the two dead bodies.In the opinion of P.W. 4, both the deceased could have been killed on 17.9.2005 at 8.15 a.m.37.The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that while deceased Shyamdeo Yadav was being chased, he had looked back also.There is no cross-examination to this fact.In our opinion too, a person when finds himself so confronted by peril out of natural urge instinct to escape it, starts running and during that course, often looks back to see as to whether he had indeed succeeded evading being hurt or killed.It is ordinary human reaction and behaviour in such a situation.The evidence further indicates that three accused were chasing Shyamdeo Yadav and they were firing at him as well.It may not be humanly possible for any witness to give shot by shot account of such incident.One may only narrate the main story of the manner of chase and being fired at.As such, the finding of injuries at the face of deceased Shyamdeo Yadav may not be telling a story different from that narrated by the two P.Ws.38.The other evidence which corroborates the occurrence is the evidence of the Investigating Officer.He had found and recovered empty cartridges near and from the two dead bodies of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav and had prepared the seizure memos Exs.P.W.13-SI Amarendra Nath Bajpayee had stated that he arrested appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker on 2.9.2004 on 4.30 a.m. and had recovered from his possession a country made pistol of 3.15 bore and had prepared the seizure cum recovery memo (Ext.Ka-33) in that respect.He further stated that he had questioned appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav in jail and he had pointed out that the gun, which was used by him, was lying in the custody of his wife in his house and, accordingly, he came to his house on 16.10.2005 and took into possession.Appellants Mahendra yadav and Rajesh Yadav had been taken on remand on 21.10.2004 and, during questioning, they had led the Investigating Officer to two different places as per description appearing at page 137 of the paper book, and after bringing out the two country made pistols, each of them produced the same and, accordingly, the seizure memos in respect of those weapons were also prepared.What we find is that the seized empty cartridges and recovered SBBL gun and three country made pistols, which were recovered from the possession of Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker and and Shivpujan Yadav and produced by appellants Mahendra Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were sent for test and report to the FSL, Lucknow and those were examined and a report dated 14.6.2005, which appears at pages 48 and 49 of the paper book, was furnished.As per the report of the FSL, Lucknow, the SBBL Gun, which was probably licensed to appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, was used in firing cartridge marked EC-3, which was recovered from the place of occurrence.Likewise, the three country made pistols, which had been marked 1/2005 the 2/2005 and 3/2005, were also found to have been used in firing shots, and cartridges marked EC-1, EC-2 and EC-5 were fired from those respective country made pistols.The cartridge EC-4 had not been fired from any of the three country made pistols.We find that the bloodstained earth was also sent for examination analysis to the FSL and the report is available to us at pages 51 and 52 of the paper book and the Joint Director, FSL, Lucknow reported that seized earth at serial nos. 1 and 14 were bearing human blood in the area as indicated in the report.Moreover, there is no challenge that the two deceased had been shot and killed at the place of occurrence.Thus, what we find is that the report was submitted by the FSL after tallying the seized empties of cartridges and seized weapons and those empties were recovered from near the dead bodies while SBBL gun was recovered from the constructive possession of the appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav.A country made pistol was recovered, as we have already noted, from the possession of Triloki Rajbhar while Suresh and Mahendra Yadav had produced the two other country made pistols after bringing it out of the places where they had been concealed by each of them.Thus, there is a support from these circumstances also that the accused persons had used the weapons in killing the two deceased.39.Sri Chaturvedi had submitted that there were number of persons who were present at the scene of occurrence as there were tea-stall and other establishments like the clinic of a doctor, miscellaneous article shop of Doodhnath Chauhan, etc. Not only that at 8.15am, the place of occurrence being amidst two villages, i.e., the village of the informant and the other village Laxmanpur Chatti, there could have been many other independent persons who would have witnessed the occurrence, but were not examined and only interested and inimical witnesses were examined.As such, their evidence should be discarded.40.We have appreciated the evidence of witnesses with great care and caution and we have considered the criticisms which were targeted at their credibility and we have found that the witnesses were appearing telling the truth.Sri Chaturvedi was submitting that there would have been many more independent persons who had been there and who ought to have been examined.We have to appreciate that is not it a changed social behaviour which we find daily in court rooms that independent persons, who could have witnessed an occurrence, avoid appearing before the court of law for many reasons; sometimes it is fear of earning the wrath of persons against whom they could be deposing and sometimes it is their indifference towards commission of offence treating it as personal or private matter that they refrain from appearing before the courts.On many occasions, persons of society sulk in coming forward in support of any particular story on account of unfavourable situation.They find themselves being cross-examined by being put various questions which simply unnerve and embarrass them and cause a sense of disgust and frustration in coming out in help of the cause of justice.No one wants to take up the cudgels against anyone in favour of the cause of justice and, in many cases, even the family members of the victim of an offence are found turning away from court proceedings and refuse to appear before the court of law.42.However, what has intrigued us the most is that while the evidence could be acceptable as regards establishing the charges under Sections 148, 302/149 I.P.C. against appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav, how could they, on that basis, be said to have committed the offences under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. which charge was also framed against them as also against appellant Suresh Yadav who was also convicted of committing the said offence.The witnesses stated that while chasing the two deceased in two different directions, they were also firing at each of them as a result of which both of them fell down and died.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(c) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall remain present for the purpose of investigation in the police station at Indapur on Monday and Friday between 10 am to 1.00 p.m for next two weeks.BHARATI DANGRE, JTilak(a) In the event of their arrest, the Applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties of the like amount.(b) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as toTilak 6/6 13 ABAST-2396-20.doc dissuade them from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence.

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

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

The accused-4 has been charged under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC, u/s 477(A) (5 counts), 47(A) r/w 34 (4 counts) IPC and the accused-2 has been charged under Section 409 r/w 34, 477(A) IPC, 477(A) r/w 34(8 counts) IPC.Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.65 were exhibited.A2 was the cashier in the above said Society for the period from 1.10.1985 to 5.6.1987 and that thereafter he was working as a dispatch clerk.A4 was the accountant during the relevant period.Out of the 8 witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1, 3 & 5 speak about A2 about his involvement in the crime.5.According to P.W.1, he was working as a day watchman of the Society from 1984 to 1985 and that he used to collect from the forest, forest products like Manipungai, Etty seeds etc., and used to sell to the other Society and that on 9.6.1987 he has not sold ten tones of manipungai to the Society and that Ex.P.1-receipt dated 9.6.1987 for the sale of 10 tones (200 bags of Manipungai) is not a genuine receipt and that he had not received Rs.20,000/- being the value of 200 bags of Manipungai under Ex.6.P.W.2 is the Assistant of the said Society.During the relevant period.7.P.W.3 is the then watchman of Jamuna Marathoor forest tamarind trees.He would deny for having supplied the Manipungai on 9.6.1987 of the above said Society.Even though he would admit that Ex.P.6-receipt for Rs.20,000/- contains his signature, he would say that he has not supplied Manipungai to the value of Rs.20,000/-.According to him only at the instance of A1-Muthu, Special Officer of the Society, he and Dhamodran have signed in Ex.P.6-receipt and at that time the said Ex.P.6-receipt was blank and nothing was written in it.According to P.W.3, Ex.P.6-receipt was filled up by A1 subsequently and handed over to Dhamodaran.8.P.W.4 is the then Deputy Registrar of the Society, who had conducted an enquiry under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, as per the directions of the Register of the Co-operative Society.According to him, the Special Registrar had conducted the enquiry and submitted enquiry report Ex.P.7 to him and that on the basis of Ex.According to him, as per Ex.P.9 there is an entry in the Bills No.5421 & 5422 that Manipungai, a forest product, was purchased by the Society to the value of Rs.40,000/-.P.26 is the entry in Ex.P.9, day book.According to him, the receipts given under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 were not genuine receipts, but created for the purpose of showing that the Society had purchased Manipungaia, forest product, worth Rs.40,000/- from P.W.1 & P.W.3 and thereby A2 & A4 along with other co-accused have misappropriated the funds of the Society.The learned counsel would further contend that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that these two accused have misappropriated the alleged amount of Rs.40,000/-, which was collected from P.W.1 & P.W.3 under Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.6 receipts respectively.Except the fact that A2 & A4 have signed in the above said receipts Ex.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would represent that both the accused were on bail through out the trial and also during the first appeal and that there is no evidence to show that the disputed amount i.e., Rs.40,000/- under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 were misappropriated by these two accused and that some leniency may be shown on them in the sentence.P.W.7 & P.W.8 are the Investigating Officers.11.The learned Trial Judge has accepted the case of the prosecution on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-2 under Section 409 r/w 34, 477(A) IPC to undergo 6 months RI and a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 477(A) r/w 34 (8 counts) IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100 for each counts.A4 was convicted under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and a fine of Rs.500 in default 3 months RI and also convicted under Section 477(A)(5 counts), 477(A) r/w 34 (4 counts) IPC to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for each count.The co-accused A1, A3, A5 were also convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate and another co-accused A6 alone was acquitted under Section 248(1)Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, A2 preferred an appeal in C.A.No.144 of 2003 and A4 preferred an appeal in C.A.No.143 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore.Since both A2 & A4 could not succeed in the first appeal, they have come before this Court by way of these revisions.13.When both the revisions were taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr.P.1 & Ex.P.6 there is no material on record to show that they have received the amount i.e., Rs.40,000/- under each of the receipts and misappropriated the same.But this contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be upheld because the admitted case of the prosecution is that along with these two accused A1, A3 & A5 were working in the same Society and only they were on duty in the said Society during the relevant period.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Thiru.V.R.Balasubramanian on this point.Taking into consideration the ordeal of trial faced by A2 & A4 for over 10 years and taking into consideration the advanced age of A4 and the fact that A2 has lost his job, I am of the view that while confirming the conviction, the sentence alone can be modified to that of "till the raising of the Court" instead of 6 months RI, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court.In the result, the revision petitions are allowed in part and the conviction against the revision petitioners/A2 & A4 in C.A.No.144 & 143 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore, is confirmed and the sentence alone is modified to the effect "till the raising of the Court " instead of 6 months RI.Both the accused shall appear before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore on 25.6.2007 at 10.30 am to serve out the sentence.The fine imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, is hereby confirmed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.3.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Vellore.4.The District & Sessions Judge, Vellore.5.The Inspector of Police, CCIW.CTD, Vellore.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.R.M. No. 12777 of 2014 MNS.In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 9, 2014 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 102 of 2014 dated June 4, 2014 under Sections 147/148/149/332/333/338/186/353/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosive Act and Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9 of the M.P.O. Act And In the matter of: Mir Lal Babu @ Mir Anawar Sahadat and others ...petitioners.Mr. Sabir Ahmed ...for the petitioners.Mr. N. Ahmed ...for the State.Heard the learned advocate of both the parties.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Petitioner No.2 made correspondence with the Chief Personnel Officer of the Eastern Railway to ascertain whether the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 had drawn the house rent allowance as an employee of the railways during the period for which the Opposite Party No.2 claimed house rent allowance as Assistant Teacher of the school.CRR No. 2486 of 2011 With CRAN No. 1152 of 2013 Ruma Raha Dutta & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.807 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.The Opposite Party No.2 is the Assistant Teacher of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya and her husband Shri Gora Chand Das is a Senior Labour Welfare Inspector of the Eastern Railway.The Petitioner No.1 is the Headmistress of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya.The Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary, the Petitioner No.3 is the President and the Petitioner No.4 is the member of the Managing Committee of the said Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya.The allegations made by the Opposite Party No.2 being the defacto complainant in the written complaint treated as F.I.R. are as follows:"On 29.09.2007 at 11.20 a.m. within the school premises Smt. Ruma Raha (Dutta), Shri Kamal Krishna Ghosh, Bhola Hazra, Johar Jyoti etc., the managing committee members of the school have assaulted mentally with uses filthy languages with loudly voice and tortured in a scientific manner.A no. of filthy languages with loudly voice was used to force me to leave the job and life threatening me being continued.Under the circumstances would request your attention to take necessary action in accordance with Article 359 of the constitution of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against them."It is relevant to point out that the persons whose names are disclosed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the F.I.R. are the petitioners of the instant criminal revision.The police took up the investigation of the above criminal case.The petitioners have prayed for quashing the said criminal proceeding.However, on appeal the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reversed the judgement of the Learned Single Judge and thereafter the order of the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court approved the acquisition proceedings.Therefore, the writ petition, out of which the appeal arose before the Supreme Court, purports to be an attempt to litigate once again, inter alia, on the ground that the aforesaid blocks of land were outside the purview of the framework of the agreement and notification issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. In this reported case, the original writ petition before the Single Bench, the appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal before the Supreme Court were decided on merit and as such the subsequent writ petition and appeal were held to be barred by the principles of res judicata and abuse of the process of the court.Mr. Sekhar Basu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out the order of dismissal of criminal revision being CRR No.4308 of 2007 in order to urge before this court that the previous criminal revision was not dismissed on merit.On perusal of the order dated 22.06.2011 passed in CRR No.4308 of 2007 it is clear that none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that the investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted before the Trial Court.In view of the fact that charge sheet was submitted the criminal revision was dismissed without hearing Learned Counsel representing the petitioners.Since the criminal revision being CRR No.4308 of 2007 was not dismissed on merit, the ratio of the decision of "M. Nagabhushana V. State of Karnataka" reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case.Now, it is relevant to point out from the materials on record the long standing animosity between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners before the incident dated 29.09.2007, which gave rise to the present criminal proceeding.In the middle of the year 2003, the Petitioner No.1 being the Headmistress of the school and the members of the managing committee of the said school requested all the teachers to donate Rs.50,000/- each towards development fund of the school.The Opposite Party No.2 refused to make donation and thereby strained relationship cropped up between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners.It appears from the materials on record that the Petitioner No.1 stopped giving house rent allowance to the Opposite Party No.2 with effect from 01.04.2005 on the ground that she did not submit the document in support of her declaration that her husband being a government employee is not drawing house rent allowance.However, ultimately the Opposite Party No.2 moved the High Court by filing W.P. No.4391 (W) of 2007 and on 25.06.2007 the High Court passed the order that the Opposite Party No.2 will get the house rent allowance along with arrears within the time frame given by the High Court.The above admitted facts go to establish that there was long standing animosity between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners for two reasons: first, the demand of donation of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners towards the development fund of the school and secondly, the stoppage of disbursement of house rent allowance of the Opposite Party No.2 by the Petitioner No.1 for failure of the Opposite Party No.2 to submit document in support of the declaration that her husband is not drawing house rent allowance.With the above background of facts, the Opposite Party No.2 was absent from the school for more than three months on medical ground immediately before the incident.The incident took place when the Opposite Party No.2 entered into the office room of the Petitioner No.1 for submitting her application for leave on medical ground.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case was briefly this.There is a firm Hiremani and Jaglur and Co., carrying on business sin oil and flour at Hubli in the district of Dharwar.That firm is the proprietor of the Sangameshwar Oil and Flour Mills.On 26-5-1956, K. Umakant wrote a letter to the Hubli firm informing the later that he was awaiting the draft for Rupees 8000/- "as per wire and call", but the same was not received till 4 p.m. that day.The Hubli firm referred in that letter to a telegram informing K. Umakant that a draft on the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., No. 075509, dated 21-5-1956, had already been despatched on 21st May, 1956 and the balance of Rs. 5,000/- was sent on 27th May. The Hubli firm further stated that they were surprised to learn that the draft for Rs. 8,000/- was not received by K. Umakant.They asserted that it was posted on 21-5-1956 with an enclosing letter.The letter then proceeded to state:"Probably as it is an ordinary post might be received by you in your office by anyone in your office.The draft was then presented in the bank together with a paying-in-slip and the amount of the draft was duly credited in the account.Thereafter the person who opened the account with the bank and deposited the draft for Rs. 8,000 made enquiries from time to time about the cashing of the draft.JUDGMENT Shah, J.The accused Abu Ismail was tried in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1957 for offences under Section 411, Section 467, and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with a common jury.The jury brought in a majority verdict of 8 to 1 against the accused for the there offences charged against him.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The accused has appealed to this Court.The letter was addressed to K. Umakant.It appears that this draft with the enclosing letter did not reach K. Umakant.A partner of the Hubli firm then came to Bombay.It appears that on 25-5-1956 an application for opening an account in the name of Kamalakant Umakant Joshi residing at Patel Mansions, Chowpaty, Bombay 7, was submitted to the Manager of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., Queen's Road Branch, Bombay.In the application the introductory reference was given by one Seth C. Das and the occupation of the applicant was shown as "Commission Agent" and address as "Opposite to Grant Road Station".The applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 500/ in cash for opening the account.In the specimen signature card which accompanied the application it was stated that the applicant will sign on cheques as "K. Umakant." In the afternoon of the same day, the draft for Rs. 8,000/- which was sent by the Hubli firm addressed to K. Umakant of Bombay was presented by the applicant who had opened the account with the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd. It appears that one Gambre, who was the ledger-keeper in the bank asked the person who presented the draft to endorse the same in his presence even though the draft bore already an endorsement by K. Umakant.On 28th May 1956, he approached Gambre and was told that the draft had been cashed and credit was given to him.Thereupon a cheque for Rupees 7,900/- was drawn in favour of self' and the amount was withdrawn by the person who had deposited that draft.It appears that three more cheques respectively for Rs. 5000/- Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- were deposited but those cheques were dishonoured.On 30th May 1956, the net balance which remained with the bank in the account opened on 25th May 1956, was Rs. 171/12/. It is the case for the prosecution that the accused had received the draft for Rs. 8,000/- knowing the same to be stolen property and had thereafter endorsed the same in favour of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., and had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 7,900/- which as the proceeds of the draft.Pursuant to the complaint made on 4th June 1956, investigation was started by the police and ultimately the accused was arrested and he was charged wit the offence under Section 379, or,in the alternative under Section 411 of the Penal Code and also for the offences under Section 467, of the Penal Code.It appears that the jury accepted the prosecution case that it was the accused who had presented the draft ad the bank and had made an endorsement on the reverse of the draft in the presence of Gambre and that the accused was not the person who was the addressee of the letter which was sent by the Hubli firm with which the draft was enclosed.The learned Judge put the respective versions of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate and of Gambre and told the jury that it was for them to decide whether the evidence of Gambre should be accepted in preference to the evidence of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate.

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.)Heard Sri Rahul Misra, Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.A.N. Mulla and Sri J.K. Upadhaya, learned A.G.A. for the State.By way of instant jail appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and legality of the judgement and order dated 15.9.2014 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1074 of 2012 (State Versus Babu Ram), arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2012, under Sections 452, 302, 307, 504 and 506 IPC and S.T. No. 1075 of 2012 (State Versus Babu Ram), arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2012, under Section 4/25 Arms Act by which the appellant-Babu Ram has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, 3 years additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with fine and in case of default of payment of fine 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default of payment of fine 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Course of events leading to filing of this appeal as discernible from the record appear to be that informant P. W. 1 Satish Chandra lodged a written report Ext. Ka1 at P.S. Chandausi, District Bheemnagar at 15:35 hours on 15.7.2012 regarding the murder of his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi and causing injuries to him by the appellant-Babu Ram on 15.7.2012 at about 14:45 hours in front of his house in Village Pathra within the territorial jurisdiction of P. S. Chandauli, District Bheemnagar.Left lungs was punctured.Weight of heart was 180 gram and was empty.100 ml.semi-digested food was present in stomach.Mucous was normal.P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma was of the opinion that the deceased had died about 18 hours before conducting the postmortem due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Similarly, P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra have also in their respective examinations-in-chief corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra on all material points relating to the time, place and manner of attack and the identity of the perpetrators of crime.However, P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal both fumbled during their cross-examination.Although P. W. 1 Satish Chandra in his examination-in-chief had deposed that the FIR of the incident was scribed by one Ranveer on his dictation and after he had read over the FIR to him he had signed the same and given it at the Police Station Chandausi.However, as noted hereinabove, P. W. 1 Satish Chandra in his cross-examination deposed that before the FIR of the incident was scribed, he had consulted the SHO, the FIR of the incident was thereafter, written on the instructions of the SHO by a police personnel with whom he had met at the police station and whose name he did not know.Similarly, P. W. 2 Netrapal also in his cross-examination on page 20 of the paper book stated on oath that he had left for the police station along with his brother to lodge the FIR of the incident at about 5:30 P.M., they had met the SHO at the police station and narrated the entire incident to him and the report was thereafter, written in the police station after they had consulted the SHO.Although, in the FIR as well as in the statements of all the three witnesses of fact it has been stated that on the date of incident, an altercation had taken place between the children of the appellant and the informant on account of which later in the day while informant and his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi were present in their house and Smt. Shiv Dai mother of the informant was sitting on the door steps of his house, the appellant came armed with a knife to the house of the informant and started abusing his wife and when she objected he stabbed her with his knife and when the informant tried to save her he dealt a blow with his knife to him also.However, on page 17 of the paper book, P. W. 1 Satish Chandra came out with an entirely different version of the occurrence by deposing that he had never quarrelled with the appellant.Appellant-Babu Ram had come to his house from the western side and had stopped at the turning.His wife had then gone out of her house.Neither any quarrel had taken place between the appellant-Babu Ram and informant's wife Smt. Nanhi Devi nor any altercation had taken place between them.Ramesh, Murari and Rubi were not present at the place of incident and they had arrived at the crime scene after 15-20 minutes.The incident had taken place outside his house, near the house of P. W. 2 Netrapal and not inside his house.His wife had received 9 wounds.He had seen the knife which had a copper handle.The blade of the knife was about one foot long and it was sharp edged on one side.The appellant before fleeing from the place of occurrence had left the knife behind which he had handed over to the police.The aforesaid report was noted in the chek FIR Ext. Ka4 as Case Crime No. 298 of 2012, under Sections 302, 452, 324, 504 and 506 IPC on 15.7.2012 at 15:35 hours.He thereafter, dispatched the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem.The postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi was conducted by P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma on 16.7.2012 who also prepared the postmortem report of the deceased which is on record as.Ext. Ka2 and noted following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi :(i) Straight abrasion 3.0 cm x ½ cm on left side of forehead, just above the left eyebrow.(ii) Punctured wound 4.0 cm x 2.0 cm on left side of chest, 6.00 cm below from clavicle bone.On internal examination, fourth rib was found to be fractured and lungs was ruptured.Around 1 liter blood was present in chest cavity.(iii) Incised wound 11 cm x 7 cm x muscle deep, in front of joint of right elbow.(iv) Five punctured wounds in the area of 22 cm x 10 cm on chest and on right side of abdomen.Minor wound 2 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep and major wound 5 cm x 2 cm x abdomen cavity deep.On internal examination, liver was found to be punctured at three places.Around 1 liter blood was present in abdomen cavity.(v) Incised wound 2 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep outwards on left hand.(vi) Incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on left arm.(vii) 03 incised wounds in the area of 23 cm x 13 cm outwards of left thigh.Minor wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep and major wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep.Fourth leftward rib of chest was fractured and third rib of rightward was fractured.After the appellant was arrested and on his pointing out the crime weapon (knife) allegedly used by the appellant in committing the murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the informant was recovered on 1.8.2012, consequently Case Crime No. 298 of 2012, under Section 4/25 Arms Act was also registered against him.The investigation of Case Crime No. 298 of 2012 was taken over by P. W. 7, S.I. Rajvir Singh after the first Investigating Officer Rajvir Singh was transferred to District Sambhal.Both the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad for the trial of the accused by committal order dated 9.10.2012 passed by CJM, Moradabad where the same were registered as S.T. No. 1074 of 2012 and S.T. No. 1075 of 2012 and made over for trial from there to the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad vide order dated 11.1.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Thereafter, the prosecution was asked to lead evidence for proving the charges framed against the appellant in both the sessions trial.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the appellant examined as many as 9 witnesses of whom P. W. 1 Satish Chandra, P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh were examined as witnesses of fact while P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi, P. W. 5 Dr. Mohd. Aslam who had examined the injuries of informant Satish Chandra, P. W. 6 Constable Ram Kumar who had prepared the chek FIR and G.D. Entry, P. W. 7 S. I., Rajvir Singh, second Investigating Officer of the case, P. W. 8 S.H.O., Rajvir Singh, first Investigating Officer of the case, P. W. 9 S. I., Megh Singh, witness of recovery of crime weapon and P. W. 10, Head Constable Omkar Sharma who had prepared the chek FIR and the corresponding G.D. entry were produced as formal witnesses during the trial.The appellant in his statement recorded during the trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as false and incorrect.He denied having committed any murder.As regards the recovery of knife on his pointing out, he stated that it was recovered from a drain and not from the jungle on the alleged pointing out of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution.The appellant did not examine any witness in defence.Learned Trial Judge after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellant under Section 302, 307 and 506 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act and awarded aforesaid sentences to him.However, the Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 452 and 504 IPC by extending benefit of doubt to him.Hence this appeal.Sri Rahul Misra, Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the motive for the appellant to commit the offence as spelt out in the FIR that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the informant and his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi over a fight which had ensued between the children of the informant and the accused earlier on the same day which culminated into stabbing of the informant and his wife by the appellant.The FIR written on the dictation of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra never saw the light of the day.It is not established from the evidence of P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh that they had witnessed the incident.The correct facts are that the wife of the informant Smt. Nanhi was living with the appellant and his wife and on account of the aforesaid fact he had become inimical towards him and it was on account of the aforesaid enmity that he had falsely implicated him in the present case.In the absence of any public witness, the alleged recovery of the crime weapon on 1.8.2012 on the pointing out of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution is wholly fabricated especially in view of the deposition made by the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial that the appellant after committing the murder had thrown away the knife in the drain and the knife was recovered by the police from the place of incident itself.He lastly submitted that the prosecution having miserably failed to prove the charge framed against the appellant by any cogent and reliable evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellant nor the sentences awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.Per contra Sri.A. N. Mulla and Sri J.K. Upadhaya, learned A. G. A. appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution case stands fully proved from the evidence of three witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial including that of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra (informant) who had received injuries in the same incident and whose presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted even for a moment.It is also proved from the evidence of P. W. 7 S.I. Rajvir Singh and P. W. 9 S.I. Megh Singh that the crime weapon (knife) was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him before the police after his arrest.The postmortem report of the deceased and the injury report of the injured have been duly proved by P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma and P. W. 5 Dr. Mohd. Aslam.The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version.This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the entire lower court record.The FIR of this case discloses that on 15.7.2012 an altercation took place between the children of the informant and the appellant-Babu Ram at about 2:45 P.M. while the informant and his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi were present inside their house and his mother Smt. Shiv Dai was sitting on the doorsteps.Appellant-Babu Ram residing in Village Pathra at the time of occurrence came with a knife in his hand and started abusing the wife of informant.When the informant asked him not to abuse his wife, appellant-Babu Ram started inflicting knife blows on his wife and when the informant tried to rescue her, he stabbed him also.On hearing the noise, informant's mother Smt. Shiv Dai and his brother P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra son of Natthu Lal resident of the same village rushed to the place of occurrence and rescued them whereupon the appellant-Babu Ram fled away from the place of occurrence extending life threats to the informant.The informant then took his wife to the hospital with the help of his family members.However, she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in the occurrence, on way to the hospital.Leaving the dead body of his wife in the hospital, the informant went to the police station to lodge the FIR of the occurrence.Record further shows that the FIR of the incident which had taken place on 15.7.2012 at about 2:45 P.M. was lodged by the informant P. W. 1 Satish Chandra at P. S. Chandausi at 3:35 P.M.Inviting our attention to the facts deposed by P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal in their cross examination, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FIR in this case is ante timed.Upon perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal, it transpires that P.W.1 Satish Chandra has in his cross-examination deposed that he had gone to lodge the FIR at about 3 P.M. half an hour after the incident.His report was lodged at about 4 P.M. Then he said that he did not have a watch.The report was lodged at about 5 P.M. He further stated that he had gone to the police station straightaway and reached there at about 8 P.M., it took him about half an hour in lodging the FIR.Similarly, P.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that he had gone to lodge the FIR of the occurrence with his brother at 5:30 P.M.It is noteworthy that the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 was recorded almost 1 year after the occurrence.Undisputedly both the witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 are almost uneducated and merely because of some contradictions in their statements with regard to the time at which the FIR of the incident was registered vis-a-vis the time of the registration of FIR mentioned in the chek FIR and the G.D. entry it cannot be held that the FIR in this case is ante timed.The fact that the FIR was registered at the time mentioned in the chek FIR stands fully proved from the fact that the inquest on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi was conducted on 15.7.2012 at 15:35 hours.The inquest report of the deceased-Smt.Nanhi Devi Ext. Ka9 clearly mentions the case crime number which indicates that the FIR had come into existence before the inquest proceedings started.The complaint was scribed in the police station.Thus, in view of the above, the possibility of the first written report of the incident having been suppressed and another first information report prepared on the advice of and after consultation with the concerned SHO cannot be ruled out.P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra in his examination-in-chief had categorically deposed that his complaint was scribed by one Ranveer on his dictation and thereafter, he had lodged the same at Police Station Chandausi but from the facts stated by him and P. W. 2 Netrapal in their cross-examinations referred to hereinabove, it transpires that the report of the occurrence which was originally scribed by one Ranveer on the dictation of the informant Satish Chandra never saw the light of the day.So far as the credibility of the FIR in this case is concerned, we find upon perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal that the same stands totally shattered.The FIR in this case is proved to have been scribed by a police personnel whom the informant had met at the police station and before scribing the FIR the informant had consulted SHO of the concerned police station, thereafter, the FIR was written by a police man on behalf of informant on the instructions of the S.H.O. In view of the above, the possibility of the prosecution as spelt out in the FIR being false, fabricated and concocted cannot be ruled out.The issue which next arises for our consideration is that whether the evidence of P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra, P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra who were examined as eye-witnesses of the incident is reliable and trustworthy or not.P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra in his examination-in-chief has fully supported the prosecution case.On page 25 of the paper book in his cross-examination he further stated that he and P. W. 1 Satish Chandra had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the noise from the side of the road and it was incorrect to say that he was present at the place of incident at the time of occurrence.Satish Chandra had also received injuries at the hands of the appellant in the same incident.The injury report of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra indicates that following injuries were found on his person :(i) Incised wound 7.00 cm x 2.00 cm on lower portion of left hand, edges of which were sharp and bone deep.Blood was oozing and its x-ray advised.(ii) Red straight mark of abrasion 6.00 cm long in middle of left hand.(iii) Punctured wound 1.00 cm x 0.5 cm on left elbow, edges of which were sharp; depth could not be measured.Blood was oozing which was kept under observation and x-ray advised for left elbow.(iv) Incised wound 2.00 cm x 5.00 cm, 22 cm above from left knee on left thigh (sharp edged and muscle deep, red in colour) which was kept under observation and x-ray advised for left thigh.(v) Red abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm downwards on left chest, 9.00 cm downwards and outwards from left nipple.(vi) Red abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, 3 cm below on stomach at left side and was outwards.Abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on posterior of chest leftwards at lower portion.Upon reading the evidence of P. W. 5 Mohd. Aslam, we find that since P. W. 1 Satish Chandra had not got his injuries X-rayed, he was not in a position to state whether the injuries sustained by him were simple or grievous in nature and it was on account of the aforesaid omission that supplementary report of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra could not prepared.He has further deposed that it was possible that the injuries received by him could be caused on 15.7.2012 at about 2:45 P.M.The next question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether P. W. 1 Satish Chandra notwithstanding the fact that he was present at the place of occurrence has given correct and cogent description of the incident or not.However, in view of the categorical deposition made by P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal on pages 17 and 20 of their cross-examination that the appellant after stabbing the deceased in her stomach with a knife had run away abandoning the knife at the place of occurrence which was picked up by P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and handed over to the police personnel on their arrival at the place of occurrence and which was sealed by them in a packet on the date of incident itself and on which thumb impression of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra were obtained, the entire prosecution case that crime weapon was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant-Babu Ram from an open place pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him before the police after his arrest stands totally falsified and fabricated.Thus, upon a holistic view of the facts of the case and a careful appraisal and scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.The credibility of the FIR in this case is under a heavy cloud and in view of the above, the possibility of the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR being concocted and fabricated at the behest of the police personnel cannot be ruled out.Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence.P. W. 1 Satish Chandra cannot be categorized as a wholly reliable witness in view of the glaring contradictions and discrepancies in his evidence with regard to the motive for the appellant to commit the offence, the place of occurrence and manner of attack.In view of the foregoing discussion, neither the recorded conviction of the appellant nor the sentence awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.The appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2014 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1074 of 2012 (State Versus Babu Ram) is hereby set aside.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

And In the matter of : Asis Dey.The State of West Bengal Opposite party.Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Sonasubhra Ganguly For the petitioner.Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty For the State.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Suri Police Station Case No.162 of 2013 dated 13.05.2013 under Sections 147,148,149,341,332,333,186,353,224,225,307,506 of the Indian Penal Code, has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have considered the case diary.In these circumstances, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the further condition that the petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer at least twice a week until further order.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) ( Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

NO.1610/2011 Page 2 of 35 Siddhartha Behura, the then Secretary, Telecom (A-2), R.K.Chandolia (A-3), the then P.S. to the Minister, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Directors, M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (A-4 and A-5 respectively).M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd (A-6), Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Ltd. (A-7), M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Ltd. (A-8), Gautam Doshi, Group Managing Director of Reliance, ADA Group (A-9), Surendra Pipara, Group President of Reliance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (A-10), Hari Nair, Sr.Vice President of Reliance, ADA Group (A-11) and M/s.Reliance Telecom Ltd. (A-12).BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 2 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 3 of 35It is also contended that he has roots in the society and, therefore, he is not likely to flee from the processes of law and since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the evidence is already underway, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated and, therefore, it was prayed that he may be extended the benefit of grant of bail.BAIL APPL.In this regard, I have gone through the statements of Sh.A.K.Srivastava/PW-1, DDG (Access Service); Sh.Nitin Jain/PW-2, DDG (Data Services); Sh.R.K.Gupta/PW-3, the then ADG (AS); Sh.R.P.Agarwal/PW-20, the then Wireless Adviser, Deptt.of Telecommunications; Sh.Nripendra Mishra/PW-30, the then Chairman, TRAI; and Sh.P.K.Mittal/PW-50, the then DDG (AS-II) and one thing, which emerges from their statements, is very clear that the petitioner has been a perpetrator of BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 20 of 35 the illegal design of A-1 and, therefore, his role was distinguishable from the ten accused persons, who have been granted the bail and were beneficiary of that illegal act.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 19 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 20 of 35Another aspect, which is very interesting, in this case, is the fact that it has come in the statements of some of the witnesses that when this illegal and nefarious conspiracy of causing wrongful gain to certain private parties was being executed by A-1 with the help of co- accused A-2 and A-3, who were the two public servants, two employees of Department of Telecommunications, who had withstood like a rock and did not accede to the wishes of these core conspirators, it was the present petitioner, who was instrumental in getting them firstly transferred from the Department in order to remove the obstruction and to implement the illegal design of the 2G Spectrum being allocated to private persons and Unified Access Services allocated for ulterior considerations.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 21 of 35BAIL APPL.This order shall dispose off an application filed by the petitioner, Siddhartha Behura (A-2), the former Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, for grant of regular bail in respect of 2G Spectrum Scam cases, BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 1 of 35 which was registered vide FIR No.RC DAI-2009(A)-0045 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 1 of 35Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.10.2009, Anti Corruption Branch of CBI had registered the aforesaid FIR on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct against the unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and some unknown private persons/companies and others, under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (hereinafter referred to as UAS) Licenses and 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications.CBI had filed the first charge-sheet on 02.04.2011 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against A.Raja, the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology (A-1), BAIL APPL.A supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 25.04.2011 in the Court of learned Special Judge for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/11/12 of the Act against some additional accused persons in which the present petitioner was not named.After filing of the BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 3 of 35 charge-sheet, charges have been framed against all the accused persons.The charges against the petitioner are essentially three in nature.The first charge, against the petitioner and other 16 accused persons, including A.Raja(A-1) and R.K.Chandolia(A-3), is that they all conspired to commit offences under sections 409/420/468/471 IPC and section 7 or section 11 read with section 12/13(2) read with section 13(d) of the Act. The second charge, which has been framed against the present petitioner, along with A-1, is for a substantive offence of breach of trust under section 409 read with section 120B IPC.The third charge, which is alternatively, framed against the petitioner and the A-1 is for cheating under section 420 read with section 120B IPC.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 4 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 4 of 35The case is presently going on, for recording of prosecution evidence and I have been given to understand that statements of some of the witnesses have already been recorded by the prosecution.The present application for grant of regular bail of the petitioner was taken up along with the bail applications of the other five co-accused persons, A-13 to A-19, (except the companies).Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel, was heard partially along with the other counsel, who had appeared for that set of accused persons, however, as the cases of those accused persons were treated as a separate class in itself on account of two reasons; firstly that those five accused persons were not public servants and, secondly, in their case the CBI had not opposed the grant of bail, therefore, they were heard and disposed of vide a separate order on 28.11.2011, while as the present case was segregated to be dealt with separately.Arguments were heard afresh in the present case after BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 5 of 35 disposal of the bail applications of the aforesaid five accused persons and the submissions, which were made by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel, for grant of bail to the petitioner, were essentially the following:BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 5 of 35(i) The first and the foremost submission, which was made by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail to the present petitioner, was that he is to be treated at par with the other co-accused persons, who have already been extended the benefit of bail both by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court.Emperor, AIR 1937 ALL.754 and Hira Lal Vs.Emperor, AIR 1917 ALL.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 9 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 9 of 35(iii) It was next contended by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel, that so far as the petitioner is concerned there are no allegations of having taken illegal gratification or obtaining any valuable consideration or committing abetment of these two offences, which may be punishable under sections 7 or 11 of the Act. It is also stated that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that he had any role in the alleged giving or taking of the bribe of `200 crores nor has he benefited in any manner whatsoever from the allocation of 2G Spectrum or Unified Access License.In this regard, the learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to certain correspondence, which had taken place between the officials of the Government, prior to 01.01.2008 in order to show so far as the BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 10 of 35 petitioner is concerned, he has absolutely no role to play in the question of formulation of policy of first cum first serve basis and was only implementing the same in terms of the directions of the Department.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 10 of 35(iv) Next, it was contended by Mr.Lekhi, that the petitioner has already been in custody for almost 10 months and, thus, being incarcerated for the longest period and the fact he is not an influential person or has no political influence or clout, to influence the witnesses, he may not be denied the benefit of bail as has been extended to other persons, as the trial is going to last for quite some time.NO.1610/2011 Page 11 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 11 of 35Keeping in view the aforesaid broad parameters, I intend to deal with the submissions, which have been raised by BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 15 of 35 the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for the grant of bail.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 15 of 35B.B.Singh/PW-26, the then DDG (LF); Mr.The petitioner has been a member of elite bureaucracy.All the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the prosecution, no doubt, have to prove documents but, at the same time, they have also orally testified against the petitioner, which implicates him in the crime.NO.1610/2011 Page 30 of 35 also come by way of oral evidence in as much as the petitioner was posted as an Additional Secretary in the Department of Environment, when his mentor, A-1, was posted there as a Minister.Similarly, the factum of the oral orders, having been issued from time to time so as to permit the A-1, the main conspirator, to have a free hand in the execution of his illegal design, have been issued by the present petitioner, like fixation of four counters so as to defeat the policy of "first cum first serve" and implement it in a manner so as to benefit certain pre-determined parties or that the officials of the Department of Telecommunications, who is transferred out of the Department on the oral orders of the Secretary, DoT, clearly shows that there is a likelihood that in case the petitioner is released on bail he will try his best to subvert the trial by influencing the witnesses, who have testified against him especially to the extent to which their statements against the petitioner are oral.I, BAIL APPL.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.37956/2019 (Balram s/o Madanlal Korku Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 30.09.2019 Ms. Bharti Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of this anticipatory bail application contending that applicants were required to remain present at the time of filing of Challan under section 326 of the IPC, but they chose to abscond and, accordingly, proceedings under section 299, Cr.P.C. have been initiated.As such arguments heard on merits of the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2018 registered at Police Station Kurwai, District Vidisha, for the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 324, 325 and subsequently enhanced 326 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are already on bail in all the sections except S.326 IPC and have not misused the liberty so granted.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P.W. 1, Rajavadivu, is a resident of Poochampatti village.Jayakodi is the wife of the appellant.Deceased was her maternal uncle.Deceased was a resident of Oorappanur, whereas the appellant was a resident of Ariyapatti village.P.W. 2, Annokodi, resides just south of the house of P.W. 1, in Poochampatti village.Seven or eight months prior to occurrence, deceased Doraiswami had gone over to Ariyapatti village as a guest.When Jayakodi, wife of the appellant, was alone in her residence, deceased was found talking merrily with her.Appellant who saw both of them together, entertained flame of suspicion, against their conduct.About a month prior to occurrence, P.W. 1 in the company of the appellant, were over to P.W. 7, Ammavasai.P.W. 1 told P.W. 7 that the deceased had teased Jayakodi and, therefore, the deceased must be asked to swear, that in further he would not have any connection with Jayakodi.To this suggestion of P.W. 1, appellant was not aggreeable.It is, in this background, that the alleged occurrence had taken place.One Mokkachi, wife of the uncle of the deceased, had expired sometime prior to 11-6-1985 at Poochampatti.On 11-6-1985, the date of occurrence, there was some function in connection with the death of Mokkachi.P.W. 1 was also residing in another portion of the same house.At or about 5-30 p.m., deceased who had participated in the ceremony at the residence of Mokkachi, went over to the house of P.W. 1, and engaged himself in conversation with P.W. 1 for a short while and thereafter accompanied by him went towards the manthai.On the east west street, opposite to the house of Karuppanna Asari (not examined), appellant was found seated on a granite bench.As soon as the deceased neared him, appellant suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife on his left flank.Shouting that the appellant had stabbed him, injured Doraiswami fell down.When P.W. 2 attempted to catch hold of the appellant, and in such process caught hold of the latter's hand, appellant resisted and ran away.In that transaction, P.W. 2 sustained a simple injury on his left little finger.P.Ws. 1 and 2 chased the appellant.They noticed P.W. 6, Sunthan, coming towards them from the opposite direction.When P.W. 6 attempted to apprehend the appellant, the appellant threatened to stab any one who neared him.Hence, P.W. 6 desisted from catching hold of the appellant.P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 enquired Doraiswami as to the cause of the attack to which injured Doraiswami replied that since the appellant had seen him boisterously engaged in conversation with his wife, he had chosen to stab him.Injured Doraiswami was taken in a bullock-cart to Chek-kanoorani police station at or about 8 p.m. He was not in a position to talk.The dead body was sent to the mortuary.Ex. P. 3 is the extract of accident register.On the same day, he examined P.W. 2 at or about 9 p.m. He found on him an abrasion over the left little finger 2 cm., in size.The said injury was simple.Ex. P. 5 is the wound certificate.P.W. 3 forwarded death intimation, Ex. P. 6, to the outpost police station.Soon thereafter, crime was altered into one under S. 302, Penal Code.P.W. 12 prepared express altered report, Ex. P. 19, and forwarded the same to the higher hierarchy of police officials and the Magistrate.JUDGMENT Arunachalam, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 82 of 1986, convicting appellant Selvakkodi, under S. 302, Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.The appellant is also charged under S. 324, Penal Code, for having caused hurt to P.W. 2, Annakodi, with a dangerous weapon.However, after trial, he was acquitted of the said charge.Prosecution case, he brief, is as follows :- Occurrence which led to this prosecution is alleged to have taken place at or about 6.30 p.m., on 11-6-1985, near the manthai, in East Street at Poochampatti village.Appellant is alleged to have stabbed deceased Doraiswami with a knife on his left flank, leading to the victim succumbing to the injury sustained, when he was in the process of transit, to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.P.W. 2 was proceeding behind P.W. 1 and the deceased.P.W. 1 narrated the occurrence to to P.W. 12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police.On Ex. P. 1, P.W. 12 registered Crime No. 173 of 1985 under S. 324, Penal Code.Ex. P. 17 is the printed first information report, which he forwarded to the concerned Magistrate and his superior officers.P.W. 12 also forwarded injured Doraiswami and P.W. 2 with medical memos, Exs.P. 2 and P. 4, to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for examination and treatment.P.W. 3, Dr. Jayaraman, examined on 11-6-1985 at 8.50 p.m. injured Doraiswami, and found him dead.On him an incised wound over the left side abdomen 2 1/2 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed just below the left costal margin was noticed.P.W. 13, Mohammed Basheer, Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy of Ex. P. 19, took up investigation and reached Poochampatti village on the same night.At the Government Hospital mortuary, he conducted inquest over the corpse of Doraiswami between 8.30 a.m., and 11 a.m., during the course of which he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 Ex. P. 21 is the inquest report.After inquest, he despatched the dead body through police constable, Kamatchi (P.W. 5) with requisition (Ex. P. 7) to Dr. Thiagarajan, (P.W. 4), for the conduct of post-mortem.He found the following injury on the corpse.A vertically oblique stab injury with regular margins and both ends pointed on upper part of the left side of the abdomen 3 cm x 1 cm, entering into the abdominal cavity downwards and towards the midline, upper end of the wound 17 cm., below and towards the inner side from the left nipple, lower and 16 cm.above and outer side of the umbilicus.Internally wound was found piercing through the abdominal muscles, cutting the lower margin of the left lobe of the liver through and through 1.5 cm.x 1 cm., piercing the pancreas 2 cm x .5 cm x 1.5 cm., and perforating the mesentry 1 cm, with cutting the mesentry and underlying vessels.In the opinion of the doctor, deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury No. 1 correlated to internal injuries.Death should have occurred about 16 to 18 hours prior to post-mortem.Injury found on the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Ex. P. 8 is the post-mortem certificate.Material objects seized during investigation, inclusive of the apparel of the deceased were forwarded to the Magistrate with a request to despatch them for chemical analysis.P. 15 and P. 16 are the reports of the chemical analyst and serologist respectively.When the appellant was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime.He went on to add that P.W. 1 was aggrieved against him since he refused to give his younger sister in marriage to him.P.W. 2 also was inimically disposed towards him.His uncle had purchased a piece of land from P.W. 2 insisted that the said property should be reconveyed which of course was refused by his uncle.In short, the claim of the appellant was that this was a false prosecution.However, he did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence.Learned Sessions Judge, on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case and dealt with the appellant in the manner stated earlier.Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were interested and inimical witnesses cannot be accepted without corroboration to safely find the appellant guilty of murder.On these contentions, we have heard Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor.He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was cogent and convincing and there was no reason to discredit their versions.It is not seriously disputed that about 7 or 8 months prior to occurrence, appellant had seen his wife in the boisterous company of the deceased, at his residence.Such a meeting kindled suspicion in the mind of the appellant which led to his informing P.W. 1 about the conduct of the deceased.P.W. 1 in his turn complained to P.W. 7 Ammasi and suggested that an undertaking may be obtained from the deceased not to misbehave any more with Jayakodi.Appellant was not aggreeable for obtaining a mere undertaking.It can, therefore, be safely, taken that the appellant was aggrieved against the deceased.In between the occurrence and the prior meeting between the deceased and the appellant's wife, nothing untoward appears to have happened.Appellant who was originally residing at Ariyapatti had chosen to live at Poochampatti village some two months prior to occurrence.P.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence that the appellant was residing in the house of his mother-in-law at or about the time of occurrence.P.W. 1 has further admitted that in the same house, he was residing in the northern portion while his elder brother, the father-in-law of the appellant, was residing in the southern portion with the members of his family.It is thus clear that the deceased who had gone over to Poochampetti village to participate in a ceremony connected with the death of the wife of his uncle, had chosen to step into the house of P.W. 1 around 5-30 p.m., on the occurrence day after the ceremony was over.At that time, admittedly, the appellant was not available at his residence.It appears probable that the appellant who was seated only a few feet away near the house of Karuppanna Asari was able to witness the deceased entering into the house of P.W. 1 where his wife was also residing.Sometime later, when P.W. 1 and the deceased went towards manthai appellant is stated to have inflicted one stab on the left flank of the deceased with a knife.P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been examined as ocular witnesses.If P.W. 1 could be characterised as an interested witness, he is equally interested in the appellant.For both of them are close relations.After perusing the evidence of P.W. 1, we are unable to comprehend as to why P.W. 1 should falsely implicate the appellant in this grave crime unless he had witnessed the attack proper.We cannot overlook the fact that P.W. 1 went in support of the appellant to P.W. 7 and suggested that the deceased must furnish an undertaking that he would not have any relationship with Jayakodi in future.The presence of P.W. 2 at the time of occurrence cannot also be doubted.Both P.W. 1 and 2 are natural witnesses.When P.W. 1 and deceased were proceeding together, followed by P.W. 2, this unfortunate occurrence had taken place.Both of them in unison, have stated that the appellant suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife on his left flank, leading to the victim falling down shouting that the appellant had stabbed him.As one would normally expect, P.W. 2 had attempted to snatch the knife from the appellant in which process he sustained a simple injury.Appellant was acquitted of the charge under S. 324, Penal Code, in respect of the injuries sustained by P.W. 2 for the appellant cannot be stated to have voluntarily caused hurt to P.W. 2, since he had sustained it, in his attempt to snatch away the knife from the appellant.When the appellant was running away, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.W. 6 coming from the opposite direction had attempted to apprehend him.Since the appellant was armed with a knife, they were unable to succeed in their mission.When P.W. 1 questioned the deceased, the latter is stated to have made an oral dying declaration that stabbing was a result of the appellant having seen him talking and laughing with his wife Jayakodi.The learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to accept the oral dying declaration on the ground that if P.W. 1 had seen the occurrence, there was no need to question the deceased.We are unable to agree with the learned trial Judge.It is not as though P.W. 1 was not an ocular witness, but all that the deceased had stated to him was the cause for which he was stabbed.We are able to visualise that P.W. 1 was aware of the estrangement between the appellant and the deceased due to the latter's conduct in moving freely with the former's wife.Disgust coupled with suspicion cropped up again and the appellant simmering with pangs of anger had stabbed once on the left flank of the deceased.We are unable to distrust the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who have spoken cogently and clearly about the role played by the appellant.Soon thereafter, a complaint was preferred before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station, situated at a distance of 5 kms., from the scene of occurrence.We cannot overlook that the crime was initially registered under S. 324, I.P.C. Injured Doraiswami and P.W. 2 were sent away to Government a Rjaji Hospital, Madurai, situated 19 kms.away from the police station.Only after the death of the deceased was made known to the investigating agency, crime was altered to murder and thereafter altered express report was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate.As soon as the crime was altered at 10 p.m., prompt steps were taken to despatch express report with Ex. P. 1 to the Magistrate who had received them at 4.30 p.m. The residence of the Magistrate was at Usilampatti within whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed.Taking note of the fact that it was night time, we are unable to find any sinister delay in the receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate.In Ex. P. 1 first information report, P.W. 1 has stated the presence of P.W. 2 at the scene, the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the motive as well.The present evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is fully in tune with the averments made in the first information report.We further have medical corroboration of the ocular evidence, furnished by P.W. 3, Dr. Jayaraman and P.W. 4, Dr. Thiagarajan.The evidence of P.W. 2 has an additional advantage since he was injured in the course of the same occurrence.The evidence is credible, clinching and straightforward.Having arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased, the question which still looms large is the nature of offence committed by the appellant.There is evidence to show that the deceased had visited Poochampatti even on a prior occasion after the appellant had taken residence with his parents-in-law.The proximate cause for the incident appears to be the appellant having seen the deceased in the company of P.W. 1 entering into his house.The appellant was already simmering with anger at the prior conduct of the deceased.Obviously being unable to tolerate yet another visit by the deceased to his residence, he had chosen to inflict one stab, but not on the vital region of the victim.

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

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

In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.09.2019 in connection with Kulpi P.S. Case No. 157 of 2019 dated 15.06.2019 under sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/307/332/333/353/186/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Mrinal Mondal & Ors.Mr. Brajesh Jha, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Arup Sarkar ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a mob agitation against police personnel due to inaction in undertaking investigation with regard to murder of petitioner no.1's brother.No overt act has been attributed to the petitioners.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that one of the police personnel suffered grievous injury.We have considered the materials on record and there is no overt act attributed to the petitioners in the alleged crime.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the Court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts giving rise to the filing of the bail application in brief are that in the year 1997 the complainant Harnam Singh filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant is a Non-resident Indian settled in Kuwait.In connection with the complaint, the applicant filed exemption applications seeking exemption from personal appearance on 26.5.1999 and 10.6.1999 on the basis of two OPD medical Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 1 of 6 slips dated 20.5.1999 and 7.6.1999 respectively.Exemption was granted on the basis on these certificates.On 22.9.2003 the complaint under Section 138 was withdrawn.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 1 of 6On 1.3.2005, on the basis of another complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the medical certificates were forged, the summoning court issued orders summoning the applicant.Against the aforesaid FIR the applicant filed a petition before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was however withdrawn.A second petition was filed under Section 482 which is stated to be pending disposal.In the meantime, the applicant had also preferred Crl.By order dated 30.5.2013, this Court (S.P.Garg, J.) quashed the summoning order and allowed the petition.Apprehending arrest in the FIR filed by the complainant, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail.The learned counsel for the applicant strongly relies on the order of this Court cited above and states that the basis for the issue of summons and Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 2 of 6 the basis for the registration of the FIR being the same, and the summons having been quashed, there is nothing which survives in the FIR and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.He points out that there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR which has not been explained.It is further pointed out that he is 68 years of age and is willing to join the investigation for which purpose he may be put to terms.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 2 of 6On the other hand, the learned APP contends that as per the correspondence with the Indian Embassy in Kuwait, the medical certificates would appear to have been forged and thus a case of forgery has been prima facie made out.He submits that the originals of the medical certificates were never filed and were withheld from the Court.The investigation into the case is afoot and the applicant has failed to join the same.It is also pointed out that the originals are to be recovered from the applicant in order to establish the case of forgery.In his brief rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant states that even on 5.4.2013 the applicant had communicated with the investigating officer which shows his bonafide.He further points out that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint under Section 138 against the applicant and there is nothing to show that any benefit was obtained by the applicant by the use of the certificates.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 3 of 6On a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the basis for the summoning order dated 1.3.2005 and the basis for the FIR are the same.(d) The application filed by the complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn.(h) No coercive action was taken by the trial court against the accused.The above finding of this Court impinge on the present proceedings also which arise out of the FIR filed on the same facts and material.The applicant is directed to join the investigation as and when required.He shall also make available his contact telephone number, fax number and E-mail ID to the SHO/IO concerned.Subject to these conditions, anticipatory bail is granted and the bail application is allowed in the above terms.

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

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

The case in hand also relates to one such unfortunate woman who became a victim of the aggression of her drunkard husband, who under the influence of alcohol went on to commit such horrendous act of burning his own wife.In the present case deceased was just 30 years of age and had a boy child of fourteen years from her first husband.She was attacked by accused when he came back home in a drunk condition.The exact prosecution story as it unfolds in the charge-sheet is as under:-"On 28.11.1987 at 5:50 p.m. an information was received from an unknown person through telephone PCR vide DD No. 41-B CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 2 of 27 that a lady has been burnt by pouring kerosene oil at 1?485, Khichripur colony, some officer be sent.On this information, after recording report of the same was sent to SI Dharmender Kumar through constable Om Prakash, who went to the spot and said SI was told at the spot that the lady Smt. Harjeet has been taken to hospital, SI tried to ascertain the hospital and in the meantime, at 07:25 p.m. vide DD No.15, constable Jai Prakash was informed from safdurjung hospital on telephone that Smt. Harjeet has been admitted in the hospital in the burnt condition.On this S.I reached safdurjung hospital and received MLC No.69629 pertaining to injured Smt. Harjeet.The SI seeing the condition took the SDM, Shadhra, Shri Parimal Rai and reached the hospital.Inviting the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW4-Dharmender who is son of the deceased from her previous marriage, counsel for the appellant submitted that this witness in his examination-in-chief clearly stated that the appellant was having cordial relationship with his mother and no quarrel took place between his mother and the accused.He also deposed that he did not witness any incident of quarrel or threatening by accused to his mother.He also deposed that when he returned to the house he did not see the accused Wilson present at the house.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that this witness was the son of the deceased from her previous marriage and had the accused been involved in the commission of the said crime then at least this witness would have strongly supported the prosecution case instead of coming to the rescue of the appellant.My son, who is from my previous husband, is about 16 years of age.Wilson used to beat me.Earlier I used to CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 9 of 27 reside at Jahangir Puri.Wilson wanted to get rid of me.Even about two weeks back, Wilson had made an attempt to burn me after pouring kerosene oil on me as well as on him and today also he threatened to put an end to my life.It has happened in the evening.The history of assault as is recorded in the MLC would also be relevant and the same is reproduced as under:-"Alleged history of sustaining burns at about 4.30 p.m. on 28.11.1987 at her house in Block No.9, Khichripur, New Delhi, when her husband came home drunk and started abusing her.Then he allegedly poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire with a matchstick.She rushed out of the house shouting when her neighbour came and poured water over her and brought to hospital.O/E GC critical, smell of kerosene oil.sh Patient fully conscious, oriented.Pulse not palpable CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 10 of 27 Heart rate - 40/ min Resp.rate - 28/ min Tough dug, week veins, collapsed, capitrany ratio poor dehydration & Rest crs & Resp.system NAB L/E Fresh superficial to deep burns over whole of the body except back of head, both treada Part of both lower limbs & groin 85% burns"CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 10 of 27The MLC also records that the patient was fully conscious and oriented.It further records that the burn injuries suffered by the victim were over 85% and also that the general condition of the victim was critical and smell of kerosene oil was coming from her body.The said MLC was proved on record as Ex. PW-21/A in the testimony of PW-21, Mr. J.B. Bhardwaj, Medical Record Technician of Safdarjung hospital."There are 2nd degree deep burns (... over the face), 3rd degree burn over neck all around, chest & abdomen all around except back of the left forearm, all around the right thighs, portem medical aspect of left thighs and back of both legs.....all around CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 11 of 27 both upper .mere is ___________________ cut open on the left __________ and evidence of vital reaction.Scalp hair show signing at margins.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), the appellant herein seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.09.1999 and 01.10.99 respectively passed by the Court of Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 302 of India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 1 of 27 together with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 1 of 27Crime against women is not just a crime against an individual but against humanity that makes one lose its faith in humans and relationships.These days it has become a routine affair.Not even a day passes when unspeakable crimes like rape, murder, bride burning etc are not committed against women.This violence is not just restricted to the streets or alleys; but it often travels through the walls and into one's house.There is no empathy left even towards a women living with a man after marriage for several years under the same roof.A separate permission to record the statement of the victim was sought by the police vide application dated 28.11.1987 on which the doctor made the endorsement to the effect "patient is fit to give statement" allegedly at 08:30 p.m. in the dying declaration made to the SDM, the victim named her husband as offender.On the statement of the victim a case was registered under Section 307 IPC."CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 2 of 27After supplying the copies of the charge sheet to the accused as per law, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Arguments on the point of charge were heard and charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 3 of 27 prove its case, the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses.The statement of accused was recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused pleaded his innocence and false implication.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 3 of 27Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advocate, vehemently contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case based on an uncorroborated and unreliable dying declaration of the deceased.Counsel for the appellant also argued that at the time of the incident even the appellant was not present at the house and therefore, also the appellant could not have committed the said crime.Making a serious challenge on the credibility of the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased, the counsel for the appellant contended that as per the MLC proved on CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 4 of 27 record, the deceased had suffered 85% burn injuries over whole of her body and even her both the lips and hands were also burnt and therefore, such a condition of the deceased could not have permitted her to give such a lengthy statement to the SDM or to affix thumb mark on the dying declaration.Counsel for the appellant also argued that even the SDM did not satisfy himself before recording the statement as to whether she was in a sound condition to give her statement or not.Counsel for the appellant further submitted that even no fitness certificate was obtained from the doctor certifying that the deceased remained conscious, oriented and mentally alert till the end of recording of her statement.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 4 of 27Placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in 2011 (10) SCC 173, counsel for the appellant submitted that ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the facts of the said case also, the dying declaration made by the deceased did not carry a certificate by the Executive Magistrate to the effect that it was a voluntary statement made by the deceased and that he had read over the statement to her.Counsel for the appellant also apprised the Court that the appellant had already undergone more than 7 years of incarceration for an offence CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 6 of 27 which he had never committed and is presently leading a happy married life with his wife along with three children.Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the wife of the appellant who is about 38 years of age is suffering from Cancer, Carcinoma Cervix III B and presently she is undergoing Chemo Therapy involving huge expenses and besides his ailing wife, the appellant has also to look after his old aged mother.Based on the above submissions, counsel for the appellant prayed for acquittal of the appellant.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 6 of 27Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned APP for the State, on the other hand fully supported the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and as per him, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers.Learned APP for the State submitted that the dying declaration in the present case was recorded by the Magistrate and there is no reason to challenge the credibility and independence of the Magistrate, in truthfully and correctly recording the last statement of the deceased.Learned CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 7 of 27 APP for the State also argued that in the post mortem report of the deceased, proved on record as Ex.PW-20/A, there is no mention about the hands of the deceased being affected by any burn injuries, and therefore, the deceased could have easily affixed her thumb mark on the dying declaration proved on record as Ex.PW-15/A. Learned APP for the State also argued that even the appellant had also received burn injuries on the back side of his right hand, and therefore, he cannot set up the plea of alibi that he was not present at the time of the commission of the crime.Learned APP for the State has drawn attention of this Court to the MLC of the appellant proved on record as Ex.PW-19/A. Based on the above submissions, learned APP for the State prayed for upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 7 of 27We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length.We have also gone through the Trial Court record before taking a final view in the matter.In the present case, deceased Smt. Harjeet was unsuccessful in her first marriage, which had taken place about 15 years ago with one Mr. Ram Narain.A son, namely, Dharmender was born out of her first wedlock and she was devoting her life in the upbringing of her son.The CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 8 of 27 present accused entered in her life and without formally marrying the deceased as per their customs and traditions, they started living together as husband and wife.On the evening of 28th November, 1987, she was allegedly burnt by the present accused after some quarrel had taken place between them.The deceased was rushed to Safdarjung hospital in the burnt condition where her dying declaration was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and on 30.11.1987 she succumbed to burn injuries .The text of the said dying declaration is reproduced as under:-CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 8 of 27"My husband Wilson had returned back in the drunken condition, immediately thereafter he started quarrelling.He asked me to go away from the house, at which, I retorted that it is you only who repeatedly moves out of the house and why I should leave.He had vigorously fought with me and thereafter angrily he had poured kerosene oil on me and said that if I do not leave then he will eliminate me.He thereafter with the help of match box ignited fire.Wilson is resident of Jallandhar.This was my second marriage.About 15-16 years have passed after my first marriage.His name was Ram Narain.He left me about 12-13 years back from today.Since for the past 4 years I started living with Wilson.I did not marry him as per customs and tradition.He burnt me with the intention to kill me.He should be apprehended and not allowed to run away.The said dying declaration was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate at about 08:45 p.m. in the Safdarjung hospital.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 9 of 27The MLC also records the name of Mrs. Bohti, mother of the deceased, who had accompanied the deceased at the time of her admission in the hospital.PW-20, Dr. L.T. Ramani, Lok Nayak hospital, Delhi, had conducted the post mortem of the deceased.As per the post mortem report proved on record as Ex.PW-20/A, the deceased had suffered the following burn injuries on her person:No smell of kerosene oil is directed in the scalp hair.There is no other mark of violence on the body"CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 11 of 27In the present case, the counsel for the appellant first challenged the credibility and truthfulness of the said dying declaration made by the deceased.The Counsel for the appellant contended that the dying declaration made by the deceased is uncorroborated and unreliable and therefore the conviction of the accused cannot be made solely on the basis of said dying declaration.Apparently, the deceased was admitted in the hospital at 07:25 p.m. on 28th November.At 08:30 p.m. the police officer made an application to the Doctor, requesting him to allow the recording of statement of the victim.The said application made by the police officer is proved on record as Ex.PW-24/A. On the application made by the police officer, Dr. Ankur Sarkar made an endorsement (Ex.PW-25/F), stating that the victim is fit to make the statement.Thereafter, the SDM recorded the statement of the victim, which concluded at 08:45 p.m. PW-15, Shri Parimal Rai in his court deposition fully supported the said facts.He deposed that before recording the statement of Harjeet, police had obtained the opinion of doctor as to CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 12 of 27 whether Harjeet was fit to make statement or not and on which doctor opined her to be fit to make statement at about 8.30 PM.He further deposed that he finished recording the statement of the victim at about 8.45 PM.The evidence of this witness remained uncontroverted as he was not cross-examined by the defence.From the above factual matrix, it is clear that the dying declaration was recorded immediately after the victim was admitted in the hospital and after the fitness certificate was obtained from the concerned doctor.Thus the chances of it being embellished or tutored do not arise.Further a dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement.The shadow of impending death is by itself guarantee of the truth of the statement of the deceased regarding circumstances leading to his death.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 12 of 27It shall also be noted that the SDM is an independent and an impartial witness.It will be useful here to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjit Kaur V. State of Punjab , 1999 (3) RCR (Cri) 700, wherein the Court took a view that Sub Divisional Magistrate, being an independent witness holding high position had no reason to do anything which was not proper and therefore genuineness of dying CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 13 of 27 declaration recorded by him could not be easily doubted and conviction recorded on that basis could not be faulted with.The germane portion of the judgment is extracted below:CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 13 of 27It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that about hundred persons had approached the District Magistrate for getting the Dying Declaration of Parminder Kaur recorded and that some of the relative of the deceased had even accompanied the S.D.M. (P.W.-7) while he was going to the hospital for recording her Dying Declaration.He also submitted that the evidence of this witness discloses that three to four persons were present in the room where Parminder Kaur was kept.According to the learned counsel these two circumstances clearly indicate that P.W. 7 had recorded the Dying Declaration under pressure and in presence of those persons who were interested in Parminder Kaur.We do not find any substance in this contention because this witness has categorically stated in his Examination-in-Chief that when he was recording her statement, nobody was present in the room and even the Nurse attending on her was asked to get out of that room.What he has stated in cross examination is that when he had reached that place, three or four persons were seen sitting in the room.Therefore, it is not correct to say that the Dying Declaration was recorded in presence of some relatives of the deceased.The other circumstances that there was an agitation by the relatives of Parminder Kaur for recording her statement cannot lead to an inference that P.W.-7, who was an I.A.S. Officer and holding high position of Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recorded it under pressure and as desired by the relatives of the deceased.There was no reason for him to do so.As regards the condition of Parminder Kaur, the witness has stated that he had first ascertained from the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement and obtained an endorsement to that effect.Merely because that endorsement was made not on the Dying Declaration itself but on the application, that would not render the Dying Declaration CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 14 of 27 suspicious in any manner.The said endorsement made by the Doctor was produced by him and it has become evidence in the case.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 14 of 27It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the statement of Parminder Kaur was not recorded by the witness in question and answers form.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 18 of 27In the present case at 08:30 p.m. the police officer made an application to the Doctor, requesting him to allow the recording of statement of the victim.The said application made by the police officer is proved on record as Ex.PW-24/A. On the application made by the police officer, CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 19 of 27 Dr. Ankur Sarkar made an endorsement (Ex.PW-25/F) stating that the victim is fit to make the statement.The plea therefore succeeds only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 24 of 27 Apparently, the accused has not placed anything on the record to show that at the time of the alleged incident he was not present at the place of the incident or that he was present at some other place so far away from the place of the incident that he could not be present at the place of incident at the same time.Apart from this, the evidence placed on record clearly show the presence of the accused at the place of incident, at the alleged time, as history of assault as is recorded in the MLC of the accused (Ex.PW-19/A) is "alleged injury sustained in saving his wife on 28.11.1987".Further it is pertinent to note that none of these witnesses were present on the spot at the relevant time, thus they cannot state any fact as to what would have had happened at the time when the accused burnt his own wife and had these witnesses not turned hostile, the evidence of all these witnesses, at its best, could have supported the case of prosecution only to the extent that it could prove the relation between the accused and the deceased.Thus even if these witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence will in no way affect the prosecution version that on the alleged day, the accused had burnt his own wife.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 25 of 27In the light of the aforesaid discussion we find ourselves fully satisfied that the said dying declaration was made by the deceased voluntarily and truthfully, free from any kind of tutoring or prompting, and it was duly recorded by the SDM.There lies no merit in the present appeal.

['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.

2 Cr. A. No.427/2008The prosecution story in brief is that in the intervening night of 14th and 15th November, 2005 one Vijay informed the complainant Bhimrao that the appellant committed murder of Vinod.Hence, the complainant Bhimrao and his family members went to the house of appellant situated at Panchsheel Nagar and found that Vinod was lying dead.One Anil Tatya was also present there, who has been assaulted by the appellant.He informed that the appellant killed Vinod by inflicting blows of stone on his head.Bhimrao lodged the FIR at Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.The trial Court relied the testimonies of injured eye-witnesse Anil (PW-5) and eye-witness Vijay (PW-4).The appellant called him and directed to bring some goods.When Vinod objected for the same, the appellant abused him.He caught hold his collar of the deceased and threatened him.They separated them.Thereafter, Vinod and his friends came to drop him in the house.The house of appellant was adjacent to the house of Vinod.The appellant again abused them.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.It was held that the ocular evidence of aforesaid witnesses was corroborated by Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-11) and Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW-2).Hence, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.The accused challenging the findings of learned trial Court on the grounds that the prosecution witnesses Vijay (PW-4) and Anil (PW-5) had good relations with the deceased Vinod.The trial Court wrongly ignored 3 Cr. A. No.427/2008 the material contradiction or omission in the prosecution evidence.Hence, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and further prayed for his acquittal from the charges levelled against him.3 Cr. A. No.427/2008We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.We have perused the record and by carefully scanning the statements of Anil (PW-5) and Vijay (PW-4), we find that at the time of incident, their presence on the spot is quite natural and reliable.Vijay (PW-4) was cousin brother of the deceased.He has stated that, on the date of incident i.e. on 14 th November, 2005 at about 9:00-9:30 p.m. he was standing near the STD shop along with Vinod (since deceased) and 2-3 other boys.Pankaj and Lalit tried to settle their quarrel.Thereafter, the deceased and appellant both had collected Rs.100/- for drinking liquor.Vijay (PW-4) further deposed that he came back to his home for sleeping.At about 1:30-2:00 am in the midnight, the appellant threw stone on his door.When Vijay came to his door, he saw that Anil (PW-5) was 4 Cr. A. No.427/2008 coming out from the house of appellant and he shouted that the appellant inflicted blow of stone (Alanga) on the head of deceased.Thereafter, the appellant rushed towards Anil (PW-5) to assault him.After sometime, the appellant came back to his home and threatened Vijay (PW-4) not go to his house, otherwise he will be killed as Vinod has been killed.Due to fear of the appellant, Vijay (PW-4) went to his uncle Bhimrao's house and informed the incident.They went altogether to the house of appellant and found that Vinod was lying inside the house of appellant.He had sustained injuries.Thereafter, they took injured Vinod to the "1250-Hospital", where the duty doctor declared him dead.The testimony of Vijay (PW-4) is duly corroborated by Anil (PW-5) and partly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.4 Cr. A. No.427/2008Anil (PW-5) is an injured eye-witness.He witnessed the incident.He has stated that at the time of incident, Vinod was sleeping due to the effect of liquor.state of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows: Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that 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."5 Cr. A. No.427/2008Dr. D.S. Badkul (PW-2) conducted postmortem of body of deceased Vinod and found the following injuries:-(i) Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 2 cm., vertical on right mastoid just post to pinna along with contusion of 8 cm.x 6 cm.on right pinna on mastoid region.Clotted blood present,(ii) Contusion 3 cm.diameter on right forehead, 2 cm.above the lateral end of right eyebrow, 7 Cr. A. No.427/20087 Cr. A. No.427/2008(iii) Depressed fracture 8 c.m. x 1 cm.present on left temporal parietal bone just above the pinna of ear,(iv) Depressed fracture size of 6 c.m. x 4 cm.on right temporal region,(v) Dura mater tense, brain swellen Difference subdural hemorrhage present on left hemisphere all over on right occipital and temporal lobes and on all over the cerebellum,(vi) Base of skull fractured from right to left involving right spleen.Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW-2) opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as a result of aspiration of blood due to head injuries.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were homicidal in nature and sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-12) medically examined the witness Anil and found the following injuries:-8 Cr. A. No.427/2008As per opinion of Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-12), all the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Therefore, above medical evidence are duly supported the prosecution story.There is no inconsistency in ocular evidence and medical evidence.Hence, we find that the prosecution has duly proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Generally, at about 1:30-2:00 a.m., in the midnight, at the time of incident, an independent witness is not available.to 8 cm.Due to such injuries, the deceased sustained two fractures on his head.One was about 8 cm.x 1 cm.and another was depressed fracture about 6 cm.x 4 cm.over both ear.In injury no.6, the base of skull was also found broken.All the injuries were inflicted on vital part of the deceased.Force was used by the appellant with intention to kill the deceased.He used a heavy stone for assaulting the deceased.Then, he proceeded to the spot at Panchsheel Nagar.On the spot, he registered Dehatinalishi Ex.P/1 as per information given by Bhimrao.N.K. Saxena (PW-13) prepared spot map Ex.P/2, which undisputedly indicated that incident took place at the house of the appellant.On 15.11.2005 he recorded the statements of Vijay (PW-4) and Anil (PW-5).On the same day, he seized the stone, knife on the basis of memorandum (Ex.P/7) of the appellant.These articles were found stained on the blood.He prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15)."Evidence of police personnel were made recovery witnesses.Their evidence is reliable and cannot be discarded even though large number of people were available."12 Cr. A. No.427/2008In our opinion, case of the appellant clearly comes under the purview of murder, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the same.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal has no merit to interfere in the impugned judgment.Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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 ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.284/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, S-7 Madipakkam Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.http://www.judis.nic.in 3Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.The Grounds of Detention would reveal that a ground case was registered against the detenu in Crime No.284/2018 for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC subsequently, altered to Sections 341, 294(b), 302 & 506(ii) IPC.Admittedly, the detenu has moved bail application in the ground case and the same is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.415/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 21.06.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Sudalairaja, Son of Subramani, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) 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 Joytosh Banerjee, J.The facts and circumstances leading to the instant application are as follows:The Assistant Secretary (Vigilance) of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration sent a confidential letter to the I. G. of Police, A & N Islands, Port Blair alleging malpractices adopted by the petitioner in the matter of procuring and disposal of a scooter.The background of such allegation was that against an allotment order BCp060084 dated 20.3.79 one Sri Suresh B. Bijalani of Block No. 42/9, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was allotted with one 'Chetak' Scooter out of foreign exchange quota and the said scooter was duly supplied to Mr. Bijalani by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., New Delhi.The sale of the scooter within a period of two years of its purchase was not permissible.On scrutiny it was found that various column of Form 'A' for payment of road tax and Form 'B' for registration of the vehicle were filled in by the accused/ petitioner, while in Form 'A' the petitioner affixed his own signature on behalf of Mr. Bijalani in Form 'B', the petitioner, it was alleged, signed posing himself to be Mr. Bijalani.The signature in Form 'A' did not tally with the signature of Mr. Bijalani appearing in Form 'B'.The Insurance Policy of the said scooter shows the name of one Mr. Suresh was not found at the address given or in the Government Service at Port Blair.It was alleged that the present petitioner got it done.The scooter was subsequently sold to one Mr. R.V. Alagar Swamy, Contractor of 46, M. G. Market, Port Blair on 15.1.82 within one year of the original purchase from the dealer for Rs. 16,500/-.It was alleged that there was nexus between the petitioner and the said Alagar Swamy.It was further alleged that the petitioner forged the signature of Sri Bijalani for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.In course of the investigation, the Government Examiner of questioned documents gave the view that the handwriting on the aforesaid documents belonged to the petitioner.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the police on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 417/ 468/471 of the IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair who transferred the case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (1), Port Blair.The learned Trying Magistrate by his order dated 10.8.88 discharged the petitioner on the ground that no prima facie case on the materials on record justified framing of the charge under any of the provisions of the IPC.Thereafter on receipt of anonymous complaint against the order of the learned Magistrate, the impugned proceeding in revision under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC was started by the learned Sessions Judge (Revision Case No. 13/88).The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded to consider the whole allegation raised against the present petitioner noting the allegation that the petitioner/ accused Sri Amar Singh Verma (S.I. of Police, A. & N.) committed malpractice in the matter of procurement of a scooter (being Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No. AN 3012) and that the accused/petitioner filled up Forms 'A' and 'B' for registration etc. of the scooter in the name of one Suresh B. Bijalani in his own handwriting and further he had signed in the name of the said Suresh who was unknown and who could not be traced out and in this way the said accused/petitioner used the fictitious name of the said Suresh B. Bijalani and thus he forged documents and cheated the registration and taxing authority of A & N Islands by using the forged documents.Thereafter the learned Magistrate observed that it was an admitted position that the accused did not get the scooter registered in his own name but got it registered in the name of the said Suresh B. Bijalani and as such it could not be said that there was wrongful gain or advantage to the accused with corresponding wrongful loss to another and as such there could not be any question of causing or likely to cause damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property to the registering or taxing authority or to any other person and as such no question as to deceive, forgery or cheating could arise.On these findings, the learned Magistrate passed the order of discharge.In the suo motu revision, the learned Sessions Judge found in the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case that the accused/petitioner signed Form 'B' meant for registration of the concerned vehicle posing himself to be Suresh B. Bijalani.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for State.This is a second bail application.It is further submitted that the cartridge recovered from the body of the deceased could not be tallied with the pistol of appellant.It is further submitted that the appellant was in jail since 17.10.2006 (near about 7 years 7 months 15 days and he was also in jail duration for trial 2 years 1 months) and thus he has undergone about 9 years and 8 months in jail.The appellant was on bail during trial.Learned counsel for appellant undertakes that when the appeal is taken up for hearing he will argue the appeal.Per contra learned A.G.A.has opposed prayer for bail but he did not dispute the aforesaid contentions.Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant Afsar has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant Afsar convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.760 of 2003 (State Vs.Afsar and another), under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Ranpura, District Badaun be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.50% of the realization of fine awarded by trial court against the appellant Afsar shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal.List for hearing showing the name of Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey as counsel for appellant.Order Date :- 3.2.2015/RU

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the supplementary statement dated 24.03.05 of complainant wherein he identified accused Sanjeev Sawhney to be the person who was found sitting in the office of accused Vipin Sharma and was introduced as senior officer of Canada Embassy by accused Vipin Sharma who further told the complainant that visa shall be arranged for him by accused Sanjeev Sawhney.Not only this, there is another statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Sh.Rakesh Sunjea who has claimed that accused Sanjeev Sawhney was previously working in Thomas Cook and subsequently he shifted to Paul Merchant.He used to visit the office of accused Sanjeev Sawhney.During those visits, he came to know that accused Vipin Sharma also used to visit him and accused Sanjeev Sawhney had arranged some visa of France country for Vipin Sharma against some payment.It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that a sum of `1,00,000/- was found to have been deposited on 06.02.2004 at Paul Merchant Office, Chandigarh for Sanjeev Sawhney and the said amount was subsequently collected by Sanjeev Sawhney on 09.02.04 at Delhi office of Paul Merchant."In the case FIR No.45/2015 under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act PS Special Cell, charge-sheet was filed against four accused persons, namely, Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam, Bhupinder Singh and Sanjeev Sawhney.After hearing the parties on the point of charge, vide order dated 30 th May, 2013, learned CMM discharged all the accused persons in respect of offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.For the remaining offences, the accused were ordered to be charged for the following reasons:-Never the less, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence available on record which raise grave suspicion against accused persons namely Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam, Bhupinder Singh and Sanjeev Sawhney in respect of offence u/s Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 1 of 7 474/120-B IPC as pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by them, some of them are prima facie shown to have been found in possession of counterfeit blank visa of British High Commission or fake visa stickers of embassy of Czech Republic with requisite knowledge of same being forged and the accused were intending to use the same as genuine documents.Counterfeit blank visa and fake visa stickers are documents purported to be issued by British High Commission and by Embassy of Czech Republic.Hence, prima facie case is made out against the aforesaid accused persons in respect of offences u/s 474/120-B IPC.P.No.39/2015 Page 1 of 73. Accused Sanjeev Sawhney (respondent herein) preferred a revision petition No.41/2013 impugning the order on charge.The learned ASJ vide impugned order dated 15th October, 2015 discharged him.Feeling aggrieved by the order on discharge now the State is in revision with a prayer to set aside the order passed by learned ASJ and direct the respondent Sanjeev Sawhney to face trial in the above noted case.5. Heard.On behalf of the State it has been submitted that material on record was prima facie sufficient to charge the respondent herein for committing the offences.Hence the impugned order may be set aside.On behalf of the respondent, Mr.Sahil Malik, Advocate while supporting the order passed by learned ASJ, submitted that the belated Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 2 of 7 statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the complainant was nothing but an afterthought and being inadmissible in evidence, could not have formed basis to charge the respondent herein.P.No.39/2015 Page 2 of 7I have perused the chargesheet and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. annexed with the revision petition filed by the State.After hearing all the accused persons on charge, learned CMM, Central District dealt with the accusations against the respondent Sanjeev Sawhney in para No.21 of the order on charge as under:-Thereafter, learned CMM has dealt with the accusations against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC and formed an opinion that the simple allegations about recovery of blank Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 3 of 7 visa and fake visa stickers from the possession of Co-accused Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam and Bhupinder Singh was not sufficient to charge them for the offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.P.No.39/2015 Page 3 of 7The respondent herein Sanjeev Sawhney impugned the order on charge before the learned ASJ.The revision petition has been allowed by the learned ASJ mainly for the following reasons:-Apart from his identification by the complainant, the prosecution has also collected evidence to establish that co-accused Vipin Sharma made part of payment to Sanjeev Sawhney through office of Paul Merchant at Chandigarh.This led to seizure of cash book, day book, ledger and other relevant documents of Chandigarh & Delhi office of Paul Merchant were collected.The investigating agency on scrutiny of documents noticed that an Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 6 of 7 amount of ` one lakh was deposited on 6th February, 2004 at Paul Merchant office, Chandigarh for Sanjeev Sawhney and the same amount was collected by accused Sanjeev Sawhney on 9th February, 2004 at Delhi office of Paul Merchant.P.No.39/2015 Page 6 of 7Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties, as prayed.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 1 of 7A copy of the Decree Sheet has also been annexed with the petition.Through Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.Sub Inspector Sonu Ram.Ms. Nazoo Sharma, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.135/2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC on 19.04.2011 at police station Vijay Vihar, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.The petitioners as well as the complainant, all of whom are present in person, are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Sonu Ram.It is stated that the complainant was married to the first petitioner Tapeshwar Singh on 27.11.2009 and thereafter, as a result of certain matrimonial disputes, the complainant lodged a complaint on 10.08.2010 with the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi, and ultimately, on 19.04.2011, on the recommendation of the Crime Against Women Cell, the Crl.M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 1 of 7 aforesaid FIR was registered.If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus where the parties have settled the matter on mutually acceptable terms, and the complainant and the first petitioner have obtained a divorce by mutual consent; and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of its success.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, FIR No.135/2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC on 19.04.2011 at police station Vijay Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.12. Dasti.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The first deceased was one Selvaraj andthe second deceased was one Irulayee.The first deceased was the son of thesecond deceased.One Gnanasekar who is the brother of the first deceased and theson of the second deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of thefirst accused Antony.One month prior to the occurrence, the wife of the firstappellant had eloped with Gnanasekar.But both the deceased expressed no knowledge.But the accused 1 to4 believed that both the deceased were wantonly refusing to disclose about thewhereabouts of Jaya and Gnanasekar.Therefore, there arose a quarrel between theaccused 1 to 4 on one side and the deceased 1 and 2 on the other side.On 25.2.2003, at about 5.00 a.m., when the deceased Selvaraj wasproceeding from his village in his cycle to Poolangal village with a milk canfor the purpose of selling milk, near Poolangal kanmai, all the appellants waylaid him and attacked him with sickles and velsticks.The occurrence waswitnessed by P.W.2 and one Asaithambi.Then P.W.2 and Asaithambi rushed to thehouse of P.W.1 and the deceased Irulayee and informed them about the fate of thedeceased Selvaraj.At once, P.W.1 and the deceased Irulayee rushed towards theplace of occurrence from their house.But when they were nearing the house ofone Ravi, all the five appellants way laid them and attacked the deceasedIrulayee with lethal weapons like velstick and sickles.P.W.1 intervened with aview to rescue the deceased Irulayee.But the first appellant stabbed her on herright chest.The second appellant stabbed the deceased Irulayee with velkambu.The fourth appellant stabbed the second deceased Irulayee on her left hand.Thethird appellant and the fifth appellant cut the deceased Irulayee with aruval.The second deceased Irulayee succumbed to injuries instantaneously.P.W.8, was then an Assistant Surgeon inthe said hospital and he examined P.W.1 at 7.40 a.m. and found the followinginjury:Puncture wound 1 cm in diameter on the 4th intercostal space alonginterior axillary line, air coming through the wound.He has opined thatthe injury found on P.W.8 would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1velstick.P.W.8, sent due intimation to the police.In the meantime, the deceasedSelvaraj died in the hospital at 8.30 a.m. itself.On returning to the policestation at 11.30 a.m., P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2003 underSections 147, 148, 307 and 302 IPC.P16 is the First Information Report.Thenhe forwarded Ex.P.W.16 then forwarded the casediary to P.W.17, who was then Inspector of Police at Thiruchuli Police Stationfor investigation.P.W.17, proceeded to the place of occurrence at 1.00 p.m. on 25.2.2003and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P11 in the presence of witnesses and alsoprepared a rough sketch Ex.Then he conducted inquest on the body of thedeceased Irulayee at the place where the body was found.P20 is the inquestreport relating to the deceased Irulayee.He also recovered blood stained earthand sample earth from the place where the body of the deceased Irulayee wasfound as well as from the place where the deceased Selvaraj was attacked under amahazar Ex.He also recovered a cycle, milk can and other articles from theplace where the deceased Selvaraj was attacked under Ex.P13 mahazar.Duringinquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses.Then he forwarded the deadbody of the deceased Irulayee for postmortem examination.Then he proceeded to the Government Hospital and held inquest on thebody of the deceased Selvaraj and prepared a report under Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate relating to the deceased Irulayee.He has opined that the injuries found on the deceased Irulayee would have beencaused by a weapon like M.O.s 1 to 5 and has further opined that the death wasdue to the injuries sustained.Continuing the investigation, P.W.17, arrested the first accused on1.3.2003 at 4.00 p.m. at Viswatham village chathram in the presence of P.W.14and other witnesses.On such arrest, the first appellant volunteered aconfession, which was duly reduced into writing.In the said statement, thefirst appellant had disclosed about the place where he had hidden M.Os.1 to 5.Ex.P14 is the admissible portion of the said statement.Pursuant to the saidstatement, the first appellant took the police officials and identified theplace where weapons were hidden and produced the same.P.W.17, recovered thearticles under mahazar Ex.Before parting with the case, we should point out that the Officer,who has investigated the case has not taken pains even to collect the accidentregister in respect of the deceased Selvaraj and to examine the Doctor whotreated him.The way in which he has deposed before the Court also shows that hewas quite indifferent even while deposing.We only express our anguish in thisregard.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District Srivilliputhur.The Inspector of Police Paralachi Paralachi Police Station Virudhunagar District.(The judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.169 of 2004 on the file of thePrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.The first appellant has been convicted under Section 302 readwith 149IPC and Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment forlife for each offence.Appellants 2 and 4 have been convicted under Section 302read with 149 IPC and Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life for each offence.The appellants 3 and 5 have beenconvicted under Section 302 read with 149 (2 counts) and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life (2 counts).The appellants 1 to 5 have been convictedunder Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear and under Section 341 IPC (2 counts) to undergo simple imprisonment for onemonth.The first appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and the appellants 2to 5 have been convicted under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for five years.The lower court directed the sentence torun concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence dated 29.6.2006,the appellants have come forward with this appeal.The first accused along with his brothersaccused 2 to 4, made enquiries with the deceased Selvaraj and Irulayee inrespect of the whereabouts of the Gnanasekar and the wife of the first accusedviz.P1, complaint and Ex.P16, First Information Report to thejurisdictional Magistrate through a police constable.He examinedfew more witnesses on the same day.Then he forwarded the body of the deceasedSelvaraj also for postmortem examination.9. P.W.9 who was the Assistant Surgeon attached to the GovernmentHospital, Aruppukottai, on receiving the requisition from the police, conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased Selvaraj at 9.30 a.m. on 26.2.2003 and foundthe following injuries.1) A cut injury over the right side of temporal region of scalp about 8 cmsabove the right ear, size of about 6 cm x 2 cm x bone depth, transverse, edgesare clear cut and regular and tail of the wound towards back.2) A cut injury over the middle of frontal region of scalp about 10 x 5 cm xbone depth causing fracture of underlying skull bone exposing the skull cavityvertical in direction, tail towards front, edges are clear cut and regular.3) A cut injury over middle of scalp just posterior to the injury No.2 about 6 x3 cm x bone depth, edges are clear cut and regular, tail towards front, verticalin direction.4) A cut injury over the middle of occipital region of scalp size about 5 x 1 cmx (muscle) depth, transverse, edges are clear cut and regular tail towardsright.5) A cut injury over the occipital region of scalp just 2 cm below the injuryNo.4 about 3 x 1/2 cm x skin depth, tail towards right, edges are clear cut andregular.6) A cut injury over right side of Mandibular region, about 8 x 3 cm x bonedepth, causing fracture of right Rames of mandible and opening into mountingtail towards right edges are clear cut and regular.7) A cut injury the middle of mandibular region just 1 cms internal to theinjury No.6, size about 2 x 1 cm to bone depth causing fracture of mandible,edges are clear cut and regular, tail towards right.8) Diffuse contusion over front of neck and upper part of chest seen.9) A cut injury over the front of right forearm about 6 cms above the wrist,size about 2 cm x 1 cm x bone depth causing fracture of both bones of forearm,edges are clear cut and regular tail towards right side.10) A diffuse swelling over left upper 1/3 of forearm, causing fracture of bothbones of left forearm.P4 is the postmortem certificate relating to the deceased Selvaraj.He has opined that the injuries found on the deceased would have been caused byweapons like M.Os.1 to 6 and he has further opined that the death was due to theinjuries sustained.On the same day at 11.30 a.m, P.W.19 conducted autopsy on the body ofthe deceased Irulayee.He found the following injuries.A stab injury over middle of front of neck below the thyroid cartilage aboutthe size of 4 x 1 cms x depth about 8 cms transverse, direction towardsbackwards, inferior and to right side, causing complete of (torn) trachae andenter into right hemi thorax causing injury to (torn) apea of right lung.A stab injury over back of left side back about 10 cms below left ear, sizeabout 3 x 1 cm x depth about 5 cms oblique, direction towards posterior,inferior and to right, causing injury to left carotid artery.A stab injury over left strna clavicular joint region, size about 5 cm x 2 cmx depth about 6 cms direction towards posterior and towards right side, causingfracture of left clavicle and cut of trachae.A stab injury over the left side of chest 2 cms below the injury No.3, sizeabout 6 cm x 2 cm depth about 6 cms verticle, direction towards posterior and toright side, causing fracture of left II rib and injury to upper lobe of leftlung on anterior aspect,size about 5 cm x 2 cm, depth about 10 cms, vertical,direction towards posteriorly and to right side, causing fracture of IV left riband injury to anterior aspect of upper lobe of left lung and piercing into leftventricle of heart.6) A stab injury over left side of chest, 5 cms below and lateral to injury No.5size about 5 x 2 cms x depth about 6 cms, direction towards posteriorly and toright side, causing fracture of 6th left rib and injury to upper lobe of leftlung.7) A stab injury over lower part of left side of chest about 6 cms medial toinjury NO.6 and 8 cm below the injury NO.5 size about 5 cm x 2 cm x depth about8cms, vertical, direction towards posteriorly and towards right side, piercinginto abdominal cavity and injury to left lobe of liver on upper surface.8) A stab injury over upper part of left side of abdomen size about 4 cm x 2 cmx depth about 8 cms vertical, direction towards posteriorly and to right side,piercing the abdominal cavity and injury to mesentry.9) A cut injury over left supra clavicular over about 5 cm x 2 cm x muscledepth, transverse.10) A cut injury over left shoulder about 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle depth,transverse.11) A stab injury over left palm piercing the whole of left hand size of 6 cm x2 cm on palmar aspect and about 2 cm x 1 cm on posterior aspect of left hand.12) A stab injury over right side of chest on right mid clavicular bone sizeabout 4 cm x 2 cm x depth about 12 cms vertical, causing fracture of 7th & 8thright ribs, injury to lower lobe of right lung, injury to liver, piercing theliver from superior to inferior surface, direction towards posteriorly mediallyand inferiorly.13) A stab injury over right side of chest about 1 cm below the injury No.12,size about 5 cm x 3 cm x depth about 10 cm vertical, directions towardsanteriorly, medially and inferiorly, causing fracture of 9th right rib andinjury to liver from superior surface to inferior surface.14) A stab injury over right side of abdomen, on right hypochondium size about 2x 1 cm depth about 5 cms, piercing the abdomen direction towards posteriorly andmedially.15) A stab injury over right side of abdomen, near injury No.14, about 1 x 1 cmx depth about 1.5 cms.All the above said injuries are elliptical in shape and edges clear cutand regular.P15 in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness.Then he sentthe appellants 1 to 4 to Court for Judicial remand.On 11.3.2003, the fifthappellant surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, No.5 of Madurai.Then heexamined Doctors and other witnesses.He gave requisition to the learnedMagistrate for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination.P9is the chemical analylist report and Ex.P10 is the serologist report.Oncompleting the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the appellants.The trial court framed the following charges against the appellants.1) Against appellants 1 to 5 under Section 148 IPC.2) Against appellants 1 to 5 under Section 341 IPC for having restrained thedeceased Selvaraj.3) Against accused 1 to 5 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofmurder of the deceased Selvaraj.5) Against accused 1 to 2 and 4 under Section 302 readwith 34 IPC in respect ofthe death of the deceased Irulayee.6) Against appellants 3 and 5 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofdeath of the deceased Irulayee.7) Against accused 1 under Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt on thelife of P.W.1, Manimegalai.8) Against Accused 2 to 5 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofattempt on the life of P.W.1 Manimegalai.Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined, 22documents were exhibited and 22 material objects were marked.When the appellants were questioned in respect of the incriminatingevidence against them, they denied the same as false.However, they did notchose to examine any witness on their side or mark any document.Having considered the materials available on record, the trial courtfound the accused guilty under various provisions and accordingly convicted andsentenced them as detailed herein above.Challenging the said conviction andsentence, the appellants have come forward with this appeal.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in so far asthe killing of the deceased Selvaraj is concerned, absolutely there is noevidence whatsoever.He would submit that the positive case of the prosecutionis that P.W.2 and one Asaithambi witnessed the occurrence.P.W.2 has turnedhostile and Asaithambi has not been examined for the reason best known to theprosecution.Thus, according to him, there is no evidence at all for linkingthe accused with the murder of the deceased Selvaraj and therefore, in respectof those charges, all the appellants are entitled for acquittal.Buttheir evidence cannot inspire confidence of the Court, the learned counselcontended.He would further submit that though it is stated that P.W.1 and thedeceased Irulayee were attacked with aruval as well as with velstick, theinjuries found on the deceased Irulayee and P.W.1 could not have been caused bya weapon like aruval since all the injuries found on them were stab injuries.Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the medical evidencealso does not support.He would further submit that though it is stated that M.Os.4 and 5were used by the appellants 3 and 5 to cause injuries on the deceased Irulayee,but there was no blood found on these weapons.Therefore, the learned counselwould submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are fully unbelievable and assuch, their evidence are liable to be rejected.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit thatthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be rejected.More particularly, the evidenceof P.W.1, who is an injured person cannot be rejected, since there are noreasons to do so.He would further submit that though P.W.2 has turned hostile,P.Ws.1 and 3 have seen all these appellants together with weapons somewhere nearthe place of occurrence, where the deceased Selvaraj was killed.Therefore,according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the evidence of P.Ws.1and 2 would be sufficient to convict all the appellants in respect of murder ofthe deceased Selvaraj.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that themedical evidence, of course, does not tally in so far as Accused Nos.3 and 5 areconcerned in respect of the injuries found on the deceased Irulayee.But thesaid infirmity cannot be a ground to reject the entire case of the prosecution.In conclusion, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would pray forsustaining the findings rendered by the trial court.We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the recordsvery carefully.But, unfortunately, P.W.2, who was examined bythe prosecution as an eyewitness to speak about the involvement of theseappellants in the murder of the deceased Selvaraj has turned hostile and hence,his evidence is of no use at all for the prosecution.The other witness, by nameAsaithambi, who claimed to have seen the occurrence has not been examined.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would be sufficient to hold that the deceased Selvarajshould have been done to death only by these appellants.To examine the saidcontention, we have carefully gone through the sketch and observation mahazar tosatisfy ourselves as to whether P.Ws.1 to 3 could have seen these appellants anywhere near the place where the deceased Selvaraj was killed.In our consideredopinion, the same is not possible, since the distance between the place wherethe deceased Selvaraj was attacked and the place where the deceased Irulayee waskilled is about 350 feet.It is not the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they sawthese accused coming together or standing together with weapons some where nearthe house of Ravi, i.e. about 350 feet away from the place where the deceasedSelvaraj was attacked.They found all these accused suddenly emerged and startedattacking them.Therefore, we cannot uphold the findings of the trial courtthat the deceased Selvaraj was way laid and killed only by these appellants.In respect of the second occurrence, according to the prosecution, ithappened near the house of one Ravi.P.W.1 is an injured witness.So, hispresence at the place of occurrence can not be doubted.Though P.W.3 claims tobe an eyewitness, we are not convinced that he would have been present at theplace of occurrence.The first reason is that his name is not found in the FirstInformation Report as an eyewitness.We are notdisbelieving the presence of P.W.3 not solely on this ground.According to theprosecution, there were five assailants, all armed with weapons.Had it been true that P.W.3 was present, certainly attempt on thelife of P.W.3 would have been made.But it is not the case that any such attemptwas made on him.This in our considered opinion is strange which impel us todoubt the presence of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence.Thus, the case of the prosecution rests only on the evidence of P.W.1,who is an injured witness.According to her evidence, the deceased Irulayee wasattacked by all the accused with lethal weapons like velstick and aruval.Morespecifically, she has stated that Accused 3 and 5 attacked the deceased Irulayeewith Aruvals indiscriminately and others stabbed her with velsticks.As rightlypointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are not able to seeany cut injury on the deceased Irulayee.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 in respectof Accused Nos.3 and 5 is not supported by medical evidence.But the medicalevidence contradicts the same.The said contradiction in our considered opinionis material which creates doubt about the involvement of Accused Nos.3 and 5 inthe attack on the deceased Irulayee.The trial court in our consideredopinion was right in holding that Accused Nos.1,2 and 4 had committed the murderof the deceased Irulayee.Even accordingto P.W.1, Accused No.1 alone caused the stab injury on her.Therefore, AccusedNo.1 is surely liable for conviction under Section 307 IPC.However, the accused 2 and 4 are liable to be convictedunder Section 307 readwith 34 IPC.In result, all the appellants are acquitted of charge No.1 underSection 148 IPC and the charge No.2 under Section 341 IPC in respect of thealleged restraint made on the deceased Selvaraj.The appellants 1 to 5 areacquitted of charge No.3 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofmurder of the deceased Selvaraj.The conviction and sentence under Charge No.4in respect of appellants 1, 2 and 4 is confirmed under Section 341 IPC and thesentence is also confirmed.Under this charge (Charge NO.4), the appellants 3and 4 are acquitted and the conviction and sentence is set aside.Under chargeNo.5, appellants 1,2 and 4 are convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC andthe conviction and sentence imposed on them is confirmed.Under charge No.6, theappellants 3 and 5 are acquitted and conviction and sentence imposed under thesaid charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect of the deceasedIrulayee is set aside.Under charge No.7, the conviction and sentence imposed onthe first appellant under Section 307 IPC in respect of the attempt made on thelife of P.W.1 is confirmed.Under charge No.8, the appellants 3 and 5 areacquitted and the conviction and sentence imposed on them is set aside.Theconviction and sentence in respect of appellants 2 and 4 under Section 307readwith 34 IPC is confirmed.In result, the appellants 3 and 5 are acquitted of all the charges andthe conviction and the sentence imposed on them is set aside.They are directedto be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in connection with someother case.The conviction and sentence in respect of other appellants ismodified as indicated above.The appeal is partly allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There were no Lab Assistants available in the CollegeWith respect to the The College building is The College is being run from building and other rented and on non- rented premises.It is situated in physical conforming area.He further raised another legal issue that no sanction was obtained from the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCT of Delhi), which had appointed the petitioners.Section 197 Cr.P.C. specifically requires that before taking cognizance of any offence, the Court ought to have required the complainant to obtain previous sanction from the GNCT of Delhi.1. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No. 21/1/11 titled as "Aditya College of Pharmacy & Science Vs.S.S. Mantha & Ors.", which was filed by the Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 2 of 31 complainant/respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).2. Also seek setting aside of the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, pursuant to which summons have been issued to the petitioners.Since all the petitioners have challenged the same complaint and the impugned order, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.The allegations against the petitioners are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other with a view to cheat the complainant and cause harm to the reputation of the College.In furtherance of this intention, the petitioners forged the inspection report and the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.The complainant led the pre- summoning evidence of two witnesses.One of the witnesses, i.e., Mr. Devender Gupta (CW1) is the Founder-cum-Chairperson of the College and other is Mr.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 3 of 31He submitted, past history of the case is that on 21.05.2009, the premises of the Complainant Institute was inspected as a Ist inspection by the above Committee and since the said Committee found deficiencies, therefore, affiliation was denied.The Complainant Institute challenged the Ist inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIP University) as the 2nd inspection.Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint inspection was conducted and same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again.On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute had filed objections to the report.As the aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.This was the third inspection.On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct the B.Pharma Course.Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31 admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31Meanwhile, on 03.01.2009, complainant filed impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate against ten individuals including the petitioners.Vide order dated 14.12.2009, not being satisfied with the pre- summoning evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court directed the local police to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.Accordingly, after investigation, on 13.01.2010 the police filed their report in which they found that no case was made out.Learned senior counsel further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by an officer of the level of Assistant Commissioner of Police.The said ACP, inter alia, recorded the statement of said Dr. Surinder Singh, who was supposed to have admitted to Mr. Devender Gupta over the telephone that the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.He has further stated that "as far as recording of my voice on telephone, we usually ignore such calls and try to get rid of this as soon as possible.So whatever the conversation has been cited by Mr. Devender Gupta is meaningless and without any substance and allegation".Thereafter, the local police filed a report on 13.01.2010 with the opinion that no offence was made out.The learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to file the objections against the said report, which objections were in the nature of a protest petition.Accordingly, after perusing the inspection report and the objections, though the LPA was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2009, however, no relief was granted to the complainant.Thus, the inspection report has received the imprimatur of this Court.Learned counsel submitted that the allegations of forgery etc. against the inspecting team or any of the officers of the AICTE or the GGSIP University ought to have been raised before the Division Bench of this Court and not by way of a private compliant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.).Learned counsel further submitted that the Complainant Institute was inspected on three different occasions in quick succession.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 8 of 31For the convenience, comparison of the two reports is given below:-No. Ground Considered Findings in the Joint Findings by Justice Mahajan ReportThe latest a congested residential area a 20 infrastructure Lease Agreement made on ft. road.The undersigned was 24th May, 2007, is for a not permitted to carry out period of five year.The Court the Court order, and was Commissioner was unable to not allowed to undertake verify the exact built up area.architect / civil bodies, or for The rooms are not ventilated.the purpose of fire safety and The premises have a narrow Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 9 of 31 escape / exit routes in the maze of lanes and stair cases event of emergencies.See leading to the first and second Annexure-II.The College Circulation is significantly failed to produce the site plan inadequate.The mobility & and furnish dimensions of the movement of students in the various rooms and of the whole College building IS highly property.A single line sketch restricted and unfavourable.for the College premises was The staircases are improper filed.The same is annexed to the report.I have perused the AICTE norms with regard to the land area and built up area norms and it is clear that the College does not conform to the standards and norms.A visual inspection of the premises leaves no room for doubt that the present location, and the layout of the building, surroundings and the lack of facilities is not suitable for imparting education.There is no provision for fire safety and emergency exit routes.There is no space available for sports and cultural activities in the present set up.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 9 of 31With respect to the One principal and six It was stated that the Principal Principal and other lecturers were available on was qualified as she has 15 staff the date of inspection.They years of industrial experience.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 10 of 31The ceiling of building are and ascertain whether the same non-RCC make.The being used as residential representatives of the AICTE & area.University were not allowed toThere are some sign assist the Commissioner.It is boards outside the College not possible to assess whether building indicating ((Jamia the practicals could be done or Milia Islamia Study Centre. were being done as the studentsThe present building is have not been attending the not suitable and fit for College for some time.The running a Pharmacy College.Labs do not indicate that they The Committee was not set have been used for quite some allowed to measure the area.The library is adequately stocked.Adequate numbers of computers were found in the computer room.No record was shown as to when the equipment, computers, machinery, chemicals, reagents etc. were purchased other than what is placed on record.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 11 of 31Tripathi has argued that since findings of all the three inspecting committees were almost identical, the present case is clearly a case of no evidence, therefore, the complaint and the summoning order dated 15.01.2011 deserves to be quashed.He has raised the legal issue that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility of the electronic record.The said provision squarely applies to the present case since the only evidence led by the complainant in his deposition is a so called tape recorded conversation between the Founder-cum-Chairman of the Complainant Institute and one member of the inspecting team.The petitioners can only be removed from their office only after obtaining the sanction of the GNCT of Delhi.The GGSIP University has been created by an Act of the State Legislature of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the petitioner, Dilip K. Bandopadhyay is employed in connection with the affairs of the said State.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 13 of 31 nor the orders dated 11.03.2010, 26.04, 2010 and 16.08.2010 passed by this Court dismissing the three contempt petitions were filed by the complainant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Such a deliberate suppression of material documents which were available with the complainant tantamounts to committing a fraud on the Trial Court.On the other hand, Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant made out a case for summoning of the petitioners as on 03.08.1999, the College was granted approval by AICTE for starting a B. Pharmacy Degree Course for the session 1999-2000 with 60 admissions.Thereafter, for the sessions 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE with 30 admissions for each session.Pursuant to order dated 21.02.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 13751/2006, this Court directed the University not to insist upon the factors which are covered by AICTE Act or Regulations.Accordingly, the college was granted extension of approval by AICTE for session 2007-08; and University granted provisional affiliation to the College and made 27 admissions to the College.Thereafter, on 19.05.2008, College was granted further extension of approval by AICTE for two years, i.e., session 2008-09 and 2009-10 with 30 admissions.University made admissions of 30 students for the sessions 2008-09 through centralized counseling.Thereafter, in June, 2009, College was inspected by the University and it awarded 335 marks out of 900 towards building and 645 marks out of 1000 towards faculty and infrastructure.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 16 of 31He submitted that the non-grant of admission was subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No. 9706/2009, wherein joint inspection was ordered on 20.08.2009, in which the words NOT RECOMMENDEDwere mentioned.Thereafter, Justice C.K. Mahajan ( Retd.) was appointed to carry out the inspection, who submitted his report, which was accepted by this Court and the students were transferred to other College.The complainant filed its complaint on 05.11.2009 with the grievance that the report dated 20.08.2009 was tampered with, in which summons have been issued against the petitioners and other accused persons.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 17 of 31Moreover, the conversation between the Chairman of the College and Prof. P.K. Sahu also shows that the report was written by three persons.The conversation further also shows that the University officials were annoyed with the College.The last paragraph of the conversation with Prof. P.K. Sahu notes that Prof. Sahu says that the Vice-Chancellor was annoyed with the Chairman of the College and being experts they cannot write recommended.He submitted that both the experts do not deny the converstation as under:-"a) That they spoke to the Chairman of the College;b) They do not dispute that the transcript / conversation was not spoken between them and the Chairman of the College;The Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order placing him under suspension and other orders.The challenge Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 21 of 31 in the writ petition was that the Appellant was placed under suspension on account of malafides which he attributed against the Chief Minister.The Appellant in his writ petition referred to various talks between himself and the Chief Minister's wife, which he tape recorded.The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.While Section 2(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines Public Servant to include Vice- Chancellor, Professor, Reader of any University, the definition of Public Servant under Section 21 of IPC does not define Vice-Chancellor or any other employee of University to be a Public Servant, therefore, there is no merit in the instant petitions and they may be dismissed with heavy costs.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.To this effect, the complainant filed the complaint before the Trial Court and vide order dated 15.01.2011, the learned Magistrate issued summons against the petitioners.Earlier for the session 1999-2000, the College was granted approval by AICTE with 60 admissions and thereafter, for the sessions 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE with 30 admissions for each session.Thereafter, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE for session 2007-08 and University granted provisional affiliation to the College and accordingly made 27 admissions to the College.On 19.05.2008, the College granted further extension of approval by AICTE for two years, i.e., sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10 with 30 admissions.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 23 of 31The complainant challenged the same vide W.P. (C) No. 9706/ 2009, wherein joint inspection was ordered on 20.08.2009, in which the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.The Complainant Institute challenged the said inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by AICTE and GGSIP University.Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 24 of 31 inspection was conducted and the same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again.On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute filed objections to the report.The aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct B.Pharma Course.Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University.Thereafter, the Complainant Institute filed contempt petitions which were dismissed by this Court on different dates as noted above.Meanwhile, on 03.01.2009 complainant filed impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate against ten individuals including the petitioners.Not being satisfied with the pre- summoning evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2009 directed the local police to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.Accordingly, after Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 25 of 31 investigation, on 13.01.2010 the police filed their report in which they found that no case was made out against the petitioners.The said officer recorded the statement of Dr. Surinder Singh, who was supposed to have admitted the conversation with Mr. Devender Gupta over the telephone that the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.Whereas, he categorically stated that final conclusion NOT RECOMMENDED was mentioned before all the members of the Committee.He further submitted that Mr. Devender Gupta had telephonic discussion with him and he never told him that report is tempered because the final conclusion NOT RECOMMENDED was made in the report before all the members signed it.He even stated in his statement that as far as recording of his voice on telephone, they usually ignore such calls and try to get rid of this as soon as possible.So whatever the conversation has been cited by Mr. Devender Gupta, i.e., the complainant is meaningless and without any substance and allegation.Considering the report dated 13.01.2010 filed by the police with the opinion that no offence was made out, the learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to file the objections against the said report.But on perusal of the inspection reports, one joint inspection carried out by AICTE and the University and another by Justice C.K. Mahajan, retired Judge of this Court, one can make out that the Complainant Institute could not be extended any approval.The discrepancies found in two reports have been shown in the comparative chart in para 28 above of this judgment.On perusal of the telephonic conversation between Dr. Surender Singh and Mr. Devender Gupta, the complainant, it seems that the complainant is very friendly with Dr. Surender Singh and Professor P.K.Sahu, members of the Inspection Team.Thus, joint team deviated from the earlier pattern of not having any remarks under the heading of "Final Recommendation".M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 29 of 31In the present case, the tape recorded conversation being sought to be led in evidence by the complainant is between the complainant and some third party.Interestingly, subsequently during investigation, the said third party has clarified that there was no forgery and the words NOT RECOMMENDED were written in his presence.No order as to costs.

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

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

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The accused is a resident of Chennai and aged about 23 years.The alleged victim girl-P.W.2 was studying in 9th standard at Dhanalakshmi High School, Chennai and went to school on 10.07.2006 and thereafter, she has not returned home.Her father P.W.1-Jothilingam lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 11.07.2006 about missing of his daughter.While he was searching for his missing girl, on 02.08.2006 at about 10.45 hours, the respondent police who deposed as P.W.10 found the missing girl and the accused and secured them, conducted an enquiry and it came to light that the victim girl was taken away by the accused under threat and detained her in the village called Idaikkal near Thenkasi, Tirunelveli District, there the victim girl was raped by the accused.Both the victim girl and the accused were sent for medical examination and the accused was taken into custody.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer-P.W.10 went to the said Idaikkal Village, examined the witnesses and recorded the statement, after conducting medical examination of the victim as well as the accused.After examining the doctors, who were conducted medical test on them, the police filed a final report against the accused herein.The father of the victim girl who deposed as P.W.1 stated that he was living with his wife, three daughters and a son in Chennai and his first daughter the alleged victim girl in this case was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence and she was studying in 9th std.On 10.07.2006, she left for school at 8.30 a.m. but failed to return back in evening as usual.After searching for her in school and other places and enquired about her in native places, the victim girl did not return home.He went to Tondiarpet Police Station on 11.07.2006 noon and lodged Ex.He further stated that on 02.08.2006, he received intimation from the police that his girl was secured.The victim girl who deposed as P.W.2 stated that she was studying in 9th std and knew the accused, who regularly used to come to her maternal grand mother's home.She also stated that her grand mother's home is next to her house and the accused used to give her sweets regularly.On 10.07.2006, while she was going to school, the accused followed her and asked her to come with him.When she hesitated, the accused offered her that she will get whatever she wants and compelled her to come with him.Accordingly, she went with the accused to Koyambedu Bus Stop, from there she was taken in a bus.When she expressed her apprehension, the accused told her that already he had informed the victim girl's father over phone and took her to Tirunelveli and thereafter to Thenkasi and kept her in a house at Idaikkal Village.When she asked him as to why she was taken there, the accused told her that he will speak to her father.While she was at the house in Idaikkal Village, the accused threatened her and had physical relationship for five times with her.When she insisted to go home, the accused stated that he is not having money to go back and thereafter on 01.08.2006, a friend of the accused gave money to him and on her request, she was taken to Chennai by the accused.On the next day, viz., 02.08.2006, when they were getting down at Maharani Bus Stop in Chennai at about 10.45 hours, the police secured them and later sent them for medical examination.On receipt of the same, he registered a case in Crime No.388 of 2006 and the said FIR is Ex.Thereafter, he took up the investigation and secured the accused along with the victim girl on 02.08.2006 at 10.45 hours near Maharani bus stop and enquired them.After enquiring the victim girl, it came to light that she was forcibly taken to Idaikkal Village under threat by the accused where she was raped by him.The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.384 of 2007 on the file of Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court) Chennai.He stood charged for the offences under Sections 366A, 344 and 376(1) IPC.The trial Court by its judgment dated 10.09.2012 found him guilty under all the above said Sections, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 366A IPC, to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 344 IPC and to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment under Section 376(1).Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has come forward with this appeal, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.Subsequently, the investigating officer submitted a requisition for medical examination and accordingly sent the accused as well as the victim girl for medical examination.5. P.W.4 - Dr.Santhakumar stated that on 03.08.2006 while he was working in Stanley Medical College and Hospital, examined one Ashokraja as per Ex.P3-Requisition Letter and issued Ex.P4 Certificate stating that the concerned person is not an impotent and fit for physical relationship.Another doctor, Kuppulakshmi who deposed as P.W.7 examined the victim girl and stated that on 03.08.2006 while she was working in R.S.R.M. Hospital, she examined the victim girl aged about 15 years brought by the police as per the Requisition Letter-Ex.P6 in respect of S.C.No.384 of 2007 and on examination, she found the victim girl of a normal physic and in good conscious condition.In the medical certificate-Ex.P8 issued by her, she has stated as follows:- "Cervix pointing downwards Uterus antiverted smaller than normal size.No discharge per vaginum.Specimen taken Vaginal Smear(2) Vaginal Swab (2) and Hair clipping sent for examination".The Accident Register issued by her is produced as Ex.The Investigating Officer-P.W.10 further stated that he went to Idaikkal Village on 03.08.2006, prepared a Observation Mahazar-Ex.P12 and Rough Sketch-Ex.P13 of the occurrence spot and examined the witnesses and recorded the statement.Thereafter, he continued his investigation and recorded the statement of the medical examiners and on completion of investigation, filed a final report against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the judgment of the trial Court and the same was denied by the accused.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 13 documents.No material object was marked.On the defence side, no oral or documentary evidence was produced.None of the witness from the alleged place of occurrence Idaikkal Village has been examined to prove that the said occurrence took place in that Village.The contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.7 about how the victim girl was taken away is also not taken into consideration by the trial Court.The fact of the previous enmity between the family of the complainant and the appellant/accused is not taken into account.There was no other independent witness apart from the interested witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.3 - parents of the victim girl are examined to prove the case of the prosecution.Hence, the appellant seeks to set aside the conclusion arrived by the trial Court and set him at liberty by allowing this appeal.The fact that the victim girl/P.W.2-Abirami was a minor at the time of occurrence is clearly established by Ex.Even though, P.W.2, the victim girl denied any physical assault on her body by the accused in her cross-examination which was conducted nearly three years after completion of her chief examination, she has categorically stated in her chief examination that while she was on her way to school on 10.07.2006, the accused asked her to come with him and inspite of her refusal, she was induced by him to go along and she was taken to Idaikkal Village near Thenkasi in Tirunelveli District by the accused in a bus.P.W.2-Abirami also stated that on 01.08.2006, the accused took her back to Chennai and on their arrival near Maharani bus stop on 02.08.2006 at about 10.45 hours, she was secured by the police.In her cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that on 10.07.2006, she saw the accused and four other persons, who are unknown to her and she was taken in a Auto rickshaw to Koyambedu bus stand and thereafter she was taken to unknown place and she was away from her home for 20 days.She also stated that she was detained in the same place but she was not physically assaulted by the accused or the other four persons.In her cross examination, she stated as follows: "vjphpnah kw;w 4 egh;fnsh vd;id cly; hPjpahf vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/ vd;id vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/ Tl;o bfhz;L btspapy; tplhky; itj;jpUe;jhh;f;s/ itj;jpUe;jJ cz;ik/ ntW vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy".She also stated that the accused is her own uncle.The complainant-P.W.1, who is the father of the alleged victim girl deposed that his daughter went missing from 10.07.2006 and he was informed by the respondent police on 02.08.2006 that his daughter has been rescued.Likewise, the mother of the victim girl who deposed as P.W.3 stated that her daughter did not return home from school on 10.07.2006 and inspite of searching in various places, they were not able to find her and subsequently on 02.08.2006, they were informed by the respondent police that the missing girl has been secured along with the accused herein.On such intimation from the respondent police, both P.W.1 and P.W.3 went to the police station and met their daughter.The Investigating Officer/PW-10 stated that after registering the FIR on 11.07.2006, he proceeded with the investigation and subsequently on 02.08.2006 secured the victim girl along with the accused herein at 10.45 a.m. near Maharani Bus Stop, T.H. Road, Chennai.Thus, P.W.2 stated that the accused is her uncle and neither the accused nor the four other persons have done any harm to her body and admitted that she has been detained by them in an unknown place.It is therefore clear, that the victim girl was away from her home and she was detained in an unknown place.In such circumstances, even though no one has been examined from Idaikkal Village to prove the said allegation, but the fact that the victim girl has been detained in an unknown place against her will is clearly established by PW2 evidence .Further, it is also clear that the accused took away PW2 from the lawful custody of her parents without their knowledge and against the wish of the minor victim girl.However, there is nothing on record to show that the accused took away PW2 to force her to have illicit intercourse with him and other persons.Hence, no offence under Section 366A IPC is made out on him by the trial Court.However, in view of wrongful confinement of the minor victim girl after taking her away from her parents, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC, instead of 366A IPC.According to the prosecution, the accused had intercourse with the minor victim girl forcibly against her will.While, the alleged victim/P.W.2 stated in her chief-examination, that the accused had physical intercourse with her five times and detained her in the said occurrence spot, in contrast, in in her cross-examination, PW2, the victim girl stated that she was detained in a place by the accused and four others.Further, in her cross examination, PW2 categorically stated that no physical harm was done to her.She denied any physical relationship with the accused.In such circumstances, a doubt arises as to whether really the victim girl was physically abused by the accused as claimed by the prosecution.The alleged victim girl in her chief-examination stated that she was taken by the accused herein to the Idaikkal Village by bus and kept in a house belonging to the accused friend from 11.07.2006 and there the accused had physical relationship with her five times, after threatening her with dire consequences.Thereafter on 01.08.2006, when she pleaded with the accused, he took her to Chennai and on next day morning i.e. 02.08.2006, while they were getting down at Maharani Bus Stop, the police secured them.However, in cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that she was taken in a Auto to Koyambedu bus stand by the accused and four other persons and she was taken to unknown place and she did not remember the name of the place.She also stated that she was away from her home for 20 days and in spite of her request, the accused kept her in the same place and subsequently she was secured from that place on 02.08.2006 by the police.Further, the victim P.W.2 categorically stated that the accused is her uncle and no one had done any physical harm to her.Thus, P.W.2 contradicts her own version in the chief by stating that she was only detained in a unknown place and no physical harm was done to her.Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, PW2 is giving different versions in her evidence about the occurrence and as such her evidence lacks credibility.In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that P.W.2 is not a reliable witness and she is giving contradictory statements only because no occurrence as alleged by the prosecution took place in reality.Thus, in the light of the above said discussion, this Court is of the view that PW2 evidence cannot be treated as reliable one in the absence of any corroboration.Further, P.W.2 in her evidence also admitted that she was taken to the Doctor for medical examination.PW7-the Doctor, who examined the victim girl stated that the private parts of the victim girl was normal and no injury was found over the same.P.W.7 further stated that the hymen was toned and due to that the victim girl seems to have been raped.However, P.W.7 also stated that the victim girl informed her about being taken away by her cousin sister's husband (accused herein) and four other persons and she was detained in a house for two weeks.It is also stated by P.W.7 that the victim girl told her that she was raped five times.As stated above, according to the medical evidence no external injury is found and it also admitted by P.W.7 due to cycling, there is a possibility of hymen being toned.Thus, while PW7 has deposed about PW2 informing him about the physical assault on her by the accused, the same cannot be accepted as PW2 herself has given contradictory evidence as stated earlier.Further, on medical side also PW7 evidence is not categorical about the victim girl PW2 being physically abused as alleged by the prosecution.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that if the victim girl was forced to have physical relation against her will forcibly, she would have suffered physical injury but in the case on hand PW2 has not suffered any external injury as per medical expert-PW7 evidence.Pointing it out the appellant contends that the finding of the trial Court, that the victim girl PW2 was raped by the accused is unsustainable.In such circumstances, taking into consideration the fact, that the victim girl herself has denied any act of rape by the accused and in the absence of any external injuries found on her body and the fact that the victim girl has stated totally different versions about being raped in contrast to what was told by her to PW7 that the accused as well as four other persons raped her, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was raped by the accused is unsustainable, as the said allegations is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.Admittedly, the victim girl was aged about 14 years at the time of the alleged occurrence.It is evident from her deposition that she was taken away on inducement by the accused from the custody of her parents.It is also clear from her evidence that she was detained in unknown place against her wish.The victim girl has stated before P.W.7-Doctor and also in her cross-examination that she was taken by the accused and four other persons and detained in another place.It is thus clearly established that PW2 was taken away from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent and knowledge.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not investigated about the other persons allegedly associated with the sole accused herein, but lodged the charge sheet only against the only accused herein and that itself will create doubt about the alleged occurrence.However, the victim girl has categorically stated that the accused was present on the occurrence date and she was asked by him to go along and the accused gave assurance that he will inform her father about the same and as she went with him, she was subsequently detained by him, in spite of her request to let her go.It is apparently clear from the evidence of the victim girl, that she was taken away by the accused and detained by him at a place away from her natural guardian against her wish.It is therefore clear, that the said act of the accused will only attract the offence under Section 365 IPC and not the offence under Section 366A IPC, under which the trial Court has found him guilty.There is nothing on record to show that the accused took away the victim girl and she had been forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.In such circumstances, as the victim girl was taken away on inducement by the accused from the lawful custody of the natural guardian and detained in another place for more than 20 days, the accused is liable to be punished under Sections 344 & 365 IPC instead of 366A IPC as held by the trial Court.It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that due to personal and family enmity, false complaint is lodged against the accused.However, P.W.3, the mother of the victim girl stated that her sister converted into another religion and due to that, she did not attend the marriage of the accused, but whenever the accused visits the victim girl's grand-mother home, he used to talk with the victim girl.P.W.2 also stated that there is no property dispute between her parents and the accused, because her parents have no property at all.Similarly, the alleged victim girl stated that the accused is her uncle, and he is now married and having a child.P.W.2 further stated that the accused used to visit her grand-mother home, which is adjacent to her house and used to give her sweets, which she will receive without the knowledge of her father.It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that his mother-in-law's home is adjacent to his house and the accused used to visit his mother-in-law's home.P.W.1 also admits that his wife and his daughter knew the accused and they used to talk whenever the accused visits his mother-in-law's home.Thus, it is clear from the above said evidence that the accused used to meet the victim girl and her mother in the adjacent house of the complainant and the prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove any enmity on the ground of the property dispute between the accused and the complainant.In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused, that the complainant has falsely lodged a complaint due to family dispute is unsustainable.The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that PW5 and PW9, the alleged witnesses to the confession statement given by the accused have turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution.Further, it is also pointed out that in Ex.The same is admitted by PW1-the complainant and PW10-the Investigation Officer of the case.Further, it is also pointed out that in the endorsement made by the Sub-Inspector of Police in Ex.P1 Complaint also similar correction is found.This according to the appellant occurred only because false complaint was lodged against the accused.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:(a).Further, the conviction under Section 366A is modified into under Section 365 IPC and thereby, the fine amount Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial court found sufficient.In view of the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC is set aside, the fine amount Rs.10,000/- imposed on the appellant/accused is directed to be refunded.Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.23.02.2017Internet : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NomkS.BASKARAN, J.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Mahila Court, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor Office, High Court, Madras.The Section Officer, Vernacular Record Section, High Court, Madras.A.No.677 of 201223.02.2017

['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the car Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting and Shesh Mani was driving the car.At about 3 p.m. when they reached at Trimuhani of Mirzapur road in township Gopiganj on G.T. road, accused Udai Bhan Singh, Tehsildar Singh, Akbal Bahadur alias Atkoti singh, Prem Singh, Dhunni Singh, Munni Singh, Daroga Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Pintoo Singh and two other persons who were armed with latest weapons started firing.On account of this, his brother-in-law Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and car driver Shesh Mani died on the spot.He and Prem Shanker Dubey who were sitting on the back seat of the car came out of the car and received injuries also.Licensed Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey was left in the car, which was taken away by one of the assailants.The occurrence was witnessed by Shiv Prasad @ Dangar Tewari, Mukund Lal, Ram Dutt Mishra and other persons.Shopkeepers started running away after closing their shutters.It is further stated that there was enmity between Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla and Udai Bhan Singh with regard to some contract work.The report was lodged at 3.45 p.m. by one Rakesh Kumar Pandey at police station Gopiganj and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is one km. Uma Shanker Pandey, Head Constable prepared the chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) and entered it in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-3).S.I. Vidya Prakash Misra started investigation.He reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of informant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.S.I. Rashid Ahmad prepared the inquest report of Surya Narain alias Vakil shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani on his dictation.Dead bodies were sent for the most mortem examinations.He prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-25) and collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, broken pieces of glass of car, a piece of Raxine, blood stained shoes, empty cartridges, one Rifle and 9 mm Pistol of deceased Surya Narain Shukla and prepared its recovery memos (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).The dead bodies were sent for the post mortem examination through constables Devi Prasad Pandey and Prabhu Nath Yadav.Post mortem of the deceased Devi Shanker Dubey was conducted by Dr. Radhey Raman, Medical Officer, Maharaj Chet Singh Hospital, Gyanpur 4.4.1999 at about 11.55 p.m. He found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Devi Shanker Dubey:P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Misra stated that the place of occurrence is Gopiganj market on G.T. Road at Mirzapur Trimuha.He and Dangar Tewari reached there on the motor cycle of Mukund Lal.Tehsildar Singh was exhorting them.It is further stated that Ambassador car was going towards West in speed and collided with a Bus which was coming towards Varanasi.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dube came out of the car and while coming out of the car they received some injuries.At about 2 - 2.15 p.m. he saw Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and stopped him.He had also taken a lift on the motorcycle and reached at the Trimuhani alongwith them.His statement was recorded by the investigating officer at 11.30 a.m. He had recorded his statement in his room.The house belongs to Adya Tewari who is elder brother of Dangar Tewari.He did not inform the police out post while coming back to his home.P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey is Medical Officer, Community Health Center Gopiganj.He examined Prem Shanker Dubey at 5.25 p.m. injuries of Prem Shanker Dubey which have already been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.P.W. 10 is S.I. Irshad Ali.On 4.4.1999 he was posted as s.I. police station Gopiganj.He reached at the place of occurrence alongwith Station House Officer.He prepared the inquest reports and handed over the dead bodies to constable Devi Prasad Pandey and Manoj Rai.Inquest report of Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla (Ext. Ka-9).Photo lash (Ext. Ka-10), Form No. 13( Ext. Ka-11) and letters to R.I. and C.M.O. ( Ext. Ka-12 and Ka-13 ).He also prepared the inquest report of Devi Shanker Dubey ( Ext. Ka -14).Challan lash ( Ext.Ka-15), Photo lash ( Ext. Ka-16), report to R.I. ( Ext. Ka-17) and letter to C.M.O. for post mortem examination (Ext. Ka-18).On the same day he prepared the inquest of Shesh Mani Rai (Ext. Ka-19), letter to R.I. and C. M.O. Ext. Ka-20 and Ka-21), Photo Lash ( Ext. Ka-22), and Challan Lash ( Ext. Ka-23).In the cross examination he stated that dead bodies were kept on G.T. road.He stated that before starting the inquest report he had possessed the first information report.He stated that he prepared the inquest report of Shesh Mani Rai.P.W. 11 Constable Prabhu Nath Yadava stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Irshad Ahmad was preparing the inquest report.The dead bodies were handed over to constable Manoj Rai and Devi shanker Pandey.He was there for security alongwith constable Rajendra Prasad.P.W. 12 Daya Shanker Misra was transfered on 11.4.1999 as S.H.O. Gopiganj from police station Aurai.The first investigating officer submitted charge sheet on 10.4.1999 and he had to arrest the accused persons.He did not record the statement of any of the witnesses.He did not file any supplementary charge sheet.P.W. 13 is Vidya Prakash Misra.On 4.4.1999 he was posted as S.H.O. police station Gopiganj.He started the investigation of the case.He recorded the statement of complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.On his dictation S.I. Irshad Ali prepared the inquest report of Surya Narain Shukla alias vakil shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai.After the preparation of inquest repot dead bodies were sealed and handed over to constable Devi Prasad Pandey, Manoj Rai, constable Punnu Lal Yadava and constable Rajendra Prasad.He also recorded the statement of Prem Shanker Dubey.He also recorded the statement of photographer who had taken the photograph of the place of occurrence.On 6.4.1999 he recorded the Statement of Pawan Singh.Thereafter he recorded the statement of Prabhakar Khadhar and Vinod Kumar Dubey.He recorded the statement of the scribe of the report Head Moharrir, Uma Shanker Pandey.He recorded the statement of Sunil Dubey and Munni Pandey.On 8.4.1999 he recorded the statement of Ram Murat Upadhyay and searched for the accused.On 9.4.1999 he received information on R.T. set that Jajjey Singh and other two accused alongwith looted Rifle and cartridges were arrested.He also arrested Tehsildar Singh.He recorded the statement of S.H.O. Vindhyachal, Sharda Bux Singh, S.H.O. Mahihau, Shri Devendra Kumar Singh.He recorded the statement of Laljee Singh.P.W. 13 was recalled and re examined on 16.2.2004 and he stated that the envelope which was opened in court contained only three 12 bore cartridges.He further stated that on inspection of the car he found 8 bullet marks on chasis, 8 on tank, 10 on rear bumper, 12 on Dickey, one on rear class, and one on the bonnet.He stated that on 4.4.1999 the eye witnesses did not give any statement regarding the occurrence.The complainant had confirmed lodging of the first information report.On 18.3.2004 he was recalled and he stated that he got the photography of the place of occurrence and he had mentioned the same in his case diary.One sealed packet was opened in the court which contained one tikli, two empty cartridges of 12 bore, one of 9 mm and one of 30 mm, Rifle and two bullets (Ext. Ka- 28 to Ka-34).In the cross examination he stated that the packet which contained (Ext. Ka-28 to Ka-34 ) had a broken seal but the box which contained the cartridges had a proper seal.P.W. 15 is Sharda Bux Singh.He stated that in the month of April, 1999 he was posted as S.H.O. Vindhyachal.P.W. 16 is Dhananjay Misra, S.H.O. Aurai, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.He stated that from 8.5.1999 to 21.5.2001 he was posted as S.H.O. Gopiganj.If the statements of eye witnesses were not recorded same day, no adverse inference can be drawn that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest reports.The statement of the complainant was recorded prior to preparation of inquest reports.If he was present at the place of occurrence after the murder of his close relative and he did not go for his medical examination.There is nothing to doubt about his presence at the alleged time of occurrence.JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.In these seven appeals the factual matrix relates to the same incident and the judgment impugned being the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.I.P.C. for six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of payment of fine 15 days further R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.On the place of occurrence an Ambassador car was going from east to west, Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker were sitting on the front seat and Shesh Mani Rai was the driver of the car.On the back seat Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Devi Shanker Dubey were sitting.Udai Bhan Singh alias Doctor Singh, Sandeep Singh alias Pintoo Singh, Sanjay Singh, brother-in-law of Doctor Singh and his two friends Sanjay Singh and Santosh Singh, Ashok Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Suresh Kumar alias Jajjey Singh, Shri Krishna Singh alias Daroga Singh, Chhuni Singh, Munni Singh, Prem Singh and Atkati Singh were chasing the car and firing with their weapons.They were armed with Rifle, Gun, Pistol and Carbine.Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey was left in the car.Thereafter all the accused surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing and they kept on firing till Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani died.One of them took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dube and all the accused persons were raising the slogan Har Har Mahadeo and they ran away in Maruti Car, Sumo etc and on one motor cycle towards Orai.The occurrence was witnessed by him and Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Singh, Mukund Lal and Rakesh Pandey.In the cross examination he stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to Vindhyachal for 'Darshan' in the morning.He did not know where Mukund Lal and Dangar Tewari had gone.He left Vindhyachal at about 11 - 11.30 a.m. He did not know whether Vindhyachal temple closes in the noon or not.After worshiping he left for Gopiganj in a Tempo.He reached at cheelh turn in a Tempo which is at a distance of 10 - 12 km. from Vindhyachal.He remained at Cheelh turn for about an hour.He prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the complainant and the persons present ( Ext. Ka-25).He prepared the recovery memos of plain and blood stained earth, pieces of broken glass of the car, a piece of Raxine from the seat of the car, blood stained shoes, empty cartridge, one licensee Rifle of Surya Narain Shukla, one pistol 9 mm of Surya Narain Shukla (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32.).He recorded the statements of inquest witnesses Dangar alias Adya Prasad Tewari, Jata Shanker, Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Mukund Lal and witnesses of recovery memo, Ramjee Shukla, Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Irshad Ahmad and Jan Mohammad.On 5.4.1999 he recorded the statement of Santosh Kumar Singh, Anoop Kumar, Lallan Singh and Shri Balkeshwar Nath.He filed the charge sheet against the accused persons (Ext. Ka-36).On 4.4.1999 he had recorded the statement of inquest witnesses.1999 at the instance of the complainant he recorded the statements as of eye witnesses.Suresh Kumar Singh alias Jajjey Singh claimed for his identification under Section 54-A Cr.P.C. The application was opposed by the prosecution and the same was rejected.Thereafter by the order of the High Court dated 15.6.1999 the case was again transferred to C.B.C.I.D.. On 8.10.1999 Rakesh Kumar Pandey had informed that his uncle-in-law that some verbal altercation regard to P.W.D. contracts.He recorded the statement of the accused and witnesses and the police officers who conducted the investigation.He filed the charge sheet (Ext.Ka-38).He arrested Ashok Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh and Suresh Kumar Singh son of Shambhu Singh.The factory made Rifle No. AB 973648 alongwith magazine containing four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Ashok Kumar Singh (Ext. Ka-12).From the possession of Suresh Kumar Singh one U.S. 30 carbine alongwith magazine containing 9 live cartridges (Ext.Ka-13) and cartridges (Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-22) were recovered.Case under Section 25 Arms Act and 41/411 I.P.C. was registered as case crime No. 126/127 of 1999 against them.On 13.5.1999 he started investigation of the case.The earlier investigating officer had already submitted the charge sheet.He had received the ballistic expert's report on 25.5.1999 and recovered Rifle from the possession of the accused.Thereafter, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D.P.W. 17 Devendra Kumar Singh, is the Incharge, S.O. District Sonbhadra.He stated that in the year 1999 he was posted as S.H.O. Marihau.He arrested Ashok Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh alongwith the Rifle and he also arrested Suresh Kumar Singh and recovered one Carbine US 30 alongwith magazine.P.W. 18 Jagdish Chand Shukla is constable at police station Gopiganj.He stated that on 13.10.1998 he was posted as constable Moharrir at police station Gopiganj.The defence had examined D.W. 1 Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi.He is president of Vindhyachal Panda Samaj, Vindhyachal.The temple is looked after by this Vinchyachal Panda Samaj and Vindhyachal Vikas Parishad.The temple is opened at 4 a.m. for 'Shringar' and it take about one hour and at this time the temple remain closed for 'darshan'.The doors of the temple open at 5 a.m. for the worship.Thereafter the doors are closed at 12 O'clock for the 'Shringar" etc. Again the temple is opened for worship at 1.30 p.m. During this period nobody is allowed to enter into the temple.During the days of Navratri, the doors close at 12 O'clock and open at 1 p.m. for 9 days only.In the cross examination he stated that the President of Vindhyachal Panda Samaj is appointed for two years.Anil Kumar Dubey remained President for 14 years.The rules which are prepared by the Panda Samaj are given to the district Magistrate and approved by him also.There are two doors for the worship in the temple.S.P. who recorded the same gave evidence about the same.The investigating officer had recorded his statement on 4.4.1999 as a witness of inquest report but if the first information report was available then why his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was not recorded same day.We have carefully examined the above submissions.The testimony of P.W. 2 Uma Shanker Pandey shows that he had registered the first information report at case crime No. 177 of 1999 Ext. Ka-2).He had also prepared the G.D. No. 34 at 3.45 p.m. on 4.4.1999 ( Ext. Ka-3).Special report was dispatched through constable Udhao Singh.He copied the chik report and reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of complainant and S.I. Rasheed Ahmad, prepared the inquest reports of Surya Narain Shukla alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai, on his dictation.On the same day he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses prepared recovery memos of plain and blood stained earth, Raxine of the car etc.The eye witnesses are mentioned in his statement.Prior to reaching at the place of occurrence Chik F.I.R. was with the Investigating Officer.There is overwhelming evidence to prove that the F.I.R. was registered at the alleged time.There is direct testimony of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari to prove that informant (Rakesh Kumar Pandey) had prepared the first information report 40 steps away from the place of occurrence and at that time thousand of persons had collected near the dead body.The G.D. Ext. Ka-3 shows that informant and P.W. 4 had come to the police station and their injuries are also mentioned in the G.D. The enclosures which were sent alongwith the inquest report shows that chik was also sent alongwith the inquest report.The testimony of P.W. 9 Devi Prasad Pandey shows that he had escorted the dead body to the mortuary for the post mortem examination.He stated that dead bodies were handed over to him at 6.30 or 7 p.m. and he was given a copy of the F.I.R. and other papers for the post mortem.His testimony remained unchallenged.The first information report shows the seal and signature of the doctor who had received the papers alongwith the dead bodies for the post mortem examination.One more important circumstance is that the post mortem examinations was conducted same nigh on the direction of the District Magistrate.In our view the first information report is registered at the alleged time and it is promptly lodged.The occurrence took place at 3 p.m. and written report is lodged at 3.45 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is one km. It is significant to mention that criminal courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of the report because the same substantially eliminate the possibility of embellishments and concoction creeping in the prosecution story.The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the prosecution case first information report was registered at 3.45 p.m. and both the injured, namely, Rakesh Kumar Pandey and P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey were sent for medical examination through constable Nathuni Lal but there is long gap between the medical examination of P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey had examined Prem Shanker Dubey on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. whereas Rakesh Kumar Pandey, complainant was examined by P.W. 7 Dr. L.S. Mishra at 8.15 p.m. both the injured were brought to the P.H.C. by constable Nathuni Lal who has not been examined in the case.The counsel for the appellant submits that this delay is due to the fact that the informant did not receive any injury in the occurrence and he was called after the occurrence and thereafter his injuries were manufactured and Dr. L.S. Misra was not on duty on the said date and he was deliberately called to examine the complainant and manufactured his injuries.The injury report suggests that injuries of P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey were bleeding therefore, he immediately went for medical examination.The presence of informant is proved at the time of occurrence.He had signed all the inquest reports as an inquest witness.His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the investigating officer.P.W. 13 V.P. Misra prior to preparation of inquest reports.The dead bodies were dispatched at 6.30 - 7 p.m. Thereafter informant was medically examined by the doctor.There cannot be any doubt that his injuries are manufactured by the doctor and he was not present at the time of occurrence.This submission has no force and is rejected.Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the F.I.R. was in existence at the alleged time and the names of the eye witnesses were known to the investigating officer then why the statement of eye witnesses was recorded next day.It is further submitted that the investigating officer had recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari as a witness of inquest and his statement was not recorded as an eye witness.He was available on the same day.It is further submitted that P. W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari stated that he told about the occurrence to the investigating officer but P.W. 13 V.P. Mishra states that he did not disclose about the occurrence same day.If the first information report was available and his name finds place as an eye witness then his statement should have been recorded by the investigating officer.We have considered the submission of the counsel.In the instant case the occurrence took place on a busy G.T. Road at 3 p.m. and the report of the occurrence was lodged at 3.45 p.m. Thereafter the investigating officer had copied the chik, recorded the statement of informant, thereafter he prepared the inquest proceeding of three dead bodies.He also recorded the statements of inquest witnesses.There was also urgency in the post mortem which was conducted same night on the direction of the District Magistrate and the statements of these witnesses have been recorded next day.It is not disputed that prior to the preparation of inquest reports, statement of informant was recorded, Chik F.I.R. was also available with the investigating officer which was also dispatched as an enclosure No. 2 with the inquest report for the post mortem alongwith the dead bodies.There is no force in this submission that only on account of delay in recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statement on the next day it can be said that the F.I.R. was not in existence and P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra were not eye witnesses.We reject this submission of learned counsel for the appellants.The F.I.R. was registered at the alleged time chithi mazroobi of the informant and injured P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dube was prepared and chik and F.I.R. was handed over to the investigating officer who had recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of informant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and completed the inquest reports of the dead bodies and other formalities with regard to investigation.There is no such delay in recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statement to caste any doubt that these witnesses are got up witnesses.Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra are chance and partisan witnesses and their testimonies should be rejected.There can be no doubt that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 can be said to be chance witnesses.Their residences are a furlong or two away from the scene of occurrence.The story of P.W. 1 that he closed the shop earlier than usual is difficult to believe because he does not assign any reason for so doing.The allegation that respondent Chander Mohan's complaint was first in point of time but was registered later cannot be lightly brushed aside.It is also surprising that P.W. 1 preferred to write down the complaint on the spot rather than run down 100 paces to the police station to inform the police.P.W. 1 was asked to explain this conduct and he stated that he preferred to write down the complaint "as I had doubt that the police will not pay any heed and will not take down the report correctly.There was no reason for P.W. 1 to entertain such a doubt.He does not say that he had any such experience in the past.Both the deceased had a criminal record and were history sheeters.Several complaints were pending against Ram Shanker.He must be having many enemies.The defence case is that some of their common enemies got together and killed them and P.W. 1 was not present but who came later filed the report on the basis of the morning incident.Be that as it may, the fact, remains that the genesis of the crime is suppressed and no witness from the locality whose presence would be natural is examined which creates a doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version.As to the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 at the time and place of occurrence the trial court entertained grave doubts.If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness.And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion.Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does required cautious and close scrutiny.In the instant case, P.W.s 4 and 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased, one of them a close one.The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial court.There was not any compelling or sufficient reason for the High Court to differ from the evaluation of the evidence of the two chance witnesses.It may well be as remarked by the High Court that the respondent was also their collateral but they appeared to be partisan witnesses on the side of the prosecution and hence their testimony was viewed with suspicion by the trial judge.We find from the judgment of the Sessions Court that P.W. 2 admitted that there are two rival factions and he filed an application against the accused in the year 1976 for binding over them and consequently proceedings were launched against the accused and that there were certain other instances which would show that P.W. 2 was inimical towards the accused.Further, there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 appears to be a chance witness.He deposed that he went to this particular field which is away from his house to answer the call of nature.On his being a chance witness it is necessary have a closer scrutiny of his evidence.Coming to the medical evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that all the other four accused dealt blows with sticks.It is pointed out in number of cases by this court when the case rests on the sole testimony of the single witness, the same should be wholly reliable.We find in the instant case that P.W. 2 is not only an interested witness but the version given by him is highly doubtful apart from the fact he being a chance witness.If we do so then we notice that on the date of incident he had gone to a village Upli for some work.From there he came back by bus at about 11 'O clock.He then allegedly went to the village to meet Ram Rakh where he was told by his wife that the latter had gone to the field.It is the prosecution case itself that the distance between the field of Ram Rakh and the village is about 4-5 miles and P.W. 6 covered that distance on foot and when he reached near the field of Ram Rakh he heard a quarrel and when he went towards the place of quarrel he saw the appellant attack the deceased with an axe.It is his further case that when he reached near the deceased the appellant ran away.It is at this point of time he states that he got scared and he took a different route than the one he took on the way and reached the village at about 4 or 4.15 p.m. It is his case that when he went to the house of Ram Rakh he could not find him therefore he came near the village square where he met P.W. 2 Khyali Ram.From the above evidence of P.W. 6 it is apparent that though there were persons available on his way back, he did not inform anybody about the incident.Even when he reached the village and met Ram Rakh's wife he did not inform her about the incident and it is for the first time he informs about this incident to P.W. 2 at the village square at about 4.15 p.m. Contrary to what he stated in the examination-in-chief that he saw only one assault on the deceased, in the cross examination he stated that he saw the appellant attack the deceased twice and both the injuries were caused in his presence.The prosecution has not found how P.W. 14 came to know of the incident.In this background if we appreciate the evidence of P.W. 6 we notice the fact that he is purely a chance witness whose presence at the place of the incident is highly doubtful.His conduct too seems to be unnatural in not informing anyone else in the village until he met Khyali Ram at the village square.Though the distance is about 30 miles from the place of incident, the complainant had the facility of using the tractors available in the village and they did use the same for travelling to the police station.In such circumstances this unexplained long delay also creates a doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case.The judgment and order of conviction of the two courts below are set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.In the present case the evidence of P.W.1 shows that on 4.4.1999 he was coming from Vindhyachal and when he reached at the Trisection of G.T. Road Gopiganj he heard some shots.Me was accompanied by Mukund Lal and Ram Dutt Mishra.5 ram Dutt Mishra also stated that he was returning from Vindhyachal and on his way back home he met Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and he had taken lift on his motorcycle and he reached at the Trisection alongwith them.The occurrence took place on the G.T. Road.The testimonies of both the witnesses show that they had probablise their presence at the alleged place of occurrence.It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the witnesses are partisan.It is suggested that both of them are deposing falsely only at the instance of Vijay Mishra M.L.As There is nothing on record to suggest that Vijay Mishra was instrumental in procuring these witnesses apart from the vague suggestion there is nothing on record to hold that these witnesses are deposing against the appellants on account of the influence of Vijay Mishra.Even it is not suggested to the witnesses that Vijai Misra was present at the place of occurrence or at the police station.The evidence of a. witness who is alleged to be a partisan or chance witness cannot be rejected solely on that ground and the law requires only a closer scrutiny of his testimony.We have carefully examined the testimonies of the witnesses The evidence of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari shows that on 4.4.199 at about 3 p.m. he was present on the Trimuhani of G.T. road.He was coming from Vindhyachal alongwith Mukund Lal and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra on a motorcycle.His evidence shows that accused persons were armed with Gun, Rifles, 30 Carbine and Pistols and were firing at Ambassador car of Vakil Shukla, deceased.Shesh Marti deceased was driving the car and it collided with a roadway bus coming from Allahabad.Tehsildar Singh had exhorted to kill and the assailants came near the car and started firing.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting on the back seat of the car.They came out of the car leaving the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey in the car which was taken away by Suresh Kumar Singh alias Jajjey Singh.They killed Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai inside the car.Thereafter they ran away in their Sumo and other vehicles.The motive as alleged is that there was some disputp with regard to contract work and Vakil Shukla shad also contested election of Zila Panchayat against Akbal Bahadur alias Atkoti Singh.The Rifle and Pistol of Vakil Shukla was left in the car.The first information report was lodged by Rakesh Kumar Pandey at 3.45 p.m. He identified the report which was written by Rakesh Kumar Pandey.The investigating officer had prepared the inquest reports of the deceased and he had also signed the same.His statement was recorded on the next day of the occurrence.We have carefully examined the evidence of this witness and in our opinion it is reliable and credible.His testimony is corroborated by the post mortem examination and also by the testimony of the investigating officer which clearly indicates that the deceased were done to death inside the car.The investigating officer had collected blood stained Raxine, shoes, broken pieces of car, empty cartridges and one Rifle and pistol of 9 mm of Surya Narain Shukla and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).There is no dispute about the identity of the assailants as the occurrence took place in broad day light.The statement of this witness also shows that complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey had received injuries while they were coming out of the car.G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3) shows that complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey had received injuries and P.W. 2 Uma Shanker Pandey had prepared the 'chithi majroobi' and P.W. 7 Dr. L.S. Misra had medically examined Rakesh Kumar Pandey on 4.4.1994 at 8 15 p.m. and P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey had medically examined Prem Shanker Dubey on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. The counsel for the appellants submits that he is close associate of Vakil Shukla and he was also involved in a case of Arms Act alongwith him and he had started doing pairvi of this case after the death of informant.His testimony should be rejected on this ground.He did not avoid any uncomfortable question.He was subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing substantial could be extracted there from which could render either his presence at the place of incident or credibility suspect.His evidence shows that he has fully mentioned the essential features of the prosecution including time and place and of the incident, name of the assailants, names of the victims, manner of assault, name of the informant and motive for the murder.We have no hesitation after careful scrutiny of the evidence to place implicit reliance on his testimony.Another eye witness P.W. 5 is Ram Dutt Misra, His evidence, shows that on the date of occurrence at about 3 p.m. he was coming alongwith P.W. 1 Dangar Tewari from Vindhyachal.He stated that in the Ambassador Car of Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey was sitting on the front seat and Shesh Mani Rai was driving the car.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting on the back seat.The appellants were chasing the car and firing with Rifle, Gun, Pistol and Carbine.Tehsildar Singh was giving exhortation to kill them.The Ambassador Car collided with a Bus which was going towards Varanasi.After the accident Kakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey came out of the Car and while! they were coming out of the car they received some minor injury.The Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey left in the car.Thereafter accused had surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing as a result of which Vakil Shukla Devi shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai died.One of the accused took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey and all the accused persons were raising slogan Har Har Mahadeo and thereafter they ran away in their Muruti, Sumo, Motorcycle and on other vehicles towards Aural.His statement was also recorded by the investigating officer.He was also subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing substantial could be extracted there from.In our opinion he has fully explained his presence on the spot and there is nothing to suspect his credibility.He has no rancor or ill will against the appellants and in our opinion in the absence of the same he would not falsely implicated the accused.The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence.In the light of the above, we have carefully examined his testimony.He admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence he was sitting on the back seat of the car and he had a licensee Rifle alongwith him.He had admitted that when the car stopped he came out of the car and while doing so he received some injuries also.He does not remember whether his injuries were medically examined or not.He does not remember that Rakesh Kumar Pandey was also sitting with him.The testimony shows that he was present in the car alongwith his Rifle.His presence at the police station at the time of lodging of the report is mentioned in G.D. ( Ext. Ka-3) and he was medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey who had examined him on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. and found two lacerated wounds.His testimony corroborates the version given by the two other eye witnesses.Both the witnesses have stated that Prem Shanker Dubey was sitting on the back seat and while he was coming out of the car he received injuries and his licensee Rifle was left in the car which was taken away by one of the accused.Thus the eye witness account of the case is fully supported by the investigation and the medical evidence on record.The post mortem reports of the deceased persons clearly indicate that all of them had received fire arm injuries from a close range and the place of occurrence is inside the car which is supported by the recoveries (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).The investigating officer has also found dent in the car due to indiscriminate firing by the accused persons and he also made recovery of empty shells.The serologist report also confirms the presence of human blood on the Raxine.Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the findings of the trial court on the ground that participation of 14 persons is doubtful as the medical evidence does not corroborate this part of the evidence that assailants were 14 in number and they have indiscriminately fired.The case of the prosecution is that all the witnesses had witnessed that the assailants were chasing the car and were also firing at the car.The occurrence took place on a busy G.T. road.It is also mentioned that all the accused were firing.Large number of firing is corroborated by the twenty eight pellet marks mentioned by the investigating officer on the ear and it is also mentioned that only some of the pellets could be recovered.It is also noteworthy that the deceased and witnesses who were accompanying them were also armed.In view of this it cannot be said that large number of persons had not participated in the occurrence and this submission has no force.Learned counsel for the appellants had also submitted that one of the appellant Suresh Singh alias Jajjey Singh had moved an application for identification which was rejected on 11.6.1999 by the Magistrate, Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Suresh Singly alias Jajjdy Singh, were not known to the witnesses prior to the occurrence, therefore, he moved an application for his identification.P.W. 5 did not mention anything about the theft of the Rifle, therefore, he was acquitted of this charge.The State has also not filed any appeal against their acquittal.Tehsildar Singh has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge also on the ground that his role was only of exhortation and there was some contradictions with regard to his place from where he has exhorted and the actual time of his exhortation.In view of this the names of Pintoo Singh alias Sandeep Singh Daroga Singh alias Shri Krishna Singh, Chhunni Singh alias Mata Prasad Singh and Prem Singh alias Prem Bahadur Singh have been disclosed by P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari for the first time in the court and as such absolute reliance cannot be placed on his statement.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.1/State.This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings of crime No. 106/2019 registered at Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind alleging offence punishable u/Ss.307/34 of IPC against the petitioners.P.C, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :-In so far as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress.Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement.The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused."In view of above, the present petition stands dismissed.

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

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

Before adverting to appreciate submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to prosecution of the appellant and filing of appeal.The appellant was subjected to trial to face charge under Section 307, 506 of IPC and section 4 r.w. Section 25 of the Arms Act.On 20.03.2014, Ashabai Harichandra Telang - complainant (P.W.3) visited the Police Station, Air Port, Nanded and reported that at about 19.30 Hrs. while she was present in her house, she heard shouts outside her house.She, therefore, came out of house to see as what happened.She saw the appellant - accused standing in front of house of Savitri Kadam (P.W.2) - the injured.Accused was telling her that he wants to marry with her daughter Archana Kadam (P.W.5).He was quarreling and harassing Archana.When Savitri (P.W.2) asked the accused not to touch her daughter Archana, the accused assaulted Savitri over right side of her chest with the help of sword in his hand and caused bleeding injury.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::784.15crapl 3 When she tried to intervene and save Savitri, the accused caught her arm and pushed her.He left the place by giving threat to see all of them.It is further stated that accused ran away from the spot.She further informed that she along with other persons brought injured Savitri to Vithai Hospital.On the basis of the complaint lodged by Ashabai Telang (P.W.3), offence punishable under sections 307, 506 of IPC and Section 4 r.w. Section 25 of the Arms Act came to be registered as against the accused.Suryakant Jagdale (P.W.10) Police Inspector attached to Police Station Airport conducted the investigation.He visited the spot of incident and made panchanama and collected the plain earth and earth mixed with blood from the spot and also obtained the scrapping of the blood stains from the wall of staircase and surrounding area where the incident occurred.He also obtained scrapping of blood which was found on the door.He seized clothes of Savitri soaked with blood.ORAL JUDGMENT :This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.01.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.66/2014 by the Sessions Judge, Nanded whereby, the appellant has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::He arrested the accused and secured his remand.During the custody, accused made voluntary disclosure to show the place where he concealed the sword used in ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 4 commission of offence.He recorded memorandum statement of accused in presence of panchas and later on, seized the sword used in the commission of offence, which was found to be concealed in the bushes in Shahunagar locality.He recorded statements of the witnesses which include Rani Hardipsingh Maire (P.W.4).Further investigation was conducted by Sanjay Pise (P.W.9).He recorded statements of witnesses which include Savitribai Sambhaji Kadam (P.W.2), Shivkanta Sambhaji Kadam and Archana Sambhaji Kadam (P.W.5).He forwarded Muddemaal property to Chemical Analyzer.On conclusion of investigation, he filed charge- sheet against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined ten witnesses and further proved certain documents.The accused has not entered into defence.The defence of the accused appears to be of total denial and false implication at the instance of Savitribai and her daughter Archana.On conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge, Nanded has found the accused guilty of ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 5 offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and awarded sentence as stated above.Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::I have heard the submissions advanced by Mr.A.B. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State and, further perused record and proceedings.Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court with contention that there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to sustain the conviction.He submits that the conviction is wholly based upon testimony of interested witness Savitribai (P.W.2) the injured and her daughter Archana (P.W.5).The independent witnesses which includ Ashabai (P.W.3) complainant, have not supported the case of prosecution and declared hostile.Savitribai was against marriage of appellant - accused with her daughter Archana and carrying grudge against the appellant.He further submits that Archana has ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 6 deposed at the instance of her mother - Savitri.In this background, it is contended that in absence of corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai through independent witness, conviction is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::He further submits that no offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the accused.By referring the injury certificate (Exh.39), the learned Counsel submits that as per injury certificate, the injury caused to Savitribai (P.W.2) found to be simple in nature.By referring the overall evidence, learned Counsel submits that no inference can be drawn that accused had attempted to kill Savitribai (P.W.2).It is pointe dout that Archana (P.W.5) has deposed that accused was trying to assault her.In order to protect her from ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 7 accused, her mother Savitri came in front of her and sustained the injury.He, therefore, submits that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that accused attempted to cause the death of Savitribai.In this background the learned Counsel contended that the act of accused can be termed as voluntarily causing hurt, which may invite penalty for committing offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::On the other hand, learned APP supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and submitted that Savitribai (P.W.2) the injured has sustained grievous hurt caused by means of sword.She was assaulted by accused on the vital part of her body i.e. over chest.The injury caused proved to be grievous in nature.Looking to the nature of the injury and seriousness, the injured was required to be shifted to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai where she was required to undergo extensive treatment for a period of more than one month as an indoor patient.In this background, learned APP submits that the injury caused to injured ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 8 Savitribai can well be termed as a grievous hurt within the meaning of section 320 of IPC.He further submits that carrying and possessing sword by accused at the time of incident itself reflects that accused went to the house of injured Savitribai with an intention to assault Archana the daughter of Savitribai.He further submits that the evidence of Savitribai (P.W.2) and Archana (P.W.5) inspires full confidence.Nothing is elicited through their cross-examination so as to discard or disbelieve their testimonies.He further submits that the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2) finds due corroboration from Archana (P.W.5) and other evidence such as seizure of sword, detection of blood as that of the group of injured on the spot as well as the sword used in commission of offence.He submits that the injury certificate as referred and relied upon by the appellant cannot be treated as final opinion given as to nature of injury caused to Savitri (P.W.2).The injury certificate was issued on 19.03.2014 on the basis of preliminary observations made by medical officer without opening the injury and examining the same.The evidence on record ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 9 shows that the injured had sustained serious injury over chest.Due to seriousness of injury and complications the injured was sent to J.J. Hospital, Mumai.Only due to timely treatment, the injured was survived.Otherwise, death of injured was eminent on account of injury sustained by her.He submits that the impugned judgment and order is well reasoned and calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have perused the record and proceedings and closely scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution to prove its case.As discussed, the prosecution has come out with a case that accused intended to marry Archana (P.W.5) daughter of Savitribai (P.W.2).It has been brought on record that accused had affair with Archana.Some time prior to the incident, accused as well as Archana went to Shirdi and stayed there for 2 to 3 days.Savitribai (P.W.2) was against marriage of her daughter with accused.On the day of the incident, accused went to the house of Archana to ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 10 force her to marry with him.When Savitri (P.W.2) refused to perform marriage of her daughter with the accused, it appears that the accused caught the hands of Archana to forcibly take her away.When Savitri intervened, the accused assaulted her with the help of sword in his hand.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses which include Savitribai (P.W.2), Archana (P.W.5).Besides Savitribai (P.W.2), Archana (P.W.5), prosecution has examined Asha (P.W.3) the complainant and eye witness to the incident.Besides said witnesses, prosecution has examined Rani Hardeepsingh Maire (P.W.4) an independent witness to incident.She has also not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile.In order to corroborate the testimony of Savitribai, prosecution has examined Dr.Umesh Kolekar (P.W.6) Medical Officer attached to Vithai Hospital, Nanded and Dr.Dilip Gaware (P.W.8) Medical Officer ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 11 attached to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, who examined and treated Savitribai.Besides the said witnesses, prosecution has examined Santosh Tahkur (P.W.1) Panch witness to spot and seizure panchanamas and Police Constable Avadhut Kalne (P.W.7) who carried Muddemaal property to the Forensic Laboratory and Assistant Police Inspector Sanjay Pise (P.W.9) and Police Inspector Suryakant Jagdale (P.W.10), the Investigating Officer.Thus, if we consider the overall evidence as adduced by the prosecution, then the conviction of accused is mainly based upon the testimonies of Savitribai (P.W.2), Archana (P.W.5), Dr.Umesh Kolekar (P.W.6), Dr.Dilip Gaware (P.W.8) and recovery of weapon used in commission of offence at the instance of accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::She has deposed that on 19.3.2014 at 7.30 p.m., when she came out of her house after hearing shouts, she heard accused demanding gold ring from her daughter and telling her to marry with him.Accused also told her that he wants to marry with her daughter ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 12 Archana, to which she refused.Thereupon, the accused assaulted her with sword on the upper right side of her chest.She was initially taken to Vithai Hospital, Nanded and later on, shifted to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai and discharged after one month.She identified the sword i.e. Article "A" as the same sword which was used by the accused in assaulting her.She further identified the sari, blouse i.e. Articles "B" and "C" as same clothes, which were on her body at the time of incident and seized by police.She further deposed that at the time of incident, the accused was wearing green T-shirt and identified the Article "D" as same "T" shirt.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::It has been brought on record through her cross- examination that at the time of incident, there were about 20 - 25 tenants residing in the same building belonging to Asha (P.W.3).She has admitted that her daughter Archana had gone to Shirdi and stayed for 3 - 4 days and accused had also gone to Shirdi and stayed for 2 - 3 days.It is further brought on record that before the incident, she had verbally told accused not to chase her ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 13 daughter, who used to follow her while she was going to school.It is brought on record that at the time of incident, 50 - 60 persons were residing in the building and incident was occurred on the steps of staircase going towards upper floor.It is also brought on record that when she raised shouts the neighbours ran away towards their houses seeing sword in the hand of accused.It is further brought on record that she rushed to room of one of tenants after she was assaulted by accused.Thus, if we consider the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2), there is nothing to show that she had cooked a false story to falsely implicate the accused.The testimony of witnesses appears to be natural and truthful and same can be safely accepted to form basis to prove guilt of accused even in absence of corroboration.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::If we consider the testimony of Savitri (P.W.2) in the light of other evidence, then her testimony finds due corroboration from other evidence on record.Archana (P.W.5) has duly corroborated the testimony of Savitri.She has deposed that on 19.3.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 14 the accused came to her house and demanded gold ring.When she refused to give him gold ring, the accused started quarreling with her.When her mother i.e. Savitri (P.W.2) came out of house, the accused told her that he wants to marry with her.Her mother refused to marry her with accused.She further deposed that her mother wanted the accused not to touch her.She further deposed that accused assaulted her mother with sword on the right side of her chest.On receiving the blow, her mother fell down.There was profuse bleeding from the injury.Her mother was taken to Vithai Hospital and later on shifted to J.J. Hospital, Bombay.Accused left the place by giving threats.She further deposed that her mother remained admitted in J.J. Hospital, Mumbai for one month.She identified the sword article "A" as the same used in the commission of offence i.e. assault on her mother.Through her cross-examination, it is brought on record that accused was quarreling with her and as her mother thought that accused would assault her, her mother Savitri pushed her aside and at that time, her mother sustained blow of sword on her chest.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Besides the testimony of Archana (P.W.5) the sole eye witness, there is other evidence in the nature of corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai.He has categorically deposed that on 19.3.2014, Savitribai (P.W.2) was brought to Vithai hospital with injury on upper right side of her chest.He further deposed that the said injured was referred to Dr.Shrikant Zanwar and later on, to Dr. Gulati as it required surgical intervention.She was kept overnight under observation and later on, advised to take her to Mumbai for expert treatment as major damage found to be caused to the vessels.The testimony of the injured Savitri further finds corroboration through the testimony of Dr. Dilip Gaware, (P.W.8) Medical Officer, attached to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.At the time of admission, she found to have ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 16 sutured wound approximately 10 cm in length over right side of her chest.She was then referred to Surgical Department for further treatment.She remained admitted as indoor patient w.e.f. 21.03.2014 to 20.04.2014 and treated by Surgery unit headed by Dr.Rushad Udwadiya.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Besides oral testimonies of above referred witnesses, there is corroboration to testimony of Savitri (P.W.2) in the form of seizure of clothes, seizure of weapon used in the commission of offence at the instance of accused.The injured as well as eye witness have identified the sword i.e. Article "A" as the same weapon was used in commission of offence.The report of Chemical Analyzer reveals that on the sword, human blood of group "A" was detected.Similarly, on the clothes of injured Savitribai i.e. blouse and sari, human blood of group "A" as that of injured was detected.The blood found on the spot, was also found to be human blood of group "A".Thus, there is ample corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2) as to mateerial facts ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 17 deposed by her.I have, therefore, no hesitation to observe that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to prove the complicity of accused in commission of offence of assault on Savitribai (P.W.2).::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in absence of corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2) through independent witness, the accused deserves to be acquitted.In my view, the evidence of Savitribai is such that it requires no corroboration from independent witness.The testimony of Savitribai inspires full confidence.Apart from this, her testimony finds due corroboration from other evidence.In fact, the prosecution had examined two independent witnesses.However, they have not supported the case of the prosecution.Only for the reason that independent witnesses have not supported the testimony of injured, the testimony of Savitri, her testimony cannot be brushed aside.In my view, the ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 18 testimony of Savitribai and Archana are such that it inspires full confidence and can be safely accepted without corroboration from independent witness.In this view, the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court are fully in consonance with the evidence adduced by prosecution as well as based upon due appreciation of evidence.Hence, calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::The next question which poses for consideration is whether the act of the accused can be termed as an attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC.Learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the injury caused to Savitri, the injured cannot be termed as an injury, sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death of any person.He submits that as per the report of injury at Exh.39, the injury found on the body of injured Savitribai described as simple injury.He has contended that only for the reason ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 19 that the injured was lying admitted in the hospital for a period of more than twenty days itself not sufficient to draw conclusion that injury was grievous in nature and may have resulted fatal if it would not have been treated immediately.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::If we consider report at Exh.39, then the nature of injury described as sutured wound with approximately 10 cm in length on right side of chest caused by sharp weapon.The certificate appears to be given on the basis of superficial examination of the injury.The sutured wound was not opened before issuing certificate.There is ample evidence to show that the injury which was caused to the injured was grievous and serious in nature.If the treatment would not have been provided immediately after the incident to the injured then the injury caused to the injured may have resulted into her death.Dr. Kolekar (P.W.6) has categorically deposed that Dr. Gulati, the Surgeon was called in the hospital as the case was found to be ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 20 requiring surgical intervention.He deposed that Dr. Gulati shifted the injured into Operation Theater and opened the bandage.After examining the injury, he found that there was major damage to vessels.The services of Vascular Surgeon was not available in Nanded City, therefore, he advised to shift the patient to Mumbai for expert treatment.He further deposed that Savitribai was referred to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.He has produced on record the Medico Legal Case Papers in respect of treatment given to Savitribai.It reveals from the papers produced at Exh.32 that on opening the wound, there was heavy bleeding and it was suspected that there was vascular injury and therefore, the wound was sutured and the patient was referred to Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Dr. Dilip Gaware, C.M.O. attached to J.J. Hospital (P.W.8), deposed that on 21.3.2014 Savitribai kadam was brought to J.J. Hospital from Nanded.He examined her clinically and found sutured wound over her right side chest.He immediately referred patient for emergency ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 21 surgical department for further treatment.Thus, the injury certificate produced at Exh.39 which was issued only on the basis of clinical examination is not sufficient to accept the contention that the injury suffered was simple injury.She was under treatment and care of Dr. Rushad Udawadiya, the Head of General Surgery Department.He has deposed that location of the injury was on vital organ of body of the injured.Thus, the injury caused to the injured Savitribai cannot be termed as a simple injury.The fact that the injured was required to be shifted to Mumbai for treatment itself reflects seriousness of the injury caused to the injured.The period of hospitalization of injured for more than one month has not been undisputed.Thus, the evidence on record sufficiently proves that the injury caused to the injured Savitribai was grievous in nature.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::The intention of the accused needs to be gathered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence brought on record.The requisite ingredients of the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code are as under :[vii] whether there was any prior enmity or the injured was stranger ;::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::There may be several other special circumstances depends upon the facts and circumstances with reference to particular case which needs to be taken into consideration while drawing inference as to intention of assault.In order to prove the offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused has attempted to cause death of the injured.The word 'attempt' referred in section 307 of the Indian Penal Code necessarily refers in a sense as an intentional preparatory action which fails in its object.The intention to cause the death can ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 26 be gathered from the circumstances.It is not necessary to constitute an offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the attack should result in an injury.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Keeping in mind the above discussed broad principles, I proceed to examine the submissions advanced in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution.If, we consider the facts of the case, then the case of the prosecution is that on the day of the incident, the accused had visited house of injured and found him quarreling with her daughter.He was asking Archana (P.W.5) to give the golden ring.It has been brought on record that the accused as well as Savitribai were residing in same locality.It is also brought on ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 27 record that earlier Archana as well as accused had gone to Shirdi and they stayed there for 3 - 4 days.It is also brought on record that the accused used to chase Archana while she was going out of her house.When the accused wSec.307 and 326 of IPC as quarreling with Archana, the injured was inside the house.She came out of house after hearing quarrel going on outside her house and saw the accused quarreling with her daughter.She found the accused had caught the hands of Archana.When she intervened, the accused told her that he wants to marry with Archana.She refused to marry her daughter with the accused.Archana (P.W.5) deposed that her mother thought that the accused might assault her (i.e. Archana), and therefore, she pushed her aside and at that time her mother received blow of sword on her chest, dealt by the accused.Thus, it can be safely gathered that though the accused had visited the place with sword in his hand, but he had no such intention to assault Savitribai.It is during the course of quarrel, the accused assaulted Savitribai.Thus, on due consideration of evidence on record, I am of the view that offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC has been made out against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be partly allowed to the extent of alteration of conviction of appellant from section 307 of IPC to section 326 of IPC as well as modification of sentence.In the result, I pass the following order:: ORDER :i) Criminal Appeal No.784 of 2015 is partly allowed;ii) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is altered from sectioSec.307 and 326 of IPC n 307 IPC to section 326 IPC.The sentence awarded to the accused to suffer is modified.The appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and pay fine of ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 30 Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days, instead of sentence awarded to undergo R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/-::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::iii) Appeal is disposed of in above terms.[ V.L. ACHLIYA, J ] Kadam.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.949/2016 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 376, 363, 366, 342 of IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act.As per the prosecution story, the applicant lured the prosecutrix and tried to commit rape on the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix is seven years of age and is a student of UKG.The offence registered against the applicant are under Sections 376, 363, 366, 342 of IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act.The prosecutrix has been examined on 27/01/2017 before the trial court and she narrated the story contradictory to the allegations made in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which shows that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.Looking to the allegations made against the applicant, this court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the applicant.In the result, this bail application is dismissed.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

None appears.Seen the record.So it is being disposed of as follows:-There was a prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the petition under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Case No. C-435 of 1998 now pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24- Parganas and an order dated 06.04.1999 passed by the learned ACJM, Sealdah.The background of this case in short is that on 17th August, 1998, the opposite party filed a written complaint before the learned ACJM, Sealdah alleging commission of offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner whereupon the learned Magistrate was pleased to forward the said complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for investigation.Item No. 33The said case was registered as Case No. 133 dated 16.10.1998 under Section 520/406 of the Indian Penal Code.Police commenced investigation.After completion of investigation, police submitted a final report and prayed for discharge of the petitioner.Thereafter, the opposite party filed a Naraji petition before the ACJM, Sealdah for taking cognizance of the original complaint.Pursuant to that Naraji petition on April 6, 1999, the learned ACJM under solemn affirmation took cognizance under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and directed issuance of process against the petitioner.Pursuant to the warrant of arrest, on 14.04.1999, police arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Court.The allegation in complaint was that sn the complainant is a food-grain dealer.The petitioner is an importer and exporter of food-grains.The complainant had business transactions with the accused for last 2/ 3 years.During the course of business the complainant purchased different types of food-grains from the accused.In December 1997 the complainant asked the accused to supply 70 M.T. canada motor at the rate of Rs.10,350/- per M.T. and for supply of the same the accused induced the complainant to pay Rs.7,24,500/-.Complainant paid the same by six different cheques.The accused encashed all the cheques.But the accused did not send the goods within the schedule time.Complainant thereafter, reminded the accused for sending the goods but the accused did not.Then the complainant sent legal notices to the accused.The accused in reply to such legal notice denied his liability to supply the said goods.The petitioner states that the complainant through broker approached the petitioner for supply of 220 M.T. of imported chick peas @ Rs.20,700/-/M.T.by December 31, 1997 and in default , the petitioner shall be liable for interest @ 18% per annum and on that account made an advance of Rs.6,21,000/-.Accordingly, the petitioner arranged for delivery of the said 220 M./T. of imported chick peas and informed the opposite party.But the opposite party failed and neglected to take delivery of the said chick peas or to make payment of balance sum of Rs.39,33,000/- plus interest.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the continuance of the proceedings in connection with the case No. C-435 of 1998 under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code the petitioner has come up before this Court.

['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.

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL):P.103/2012 Page 2 of 3Accordingly, this defence is left open to be decided by the trial court after recording of evidence.Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid clarifications, but with no order as to costs.MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 06, 2012 NG Crl.P.103/2012 Page 3 of 3P.103/2012 Page 3 of 3

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

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

No costs.18.09.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes/No ar Note: Issue order copy on 24.11.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.6 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 To:Page No.6 of 8The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) Vellore.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.Page No.7 of 8Page No.8 of 8The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the third respondent dated 23.09.2005 made in C.No.B/A 28/2005, which confirmed the order of the second respondent passed in Ref.H1(1) PR No.237/2004 dated 30.06.2005, whereby awarding the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement”http://www.judis.nic.in to the petitioner.The petitioner also sought a direction to the Page No.1 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages together with all attendant benefits.Page No.1 of 8The case of the petitioner is that he, while in service, is said to have involved in a case of rape, alleging that he, having promised to marry a school going girl, married her relative without marrying the victim girl and based on the complaint given by the victim girl, a criminal case has been initiated, apart from initiation of departmental proceedings.It is further case of the petitioner that the criminal case foisted against the petitioner under Sections 417, 376 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.38 of 2004 on the file of All Women Police Station, Vellore, ended in acquittal, whereas in the departmental proceedings, he was awarded the punishment of Compulsory Retirement, despite his acquittal in the criminal case and the witnesses including the complainant turning hostile.It is also the case of the petitioner that he already married his relative on 10.09.2004 and that there is no iota of evidence to establish the charges under the Domestic Enquiry.The punishment imposed in the departmental enquiry was based on the contradictory statement made before the criminal Court and the order of compulsory retirement was issued on 30.06.2005 by the 2nd respondent, which has been confirmed by the 3rd respondent on 23.09.2005 on the erroneous ground, which need to be interfered with.It is stated that even assuming that the charges are established, the order of compulsory retirement is very harsh and this Court has to mould the relief and grant the relief, as the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page No.2 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 was acquitted in the criminal case.Page No.2 of 8The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner was recruited as Police Constable on 09.06.1993 and that there were two complaints dated 14.09.2004 and 15.09.2004 lodged by one Kanthalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Victim Girl') and her mother respectively, alleging that the petitioner, under the pretext of marrying the Victim Girl, who was aged 17 years, took her to his house and had a sexual intercourse with her and later, instead of marrying her, married some other lady on 10.09.2004, that too while on medical leave in a hurried manner.It is further stated that a detailed enquiry has been conducted, apart from registering a criminal case in Crime No.38 of 2004 under various provisions of IPC stated supra and based on the complaint of the Victim Girl, departmental proceedings under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was also simultaneously taken.It is narrated in the counter affidavit that in the enquiry, it was proved that the petitioner used to pick up the Victim Girl from her house frequently and the other charge that he committed rape on her, has not been proved, whereas the charges levelled against him that he married his relative's girl while on medical leave on 10.09.2004 and he involved in a criminal case, have been duly proved.An enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the 1st respondent in respect of Charge No.1, while agreeing with other findings.Page No.3 of 8In the counter affidavit, it is described that the fact that the petitioner was moving with the Victim Girl was duly established and the act of the petitioner had totally spoiled the image of Police Force, which attracts Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964 and if the petitioner is really innocent, there was no reason to marry his relative while on medical leave, after having promised to marry the Victim Girl and the said Victim Girl, in the departmental proceedings categorically stated that both the petitioner and she were moving voluntarily and he, under the pretext of going to temple, took her away from her house and had sexual intercourse with her under coercion and threat and later, betrayed her.It is further narrated in the counter affidavit that the mother of the victim girl deposed in the enquiry that she was informed by her daughter's teacher that her daughter confessed to her that she was raped by the petitioner and P.W.3, a colleague of the petitioner also deposed that he had seen the petitioner and the Victim Girl in front of his house in the Armed Reserve Quarters, where outsiders are prohibited and therefore, there is a convincing evidence about the close relationship between the petitioner and the Victim Girl, who has no business to visit the quarters of the petitioner andhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page No.4 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 since the preponderance of his guilt has been proved, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.Page No.4 of 84. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on recordThe Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the Victim Girl was a minor and the petitioner has, not only spoiled the life of the Victim Girl, but also the image of Police Force for his sexual lust and in order to get rid of the problem, he applied for Medical Leave and during that period, he suddenly married another girl.Several witnesses have given categorical evidence against the petitioner, which has been duly taken note of by the Appellate Authority and rightly upheld the order of the 2nd respondent, which, in the considered opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.Page No.5 of 8Accordingly, finding no merits in the argument put forth on the side of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for respondent.The prosecution case against the appellant-accused maybriefly be stated thus : There is a Rosary Co-operativeHousing Society Ltd. in a suburb of Bombay, It owns abuilding having 48 flats of which 23 flats belong to thewell-known Tata concerns.Sir Dorabji Tata Trust holds 3flats out of these 23 flats.It appears that in view of thelarge number of flats held by the Tatas they wanted to havea representation on the managing committee of the societyand participate in its affairs.One R. D. Doongaji (PW1)was the General Secretary of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust apartfrom his, being a Legal Adviser to Tatas in their ShareDepartment; on and from November 6, 1964, he after beingelected, was working as a Chairman of the Managing Committeeof the Society.One K. N. Singh, Advocate (PW12) wasworking as the figure-head Secretary of the Society.TheSociety had a Bank account with Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., which was operated jointly by Doongaji(PWI) and K. N. Singh (P.W. 12).One B. A. Sagar (PW2) wasworking as the Estate Manager of the Society from April 1,1967 and he retired due to old age with effect from December31, 1969, where after one Mathew Figrado (PW7) worked asEstate Manager.As Estate Manager, Sagar's duties were tocollect the monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/-from each flat-bolder of the Society, to look after themaintenance of the-said building, to undertake-the repairsafter obtaining the oral sanction of the managing committeeand incur expenditure therefor either from the collection ofcompensation or from his own pocket, to draw his own salaryand the salary of the staff of the Society from suchcollections, and to hand over the balance to the HonoraryAccountant of the Society together with a statement 'ofaccount and vouchers, in respect of sundry expensesincurred.However, he was not allowed to spend more thanRs. 100/- at a time for carrying out the repairs to thebuilding.The appellant-accused,- who was working asAccounts Clerk in Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, was appointed byDoongaji (PWI) as an Honorary Accountant of the Society inMay 1966 and he worked in that capacity for the Society tillJuly 1, 1970 when his services were dispensed with.As anHonorary Accountant of the Society his duties inter aliawere to write and maintain the books of accounts (Cash-Book,ledger, journal and the voucher file), to receive amounts ofcompensation collected by the Estate Manager from themembers ,of the Society, to reimburse the Estate Manager bycheques for sundry expenses which the latter may haveincurred, to pay the municipal4 8 2taxes and to make other payments of bills again by chequesonly and that too after verifying from the minute book thatsuch payments had been sanctioned by the managing committeeof the Society and also to make payments by cheques onlyagainst the vouchers after satisfying himself about thegenuineness of the vouchers.According to the prosecutionin the month of December 1969 a proprietary firm M/s A. G.R. Patni & Co. had carried out a small job of clearing achoked pipe line of the storage tank of the Society and hadsubmitted its bill No. 49 dated December 14, 1969 for Rs.7.50 (Exh. 5 Colly.).It was received by Sagar (PW2) and wasordinarily required to be paid by him but it appears thatsince he was retiring at the end of December, 1969, he didnot disburse the amount to Patni but handed it over to theappellant-accused.According to the prosecution this bill(Ext.5 Colly.), when it was originally received and washanded over by Sagar (PW2) to the appellant-accused was, forRs.7.50, the identical amount being mentioned both infigures and words, but some time later it was interpolatedby adding the, figure of "160" before the figure "7"inflating the amount to Rs. 1607.50 in figures withoutaltering the amount in words; in other words, as altered thebill showed the amount as Rs. 1607.50 in figures but rupeesseven and fifty paise only in words.Further, according tothe prosecution, another document purporting to be a typedunstamped voucher-cum-receipt dated 3-4-1970 for Rs. 1607.50(Ext.5 colly.) connected with and related to aforesaidinterpolated and inflated bill purporting to bear thesignature of B. A. Sagar, Estate Manager (PW2) and theinitials of R. D. Doongaji, the Chairman of the ManagingCommittee (P.W.1), came into existence.The prosecution wasunable to say who had actually interpolated and inflated thebill No. 49 (Ext. 5 colly.) as also who had brought intoexistence the aforesaid voucher/.receipt (Ex. 5 colly.) onwhich forged signature of Sagar and forged initials ofDoongaji appeared.But the prosecution case was that theappellant accused fraudulently or dishonestly used asgenuine the said bin and the said typed voucher/receiptknowing or having reason to believe that these documentswere forged for the purpose of issuing a bearer cheque forthe said inflated amount and misappropriating the same.Theprosecution story was that for the sake of convenience andfacility of work a practice was followed in the Society thatat a 1 time about 8 to 10 blank cheques used to be signed byDoongaji (PW1) first and then by K. N. Singh (PW12) and thecheque-book containing such signed blank cheques used toremain in the custody of the appellant-accused and wheneverpayment was required to be made by cheque the appellantaccused used to write the body of the cheque in his own handand make the by issuing the same; that asregards bill No. 49 of Patni & Co appellant-accused in hiscapacity as Honorary Accountant on the basis of inflatedbill as well as the forged voucher/receipt (Ex. 5 colly.)made use of one of such blank cheques signed by Doongaji andSingh by issuing a bearer cheque No. 377137 dated 3-4-1970for Rs. 1607.50 in favour of Shivram A Lad (PW8), Peon inDorabji Tata Trust; that Lad withdrew the amount from theSociety's Bank at the instance of the appellant-accused andhanded it over to him, which the appellant-'4 83accused dishonestly misappropriated.Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant-accused on or about April 3, 1970 dishonestly used asgenuine two forged documents, namely, the bill No. 49 datedDecember 14, 1969 as well as the voucher/receipt dated April3, 1970, knowing or having reason to believe them to beforged at the time of such user that he committed criminalbreach of trust in respect of the sum of Rs. 1607.50andalso falsified the books of accounts of the Society.Itappearsthat in the last week of June 1970, Sagar (PW2)the retired Estate Manager, complained to Doongaji (PW 1)that certain amountswhich had been paid by him to theappellant-accused were not to be found in the books ofaccounts of the Society maintained by the appellant-accused,whereupon Doongaji took Sagar to Professor Choksi, themanaging trustee of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and in July orAugust, 1970 Karsi Gherda (PW11).Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order datedthe 30th September, 1974 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.A. No. 176 of 1974,J.P. Mehta, B. R. Aggarwala and P. B. Aggarwala for theAppellant.Controller of Accounts inTata Electric Company was requested to look into theaccounts of the Society.The crime was registered by_the Palton Road Police Station and subsequently theinvestigation was taken over by the Crime Branch C.I.D. andafter completion of the investigation the appellant-accusedwas charge-sheeted and then committed to the, Court ofSessions to stand his trial for offences under s. 471 readwith s. 468 (two counts) one in respect of each of the twodocuments, the bill and the voucher/receipt, s. 408 and s.477A. I.P.C.The appellant-accused abjured-guilt and denied havingcommitted any of the offences with which he was charged.Hedisputed that there was any practice to keep in his custodythe cheque-book of the society containing the blank chequessigned by Doongaji (PWI) and K. N. Singh (PWI2) as suggestedby the prosecution or that he bad made use of any suchsigned blank cheque by issuing the bearer cheque No. 377137on April 3,1970 for Rs. 1607.50 for the purpose ofmisappropriating the amount as alleged.According to himthe amount of Rs. 1607.50 was paid in cash by him to Sagar(PW2) on the instructions from Doongaji (PWI) but at thattime he had told Doongaji that a large amount was due bySagar to the society and if at all the payment was to bemade to him it should be adjusted against the amount due tothe Society from him.but Doongaji did not accept hissuggestion but insisted that the amount should be paid toSagar without any adjustment.The appellant-accused deniedthat the bill of Patni & Co. was handed over to him by Sagarat any time or at about the time when the payment was madeto him at the484instance of Doongaji but what was banded over to him was abill- cum-receipt of M/s Patni & Co. written in Gujaraticontaining the rubber stamp of M/s. Patni & Co., on thestrength of which the payment was vouched but thisGujarati writing was not forthcoming.Even though he hadmade cash payment of Rs. 1607.50 to Sagar underinstructions of Doongaji, he wanted an entry of this amountin the Bank column of the Cash-Book of the society and thishe did by way of precaution since according to him atthat time a large amount was due to be paid by Sagar tothe Society.Accordingly, he filled in the body of thecheque and in the presence of Doongaji on the top of thecounter-foil of the cheque he made an endorsement "underverbal order of R.D.D." He wrote down the name of Lad, aPeon of J. N. Tata in the body of the cheque.TheMaharashtra State Co-operative Bank was not permittingthe bearer cheque to be cashed unless the Chairman and theSecretary of the Society gave their signatures on thereverse of the cheques and since it was difficult to obtainthe signatures of the Secretary Singh, he wrote the name ofLad as the payee of the cheque while on the counter-foil hementioned the name of A.G.R. Patni and Co. because thepayment of Rs. 1607.50 had been made towards thesatisfaction of the bill for that amount to Patni & Co.by Sagar.His case further was that after Lad cashed thecheque, Lad gave the amount to him which be kept in thecash-box; in other words, his defence was that from outof the cash-box he made cash payment of Rs. 1607.50 to Sagaron the insistence of Doongaji and then replenished the cash-box after encashment of the cheque through Lad.Hefurther emphatically disputed that he had used theforged bill and forged voucher/,receipt in connectionwith the payment of Rs. 1607.50 which he made, to Sagar atthe instance of Doongaji.He also denied that he hadmisappropriated the amount or had falsified the cash-book asalleged and the case of the prosecution being entirelyfalse he deserved to be acquitted.At the trial the prosecution led oral as well as documentaryevidence in support of its case.The oral evidence consistedof as many as 15 witnesses out of whom 7 witnesses werematerial, namely, Doongaji (PW1), Sagar (PW2), Abdul GaniPatni (PW3), Shivram Lad (PW8), Nariman Deboo (PW6),Kars Gherda (PWll) and K. N. Singh (PW12).One Nand Kumar Parekh, an Hand-writingExpert and the State Examiner of Documents in the StateC.I.D. was examined who gave his expert opinion that thepurported signature "B. A. Sagar" and the purportedinitial "RDD" appearing on the485voucher-cum-receipt dated April 3, 1970 (Ext. 5 colly.) werenot in the hand of witnesses Sagar and Doongaji respectivelybut were traced forgeries and gave reasons for his saidopinion of course, this was in addition to the positiveevidence of these two witnesses who had stated that theconcerned 'signature and the concerned initial were nottheir's.The learned Session Judge on a consideration ofthe evidence on record came to the conclusion that theprosecution had failed to establish any of the chargesagainst the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hedid not accept the prosecution case that signed blankcheques 8 or 10 at a time used to be kept with theappellant-accused and did not accept the evidence of eitherDoongaji (PW1) or K. N. Singh (PW12) in that behalf, foraccording to him, the reasons for resorting to such practicewere not satisfactory.He also took the view that it wasnot possible to accept the prosecution case that theappellant-accused was in possession of the original bill No.49 dated December 14, 1969 of Patni & Co. and he felt thatdefence version bad been rendered probable that theappellant-accused must have made the payment of Rs. 1607.50to Sagar at the instance of Doongaji especially as on thecounter-foil of the concerned bearer cheque No. 377137 datedApril 3, 1970 there was an endorsement made by 'theappellant-accused "under verbal order of RDD"; in otherwords, he was inclined to accept the defence case that theappellant-accused had first paid out cash of Rs. 1607.50 toSagar from out of the cash-box and thereafter replenishedthe cash-box by issuing the bearer cheque and getting itencashed through peon Shivram Lad.Against this acquittal order passedby learned Addl.Inappeal the High Court reversed the acquittal recorded infavour of the accused by the learned Addl.The High Court rejected the defence version thatthe appellant-accused had first paid cash out of the cashboxto Sagar as suggested by him or that be bad done so at the486instance of Doongaji or that he had issued the bearer chequeunder verbal order of Doongaji as suggested.It found thatthe Society had not got so much cash with it on or aboutApril 3, 1970, that the cash balance on hand with theSociety for quite some time prior to April 3, 1970 was onlyRs.505.07p; that Sagar's evidence that he had not gone tothe office in the month of April, 1970 after his retirermentwas acceptable and, therefore, the accused's version that hehad first paid cash to Sagar and had replenished cash byissuing and encashing the bearer cheque was utterly falseand he had dishonestly misappropriated the amount.Holdingthat the prosecution had established its case against theappellant-accused beyond doubt, the High Court convicted himof all the charges levelled against him.However, on thequestion of sentence, for certain reasons mentioned by it inits judgment, the High Court sentenced him to one day'simprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.It was also not disputed that the said bill when itwas submitted by Abdul Gani Patni (PW3) and when it wasreceived by Sagar (PW2) the amount thereof both in figuresand words was Rs. 7.50 and it was some time later that thisbill No. 49 got interpolated and become inflated to Rs.1607.50 by addition of the figure "160" before the figure"7" but such interpolation only appeared in the amountexpressed in figures while the amount expressed in wordscontinued to be "rupees, seven and fifty paise only.".it istrue that the prosecution has not been able to show as tohow and who made such interpolation in this bill but itcannot be disputed that anyone who would come across suchbill (being Part of Ex. 5 colly) would immediately noticethe interpolation and discrepancy therein, so that whoeveruses the bill at any time subsequent to its tampering wouldhave knowledge and reason to believe that the same has beenforged.In other wordsthe.Dealing first with the prosecution theory that blank chequessigned by Doongaji and Singh used to remain in the custodyof the accused there is evidence of two prosecutionwitnesses on the point, namely, Doongaji (PW1), and Singh(PW12); Doongaji (PW1) has stated that the bank accountcould be operated jointly by himself asthe Chairman andSingh as the Secretary, that Singh used to resideatGoregaon and every time whenever the cheque was required tobe drawn it was not possible for Singh to give hissignature onthe same and further that Singh used toinsist that before he wouldput his signature on thecheque of the society, the Chairman shouldput hissignature on the same and, therefore, with a view tofacilitatethe convenience of Singh, it was thepractice of the society that at atime about 8 to 10blank cheques used to be signed by him first andthey weresent to Singh through witness Sagar the Estate Manager, andSingh used to put his signatures thereon, and the chequebook containing such signed blank cheques always used toremain in the custody of the accused and on every occasionthe particulars of the cheque both in words as well as infigures used to be written by the appellant-accused.Doongaji also stated that the books of account, the vouchersand cheque book used to be kept in the custody of theaccused in the office of Sir Doongaji Tata Trust.To thesame effect was the evidence of Singh (PWI2), who confirmedthat he used to put his signatures on blank cheques wheneverthey were signed by the Chairman 'of the Society and be usedto receive such blank cheques duly signed by the Chairman ofthe Society first through Sagar and later through Sagar'ssuccessor Figrado and that at a time he used to sign blankcheques between 5 to 10 in number and sometimes they used tobe 15 also.This evidence was sought to be demolished bythe defence by relying upon two or three factors.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has, infact, made a half-hearted finding on this part of theprosecution case by observing as follows in para 36 of thejudgment "The probabilities would rather show that the chequebook containing the blank cheques signed by Mr. Doongaji as well as by Mr. Singh would continue to remain with Mr. Doongaji and as and when an occasion arose for issuing a cheque the accused would be summoned and he would be asked to fill in the body of the cheque and then the cheque would be issued."The observation suggests that the learned trial Judge hasaccepted the prosecution case partly, namely that onprobabilities the cheque-book used to contain blank chequessigned by Doongaji as well as by Mr. Singh but according tohim such cheque-book containing signed blank cheque wouldcontinue to remain with Doongaji.We fail to appreciate asto why, if at all, the cheque-book was to remain withDoongaji and the cheques would be issued by the accused inthe manner suggested by him, blank cheques would be signedby Doongaji at all.The evidence of the two witnesses asalso the contents of the letter Ext. 59-D clearly show thatthe practice as put forward by the prosecution did obtain inthe society.Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence of thetwo witnesses and the support it receives from the contentsof the letter Ext. 59-D, there is yet one circumstance whichsupports the prosecution story on the question of aforesaidpractice and that circumstance arises from the defence,version itself.(1) that it was the last month of hisservice and (2) that be did not have sufficient funds withhim and according to the defence both the reasons do notbear scrutiny and if the reasons for not disbursing the,bill are false his evidence, that he handed over the billto the appellant,accused cannot and should not be accepted.It has been elicited in his evidence that he used to keepwith him cash of the, Society out of the collections made byhim for days and months and in any case it would bedifficult to believe that be did not have a paltry sum ofRs. 7.50/- with him and it has been further elicited thatthough it was the last month of his service he had madecollection from the occupants of the flats.It was thusurged that both the reasons put forward by the witness fornot disbursing the bill being false his evidence should beit ejected.Manager,from time to time.Karsi Gherda afterhehad been apprised by Nariman Deboo about the existence ofthesetwo documents (Ext. 5 collectively) which were fictitiousand fraudulent in character.' had a meeting of the personsconcerned and had confronted the appellant-accused withthese two documents.particularly, the bill part of Ext. P5and from what the accused stated at that time to the witnessit would be clear that the appellant-accused was fullyconscious and aware of the clear inter-1,therefore sent for the accused.When I showed this billpart of Ext. 5 collectively and asked him as to what hewanted to say with regard to the clear interpolation in thefigure of Rs. 1607.50 the accused agreed with me and told methat even if it was clear case of interpolation, he paid off the amount under the authority of Doongaji, who wasChairman of the Managing Committee of the Society".Nothingwas elicited in /his cross-"amination so as to cast anydoubt on this part of the evidence given by him in examina-tion-in-Chief.We might, however, state that for the firsttime in the appeal when it was being heard by the, HighCourt an application was made seeking permission to recallthe witness for the purpose of contradicting him with hispolice statement where, according to the appellant-accused,the witness had not given his version as to what transpiredbetween him and the accused during the meeting in suchdetails but that application was rejected by the High Courtand, in our view, rightly.The aforesaid evidence ofwitness Karsi Gherda, therefore, clearly brings out theaspect that on his own admission the appellant-accused hadmade the payment of the bill on the strength of the billwith full consciousness and awareness that the same was aninterpolated and forged document.from the fact thatin his statement under s. 342 Cr.P.C., the accused has comeout with a story that at about the time when he made paymentin cash to Sagar through Doongaji and issued the bearercheque and got it encashed for replenishing of the cash,some Gujarati voucher byway of a receipt from Patni & Co,had been produced to him but somehow or the other thatGujarati voucher was not forth coming.In other words, thatthe disbursement of the bill would require to be vouched bya voucher-cum-receipt was very well known to the appellant-accused.The Gujarati writing, it seems to us, is not forthcoming because there was no such Gujarati writing at all inexistence and the appellant accused purported to make thedisbursement of the forged bill on the basis of getting thesame vouched by means of the forged voucher-cum-receipt,(being the other part of Ext. 5 collectively.) In our view,therefore, on the aforesaid material which we have discussedabove it appears to us clear that the prosecution could besaid to have established its charge under S. 471 read withs.467 I.P.C. under both the counts against the accusedbeyond any reasonable doubt and the High Court was justifiedin reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial Court inhis favour on these counts.

['Section 471 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.

2.The prosecution case is that on 29.11.2007, at about 02.00 p.m., the appellant herein took away the victim girl from the lawful custody of P.W.1 and went to Kerala and during his stay there, for more than 45 days, he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl.In this regard, Ex.P1-Complaint was lodged by P.W.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Poonamaravathy Police Station on 29.11.2007 itself.The appellant herein was found guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, vide Judgment dated 22.01.2010 in S.C.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.Based on Ex.P1, Crime No.2 of 2008, was registered on 05.01.2008 for the offence under Section 366(a) of IPC(Ex.P10).Investigation continued and final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam for the offences under Sections 376, 366 and 366(a) of IPC against the appellant herein.Charges were framed 3 against the accused under the aforesaid provisions and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In support of the prosecution case as many as 13 witnesses were examined.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.The learned trial Judge, by Judgment dated 22.01.2010, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 376 of IPC and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the appeal memorandum.The relationship between the parties appears to havehttp://www.judis.nic.insuffered crack on account of this developments.She had admitted the love affair with the appellant.She had voluntarily gone with the appellant.Her evidence further reinforces the appellant's claim that he always had an intention to marry her and that it was only on account of the criminal case filed by the father of the girl, their entire plan got thwarted.What was marked was only 6 Ex.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following an earlier decision, held that the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the approximate date, which is not supported by any record and that it would be quiet unsafe to base conviction on an approximate date.The case on hand is quite similar.The age of the victim has not been established beyond reasonable doubt as below 18 on the occurrence date.The impugned Judgment is set aside.This criminal appeal is allowed.

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

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

MANMOHAN, J:It is easy for a person in Delhi to reach from one place to other within a hour and the case of the accused is not of that, they were far away from Delhi and it was not possible for them to reach at house on the day of incident.Rather, both the accused were in Delhi and there is no evidence of time of leaving their house in the morning.In the prosecution evidence it is already deposed by the witnesses that accused persons have harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and as the marriage was performed on 13.12.2010 and the death of the CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 3 of 23 deceased has been caused within one month from the date of marriage.The prosecution witnesses has particularly deposed regarding the demand of dowry, in the shape of share from the Malka Ganj property, where the deceased and her sisters were having share of one room and deceased before her death was asked to sell the property.A.606/2018 & Crl.He did not disclose about harassment or demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs or cruelty to his daughter.Even if it is assumed that the appellant was under the shock of death of his daughter or that appellant came to know about demand of Rs. 10 lakhs after cremation of his daughter, as alleged by him in his statement in the Court, he should have made statement immediately or within one or two days thereafter or should have given some complaint in writing to the police or SDM.It is also relevant to note that no complaint regarding harassment, cruelty or demand of dowry was lodged by the deceased Geeta during her marital life or shortly thereafter.It is also pertinent to note that at no point in time, in his statement before the SDM on 22th September, 1999 exhibited as Ex.PW9/B and his statement under Section 161 Cr.However, the testimonies of Pinky (PW-3) and Rakhi (PW-4) do not inspire confidence inasmuch as they are not corroborated.In fact, other relatives of the deceased, namely, sister Kusum (PW-1), uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) and aunt Phoolwati (PW-13) have deposed to the contrary inasmuch as they have not mentioned any demand for dowry by the appellant-A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 16 of 23The relevant portions of the testimonies of sister Kusum (PW-1), uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) and aunt Phoolwati (PW-13) of the deceased are reproduced hereinbelow:-I and Tai Ji enquired from Anju as to why she was sust from 06.01.11 to 09.01.11, however, she replied sasural main sab kuch theek thak hai......"B) Testimony of Uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) ".......At the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made from me by accused Rohit @ Sunny @ Sandeep or any of his family member.......Q. When Anju visited your house after her marriage, did you feel that Anju was in any trouble / problem?Yes, I observed that she was lazy (sust thi) On this, I asked my niece that is she having any problem to which she replied that she is living comfortably at her matrimonial home......"C) Testimony of Aunt Phoolwati (PW-13) "..........When Anju came to my house after 4-5 days of her CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 17 of 23 marriage she did not tell me that any cruelty being committed upon her in respect of demand of dowry in her matrimonial home as to sell out the parental home and give the share to them.A.606/2018 & Crl.However, the appellant- convicts have proved by leading defence evidence that they were not present at their house during those hours.The CDR exhibited by Israr Babu (DW-6) of both the appellant-convicts and the testimonies of Hitesh Sahni (DW-1), Rohit Goyal (DW-2) and Hari Ram (DW-3) prove that the appellant- convicts were not at their residence on 10th January, 2011 at the time of the incident.The relevant portion of the testimonies of Hitesh Sahni (DW-1) and Rohit Goyal (DW-2) are reproduced hereinbelow:-On 10.01.2010, I had sent accused Sandeep with my other employee Rohit Goel to pick up some property documents from Mindray Medicals which is based in Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi.He requested me to start for my home immediately or he may be relieved as he has an emergency at his home.Since our work of the day had almost finished, we immediately packed up and started for home in the car being driven by Sandeep.On leaving us at our home in Paschim Vihar, Sandeep had immediately left for his home on his bike which he had parked outside my house.Throughout our return journey of about 45 minutes, Sandeep made some calls and also received few calls and therefore almost kept on talking on his mobile phone.We could assess that there was some serious issue in his family for which reason, I could not stop him from talking on mobile while driving otherwise I would have stopped him."A.606/2018 & Crl.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 23 of 23While Crl.A.606/2018 has been filed by appellant-convict Sandeep @ Sunny @ Rohit (husband of the deceased) and appellant-convict Deepak (brother-in-law of the deceased) challenging the judgment dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, North-West CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 1 of 23 District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Case No.52035/2016 arising out of FIR No.6/2011 registered with Police Station Aman Vihar convicting them under Sections 304B/34 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 15,000/- , as well as under Sections 498A/34 IPC for which they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; Crl.L.P. 260/2018 has been filed by the State, against the same judgment challenging the acquittal of the appellant-convicts under Section 302 IPC.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 1 of 23CASE OF THE PROSECUTIONThe case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant-convict Sandeep had married Anju (deceased) on 13th December 2010 and that on 10th January 2011 i.e. within a month of her marriage, she was found dead at her matrimonial home.The FIR bearing No. 6/2011 under Sections 302, 304B and 34 of the IPC was registered with Police Station Aman Vihar.After the investigation, the appellant-convicts were arrested on 5th April, 2013 and a charge sheet under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 34 of the IPC was filed against them.L.P.260/2018 Page 3 of 23xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxApart from the facts discussed above, I deem it appropriate to discuss the conduct of accused persons also before coming to the conclusion.As it is established on record by the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW 1 that she received a telephonic message from the sister of accused in the night at around 11:00 PM on 10.01.2011 regarding the illness of the deceased.No efforts has been made by them to took the deceased to a Doctor at the earliest.Even no message to the Police had been given in the 100 number at the night.The DW 5 has deposed that they remained in the house throughout a day and they were aware that the deceased was not feeling well.No such well being of the deceased was asked by the accused persons or their family members in the day time.They were silent throughout the period and did not made any efforts to know the reality or truth regarding the death of deceased Anju.This also casts a doubt on their role.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 4 of 2374. ....... Though, there is no direct evidence to establish on record by the prosecution that the deceased has been murdered by the accused persons.Therefore, in absence of any direct evidence regarding strangulation and causing death of deceased Anju therefore, they can not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.However, there is sufficient material available on record which has been proved and corroborated by the prosecution witnesses by leading oral and medical evidence.Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt and there was a rebuttable presumption under Section 114 B of Evidence Act as well as under Section 304 B IPC, which is not being rebutted by the accused persons.The death of deceased has been caused in unnatural manner within seven years of her marriage as provided under Section 304 B IPC and here the death has been cause within one month of the marriage and there are allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on account of demand of dowry.Let they be heard on the quantum of sentence."ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICTSMr. Mohd. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant-convicts stated that the marriage between the deceased and appellant-convict Sandeep was a love marriage.He further stated that no cruelty was inflicted upon the deceased as there was no demand for dowry by the appellant-convicts and that she was comfortable in her matrimonial home.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 5 of 23He contended that even the statements made by the sister of the deceased, Kusum (PW-1) and their uncle, Ganesh Lal (PW-2) to the SDM (PW-24) on the day after the death of the deceased i.e 11th January 2011 did not contain any allegations of demand for dowry and the same was corroborated by the testimony of the SDM (PW-24).He emphasised that as there was no allegation against the appellant-convicts they were not arrested for more than two years after the death of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant-convicts contended that the allegations with regard to demand for dowry by the appellant-convicts were for the first time made in vague statements to the SDM (PW-19) by two other sisters of the deceased - Pinky (PW-3) and Rakhi (PW-4), nearly two years after the death of the deceased.He pointed out that the sisters of the deceased while getting their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., added a new allegation that on 1st January, 2011 when they had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased, she had informed them that there was a dowry demand with regard to her share in her ancestral one room house and consequently, the appellant-convicts were arrested.It is only for the first time on 22nd September, 1999 (after about 37 days of incident) that the appellant and his wife Suman Gupta made statement to SDM and made allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 6 of 23Further, the appellant has not alleged that any demand was made from him rather Suman Gupta (PW-12) has deposed that Satpal, uncle of Rajesh Gupta, his mother Pushpa Devi and Suman (sister-in-law) used to demand dowry from the deceased Geeta.PW-12 has deposed that after three days of marriage, her daughter came to her house and disclosed that she was being harassed and money was being demanded.L.P.260/2018 Page 8 of 23L.P.260/2018 Page 9 of 23ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APP FOR STATEPer contra, Ms. Aasha Tiwari, learned APP for the State contended that as per the Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW 12/A) the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia consequent to obstruction of the airway by strangulation of the neck and Dr. Manoj Dhingra, (PW-12) who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased had opined that "the injuries on the neck were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature".She pointed out that as per the Post Mortem Report, all the injuries on the body of the deceased were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration.She also stated that as per the subsequent opinion on the Post Mortem Report, the injuries were not self inflicted and there was least likelihood of the deceased strangulating herself.12. Learned APP for the State further stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in her matrimonial house itself and the sister of the appellant-convicts, Seema (DW-5) had deposed that on the day the deceased had died, she along with her mother and sister remained in the house throughout the day and no outsider had entered the house.She contended that in view of the aforesaid, the burden was on the appellant-convicts to explain how the death of the deceased had happened and they had failed to discharge the said burden.L.P.260/2018 Page 10 of 23 and Rakhi (PW-4) had deposed that the appellant-convicts had harassed the deceased in connection with a demand for dowry.She pointed out that they had deposed that the demand for dowry was specifically in regard to the deceased's share in the ancestral property situated in Malkaganj and that the deceased before her death was asked to sell the property.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 10 of 23She pointed out that it was not the appellant- convicts' case that they were far away from Delhi and that it was not possible for them to reach their house on the day of the incident.She emphasised that both the appellant-convicts were in Delhi and it is very easy for a person in Delhi to reach from one place to another within an hour and that there was no evidence of the time on which the appellant-convicts had left their house in the morning on the date of the incident.Learned APP for the State also stated that as per the evidence on record, a telephone call was made to the sister of the deceased Kusum (PW-1) at about 11 pm on 10th January, 2011 to inform her that the deceased was not waking up.PW 2's evidence that he met Archana at their parental home on 9-8-1997 and that Archana informed him about the demand of Rs 5,00,000 and cruelty meted out to her and that he proceeded to the house of the appellants to settle the dispute amicably is quite natural and inspires confidence.PW 2 acted like a loving brother and probably he did not want to give tension to his old parents and on seeing the urgency of the matter, went to the appellants' house to convince them.By perusal of evidence of PW 2, it is seen that he remained consistent throughout his cross-examination and nothing CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 13 of 23 substantial was elicited to discredit his version.Merely because PW 2 has not produced documents showing the permission granted to him to be away from the headquarters Tehri from 7- 8-1997 to 10-8-1997, version of PW 2 cannot be doubted.The reasons stated by PW 2 for his stay in hotel is quite convincing and the contention assailing the credibility of PW 2 was rightly rejected by the trial court and the High Court.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 13 of 23It has been further contended on behalf of the appellants that there was delay in recording the statement of PW 2 by the investigating officer and therefore his evidence should be viewed with suspicion, especially when he did not disclose about the alleged dowry demand before he left for Dehradun or till his statement was recorded by the police.In this context as pointed out earlier, PW 2 went to Mumbai for treatment of his wife and on 14-8-1997 he was informed about the death of Archana and on the next day he returned to Delhi by air and from Delhi he reached Dehradun by taxi.Learned APP vehemently denied that the prosecution had withheld the best evidence.She referred to the testimonies of the investigating officer Insp.Vijender Pal (PW-28) and Israr Babu (DW-6).The relevant portions of the said testimonies are reproduced hereinbelow:-A.606/2018 & Crl.This information was also furnished to me by the service provider through email.I do not remember now the name of service provider.I had send the said request to service provider through E-mail, copies of said e-mails were not made part of record....."PP for the State.It is correct that the updated Cell ID chart Ex.I was able to retrieve the CDR Ex.DW6/A and Ex.DW6/D after about 5-6 years because the same must have been generated initially on the request of any investing agency....."The investigation was also stated to be defective since the gun was not sent for forensic test.L.P.260/2018 Page 15 of 23COURTS REASONING IN VIEW OF TESTIMONIES OF THE SDM (PW-24) (WHO IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS) UNCLE GANESH LAL (PW-2), AUNT PHOOLWATI (PW-13) AND SISTER KUSUM (PW-1), (WITH WHOM THE DECEASED HAD STAYED FROM 06TH JANUARY, 2011 TILL 09TH JANUARY, 2011), THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF TWO OTHER SISTERS I.E. PINKY (PW-3) AND RAKHI (PW-4) ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, UNCORROBORATED AND AN AFTERTHOUGHT.ACCORDINGLY, THE TESTIMONIES OF PINKY (PW-3) AND RAKHI (PW-4) CANNOT BE RELIED UPON.CONSEQUENTLY, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION 304B IPC CANNOT BE DRAWN AGAINST THE APPELLANT-CONVICTS.L.P.260/2018 Page 17 of 23My niece Anju did not tell me that on 1.1.2011, her sisters Pinki and Rakhi went to her matrimonial home for giving new year wishes.(Vol.Nobody went to house of Anju after her marriage).Anju had not told me that on the said new year day, Sunny and Deepak had threatened Pinki and Rakhi to kill Anju if money after selling the parental house is not given to them as dowry.It is correct that I had/have cordial relations with all sisters namely Anju, Pinki and Rakhi and they used to share their happiness and sorrow with me.Till 14.1.2011, when my statement was recorded by the IO, Pinki and Rakhi did not tell me about the incident that took place on new year day at matrimonial house of Anju.I met Pinki and Rakhi, after the marriage of Anju, on the day of death of Anju.Pinki and Rakhi used to talk me on telephone.(Vol.I do not remember whether they had called me before the death of Anju.) After 14.1.2011 till today, Pinki and Rakhi had not told me that accused persons were demanding money after selling share of deceased in her parental house......"(emphasis supplied)In fact, perusal of the paper book reveals that on 11th January, 2011 the SDM (PW-24) had recorded the statements of sister of the deceased, Kusum (PW-1) and uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) and they had not mentioned about the demand for dowry.The SDM (PW-24) had also asked other relatives to come forward to make statements, but no one including Pinky (PW-3) and Rakhi (PW-4) came forward.The relevant portion of the testimony of the SDM (PW-24) is reproduced hereinbelow:-No one else including any other sister of deceased volunteered to get her statement recorded before me.Neither any complaint was given to me by any relative of the CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 18 of 23 deceased nor any request was made for recording their statements....."A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 19 of 23Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant-convicts or that they had made demands for dowry soon before the death of the deceased or at any time prior.After taking those documents, CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 20 of 23 both of my aforesaid employees delivered the same documents to Sh.Harvinder Singh, property broker in Bhera Enclave, New Delhi on my instructions.They had thereafter returned back to our office in Connaught Place.In the evening at about 7:00 pm, I had received a call from the accused Sandeep in a very shocking state.Accordingly, Crl.A 606/2018 is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence are set aside.The appellant-convicts are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 IPC and are directed to be released forthwith.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 24, 2019 rn CRL.

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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 case of prosecution in short may be stated to be as follows :(a) On 18.4.2012, offence came to be registered at Police Station, Purna, District Parbhani vide Crime No.52/2012 on the complaint of Ahemadbee Syed Imam (P.W.1).She reported that, she along with her family was residing at Sidharth Nagar, Purna, District Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 3 The F.I.R. gives details about family members who were residing with her including Rizwana, her married daughter, but who was staying with her since last 8 years, having three children.It was reported that, on 18.4.2012, there was a dispute between Rizwana (hereinafter referred as victim) with accused No.4 Ramabai, accused No.3 Latabai and Sangita @ Samina, the daughter of Latabai's aunt from Mumbai, at about 2.30 p.m. ig These people, it was reported, are always under intoxication of liquor and do business in liquor.Because of that, they had trouble.To complain regarding this, victim had gone to Nagarsevak Deorao Khandare.Victim returned at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, accused No.3 Latabai and Vikki (accused No.1), the son of Latabai, accused No.4 Ramabai Devre, accused No.6 Baby, elder sister-in-law of accused No.4 Ramabai, accused No.2 Mahendra, the son of Ramabai and accused No.5 Sangita @ Samina, the daughter of Latabai's aunt from Mumbai, came and told victim that by her going and telling Deorao Khandare nothing will happen to them.They asked as to why she had gone and told that person.So saying, these people entered into the house of complainant and they caught hold of ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 4 her daughter victim Rizwana.Accused No.3 Latabai held victim by her hair and accused No.5 Sangita tore blouse of victim and all these accused brought out the victim from the house and beat her by kicks and blows.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::On the street, the sari of the victim was pushed up and her modesty was outraged.The victim was calling out to save her.The complainant, her daughter Shahanabi, and her husband P.W.2 Syed Imam went to intervene, but in front of them the accused beat the victim.The victim managed to get herself released from the grip of the accused persons and ran inside the house.She ran inside and closed the house from inside.(b) The complainant claimed that, they called out to the victim, but she did not respond.The accused persons kept waiting outside the house and were giving filthy abuses and threatening to kill.As there was no response from victim from inside the house, Maqsood Khan, the nephew of complainant climbed up and pushed aside the tin sheet on the house and peeped inside when he saw that the victim had hanged herself from the wooden log of the house.He got afraid and thus, her nephew Hafizkhan (P.W.4) and one Syed Latif went there.They pushed the tin of roof aside and ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 5 entered the room and opened the latch of the house, which had been closed from inside.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::(c) The complaint claimed that, all of them then went inside and saw that the victim was hanging and she was dead.Thus, the F.I.R. was filed claiming that, because of the incident mentioned above, as the victim was beaten and her sari was pushed upwards and her modesty had been outraged, because of such trouble of the accused, the victim had gone inside the house and hanged herself and committed suicide.The F.I.R. blamed the accused persons for the incident and claimed that they had abetted the suicide.(d) On registration of the crime, the same was investigated by P.W.5 Sk.Abdul Gaffar, who was P.S.I. at the Police Station.The sari by which the victim committed suicide was seized.Inquest panchanama (Exh.29) was done.The doctor reported that, victim died due to asphyxia due to hanging.The appellants have been convicted under Sections 452, 354, 294, 504, 506, 323, 306 and 143, all read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief).Statements of witnesses were recorded.The clothes from the body of the victim were also seized.After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 6Before the trial Court, charge was framed for the Sections referred above and the prosecution brought on record evidence of 5 witnesses.The accused persons pleaded not guilty.Their defence is of denial.According to them, the victim was mentally disturbed and that she had been beaten by P.W.2 Syed Imam as she had quarreled earlier with accused No.5 Sangita and because of that, she committed suicide.The trial Court considered oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution and after considering the evidence, convicted the accused persons for Sections mentioned above and various sentences for the different Sections were passed.I have heard Advocate Shri S.C. Chavan for the appellant Nos.1 and 2 as well as appointed Advocate Shri S.S.Pawar for appellant Nos.3 to 6 and learned A.P.P. Shri R.V.Dasalkar for the State.It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 that, the defence brought on record by the prosecution shows that the accused persons had grudge as to why victim complained to Deorao Khandare.According to him, the evidence does not show that the accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 7 had any intention that the victim should commit suicide.It is argued that, although this Deorao Khandare was taken as panch in the inquest panchanama and although his statement was recorded, the prosecution did not examine him.It is stated that, the evidence of P.W.1 read with F.I.R. shows that, she made improvements in her evidence.The evidence on record disclosed that the parties did not have any earlier quarrel.The learned counsel tried to argue that P.W.3 Jubedabee was wife of brother of the complainant.Referring to the evidence of other witnesses, it is stated that, the evidence on record suffers from contradictions and omissions.It is stated that, as per the port mortem, the tongue was inside.According to the counsel, if it was case of hanging, the tongue should have been outside.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::It was stated that, in the F.I.R. specific threat was not recorded.The contradictions and omissions should have been considered to discard the evidence of the witnesses.The parties were living peacefully before the incident.The evidence showed that, although the incident went on for ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 8 some time, nobody went to call police at that time.The victim suddenly killed herself and the accused did not abet the act.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Against this, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, the judgment of the trial Court is properly reasoned and is required to be maintained.According to the A.P.P., all the accused persons had entered into the house of the complainant and dragged the victim outside.In the process, the blouse of the victim was torn and there was also act of trying to push the sari of the victim upwards and her modesty was outraged.The post mortem showed that, the victim had ante mortem injuries, which goes to show that the incident, as stated by the witnesses, did occur and the evidence that the accused persons committed criminal house-trespass and abused, threatened and dragged out the victim and outraged her modesty and caused hurt to her, was established.According to the learned A.P.P., the conviction needs to be maintained.In reply, both the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, if the conviction is maintained, lenient view may be taken looking to the fact that the incident occurred on the spur of moment.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 9I have gone through the evidence.There is evidence of P.W.1 complainant Ahemadibee, P.W.2 Syed Imam (her husband), P.W.3 Jubedabee Rajjakkhan (residing in the neighbourhood) and there is evidence of P.W.4 Hafizkhan Rajjakkhan, who had climbed the roof and seen the victim hanging.If the evidence of these witnesses is perused, all of them deposed about the presence of these six accused on the spot at the time of incident.The evidence of P.W.1 Ahemadibee shows that, on the day of incident, her daughter victim Rizwana had gone to leader Deorao Khandare and when she came back, the incident took place.Her F.I.R. Exh.30 is that, the accused Nos.3 to 5 were in the business of liquor and used to be under intoxication and because of their trouble, the victim had gone to complain to Deorao Khandare.The evidence of P.W.2 Syed Imam also shows that, the victim had gone to complain to Deorao Khandare and when she came back, the accused persons picked up quarrel with her.Similar is the evidence of P.W.3 Jubedabee, who deposed that the accused persons are living in the neighbourhood and they used to sell liquor unauthorisedly.She deposed that, the victim Rizwana had gone to Khandare complaining regarding selling of liquor as there was nuisance in the lane regarding liquor.Her evidence also shows that, when the victim returned home, the accused went and beat her.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 10The cross-examination of P.W.2 Syed Imam shows that, on the day of incident, earlier at about 11.00 a.m. there was quarrel between accused No.5 Sangita and the victim.In the F.I.R. Exh.35, the complainant had reported that, at about 2.30 p.m. there was a dispute which arose between accused Nos.3 to 5 with the victim and because of the trouble of business of liquor of the accused, victim had gone to complain to Deorao Khandare.In the evidence, no doubt the complainant P.W.1 did not depose about that part of the incident.In the cross-examination, she was put question in this regard, but did not understand the question.The Court does not appear to have tried to explain the question to the witness nor the cross-examiner pursued the same.What appears from record is that, the witnesses had trouble from the accused due to unauthorised sale of liquor in the vicinity and the victim appears to have gone and complained about this to some leader Deorao Khandare and this infuriated the accused persons.The prosecution proved this to be the cause of incident.Point is that, on that day, earlier there was some dispute between victim and accused Nos.3 to 5 and when victim went and came back, accused were agitated as their information was that she had gone and complained to Mr. ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 11 Khandare.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Regarding the actual incident, P.W.1 complainant Ahemadibee deposed that the victim had gone to Deorao Khandare and had just come home when the accused persons reached there.In her evidence, she referred to the accused Nos.1 to 6 and then deposed that all these persons came and entered in her house and asked the victim what she had told to the said leader.ig P.W.2 Syed Imam has also deposed that, the accused persons came and asked the victim if she had gone to lodge complaint to Deorao Khandare.His evidence is that, the accused were saying that what can she do and what can Deorao Khandare do.P.W.2 Syed Imam has also deposed that the accused persons had entered their house.P.W.3 Jubedabee has also corroborated P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as P.W.4 Hafizkhan.The evidence of these witnesses shows that the accused persons entered the house of complainant so as to pick up quarrel with the victim.The evidence of these witnesses goes to establish house-trespass on the part of accused persons to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.The evidence of complainant is that, when the accused persons had entered her house and started questioning ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 12 the victim, accused No.3 Latabai caught the victim by hair, accused No.5 caught the victim from her blouse and accused No.4 Ramabai caught-hold of the sari of the victim and they pulled out to victim from her house on to the road.According to P.W.1, the accused were saying that the victim should be made naked and to put chilly.In the F.I.R. Exh.35, complainant had reported that, accused No.3 Latabai had held the victim by hair and accused No.5 had held her from her blouse and pulled and tore the blouse and that all the accused persons had taken the victim outside the house and beaten her by kicks and blows.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::P.W.2 Syed Imam, father of victim corroborated his wife deposing that accused No.3 held the victim by hair and accused No.5 tore the blouse of victim and accused No.4 was saying to push up the sari of victim and that they will put chilly.(See Marathi version of the evidence.)12. P.W.3 Jubedabee deposed that, when the victim came back, the accused persons beat her on account of she complaining to Khandare.Her evidence is that, she and one Zakira tried to intervene in the quarrel, but they were told not to come in the quarrel and that the accused threatened to kill them and so they kept themselves on one side.However, P.W.3 has also deposed that, in the course of incident, accused No.3 Latabai ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 13 caught the hair of victim and accused No.5 Sangita tore her blouse and accused No.4 Ramabai and accused No.6 Baby had caught hold of the victim by her legs and brought her outside the house by pulling. P.W.3 has also deposed that, the accused were saying that chilly should be put in the anus of the victim.P.W.3 Jubedabee has referred to specific abuses given by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::P.W.3 Jubedabee has deposed that, when they were outside the house, at that time, accused No.1 Vikki and accused No.2 Mahendra told them that they should not come in between the quarrel otherwise they will be killed.As far as regards the evidence of P.W.4 Hafizkhan, he has deposed that, on day of incident there was quarrel between the accused and the victim and that the accused pulled out Rizwana from the house.His evidence is that, out of the accused, one caught hold of the hair of victim, one caught hold of her blouse and one pushed sari of victim upwards saying that they will put chilly.(In English version, the words used are that, one removed sari of victim on upper side, however, this is not correctly recorded as the Marathi version shows that, what was deposed was that one accused pushed sari upwards.) Thus, P.W.4 Hafizkhan did not specifically name the concerned persons with the specific acts he has deposed about.However, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 read together, makes it clear that all these six accused entered the ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 14 house and while accused Nos.3 to 5 actively caught hold of the victim and dragged her outside the house, accused No.6 Baby also assisted.Accused Nos.1 and 2 also appear to have committed criminal trespass and the evidence of these witnesses shows that they had threatened the neighbouring people not to intervene.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 shows that, the victim was assaulted inside the house and forcibly dragged outside and she was also beaten at the time of incident.The inquest panchanama Exh.29 in para 4 recorded that there were abrasions to the chest as well as to the hand of the victim.In the post moretm report Exh.30 also the doctor recorded ante mortem abrasions on the person of the victim.Thus, the oral evidence of the witnesses gets corroboration from the inquest panchanama as well as post mortem report showing that the victim had suffered abrasions in the incident.The evidence of P.W.1 has been criticised by the counsel for accused, claiming that, in her F.I.R. she had not stated that accused No.4 Ramabai had held the sari of the victim and stated that they will make her naked and put chilly.Even if this was to be said so, still there is evidence of P.W.2 Syed ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 15 Imam, who has also deposed that, accused No.4 Ramabai was saying that the sari of the victim should be pushed up and to put chilly.P.W.2 Syed Imam was cross-examined, but there are no contradictions and omissions proved in his evidence so as to disbelieve him on this count.P.W.3 Jubedabee has also deposed that, accused No.4 Ramabai had caught the victim from her legs and the victim was forcibly brought outside the house by pulling and it was being said that, chilly should be put in her anus.In the evidence of P.W.3 Jubedabee, in cross-examination read with the evidence of investigating officer P.W.5 Shaikh Abdul Gaffar, the only omissions claimed were that, P.W.3 had not stated in her statement that, "During the period of two hours Vikrant and Mahendra restrained from entering into the house to the informant and witnesses, and threatened to kill them." The other omission tried to be shown was that, she had not stated that, "Rizwana was inside the house and accused abetted her suicide."::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::The reason why I am saying that these portions in inverted commas are tried to be shown as omission is that, P.W.3 was not asked about these portions in this manner.What was asked in the cross-examination of P.W.3 was not put to the investigating officer in that manner.Thus, these acts of the accused persons of forcibly dragging out the victim and in the process tearing her blouse and in the quarrel trying to push up her sari are proved in ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 16 the evidence of these witnesses.Reading the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 along with the F.I.R., the witnesses cannot be said to be shattered regarding the crux of the incident that these accused persons committed house-trespass in the house of the complainant and abused, threatened and dragged the victim outside the house and in the process, beat her and also caused outrage of her modesty.The trial Court has discussed all this evidence and recorded reasons why the same should be accepted.Going through the judgment of the trial Court, I find myself concurring with the trial Judge in this regard.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::In the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, it has been tried to show that the victim was a person who was mentally disturbed and it was tried to claim that, because of such mental condition, the husband of the victim had left her.However, the suggestions were denied by the witnesses and there is no material to show that the victim was mentally disturbed person.The argument that P.W.3 was related to complainant has no basis as no such suggestion was put to the witness.Coming to the evidence of the victim committing suicide, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 shows that, when such ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 17 incident as mentioned above was taking place, the victim managed to free herself and ran inside the house and bolted it from inside.The evidence is that, the accused persons continued to remain there and were saying that they will see as to how the victim will come out of the house.Thus, although the victim had run away inside the house, the accused persons continued to be there and were giving threats, as per the witnesses.The evidence further shows that, as the victim was not responding from inside, P.W.4 Hafizkhan climbed on the house, and pushing aside the tin sheet, noticed the victim to be hanging.He claimed that, he brought down the dead body on the ground.In the evidence of P.W.1, she had claimed that, the incident went on for about two hours.P.W.3 deposed that, it went on for about half an hour and P.W.4 deposed that, it went on for about 30 - 35 minutes.The time sense of P.W.1, an illiterate lady cannot be much relevant.Point is that, for some time quarrel was going on and when the victim went inside, the accused continued to be there and were giving threats, and after some time when there was no movement from inside, P.W.4 Hafizkhan appears to have climbed the house and noticed that the victim had hung herself.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::It appears that, the victim was taken to the hospital and when it was found that she was dead, inquest panchanama Exh.29 was done and post mortem was also got done.Post mortem showed ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 18 that, she died of asphyxia due to hanging.The evidence that the victim did in fact die due to hanging is not in dispute if the evidence in the trial Court is perused.At the time of appeal, however, the learned counsel for the appellants tried to argue that there was no evidence that the tongue of the victim was outside.State of Karnataka ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 19 reported in 1994 AIR (SC) 1546 to submit that merely by going in a body of unlawful assembly would not be decisive factor regarding common object.I have gone through the concerned judgments.They are based on their own facts.In the present matter, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 had committed criminal trespass in the house of the complainant with the other accused who were ladies and further actively participated in the incident by threatening others so that they do not intervene.The common object is clearly established that they also wanted the victim to be threatened, abused, dragged and beaten, and in the process, participated in outraging of the modesty of a woman (the victim).::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::There is no substance in the arguments of counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 on this count.State Represented by ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 20 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 to submit that, for abetment to commit suicide, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence of abetting the victim to commit suicide.Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.State of A.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 and it has been argued that, for abetment, instigating or intentional aiding the person to commit the act of suicide has to be established.Paras 18, 20 and 21 of the judgment need to be reproduced.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life.Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 21Keeping the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view, it would be now necessary to see whether in the present matter abetment to commit suicide could be said to be established.In the present matter, no doubt there is evidence that the victim was assaulted and dragged outside the house and there was attempt to push up her sari and there was outrage of modesty.No doubt there is also evidence that when the victim ran inside and closed the door, the accused persons continued to be there giving threat.But then, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 shows that, before the present incident there was no quarrel between the parties and their relations were not strained.The cross-examination of P.W.2 Syed Imam shows that the relations between them and accused were cordial prior to the incident and they never quarreled.P.W.3 Jubedabee stated that the relations between her, P.W.2 Syed Imam and the accused were cordial and that it was true that before the incident there was no quarrel between the complainant and the accused.Thus, although there is evidence that these prosecution witnesses had trouble due to the liquor business of the accused persons and the victim had even complained to one Deorao Khandare, before the ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 22 incident there were no strained relations as such.Thus, merely because the incident of house-trespass, assault and outraging modesty took place, that by itself cannot be calculated as abetment to commit suicide.It was also not a situation where circumstances were so created that the victim had no other option than to commit suicide.It appears that, the victim was over sensitive and at the spur of moment reacted in a manner which may not have been expected by anybody.The evidence shows that, even after the victim went inside, for some time the accused were there outside, and the family could not enter.It shows that, the victim had not, even while rushing inside the house, indicated anything that she will commit such act.Had that been so, the family would have made a hue and cry and reacted faster.The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to house-trespass after "preparation" for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.In the present matter, although the accused persons entered the house so as to assault the victim and hurt the victim, there is no material to show that they had made some preparation for causing of such hurt.For these Sections, in addition there was direction for payment of fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month under each of the head against all accused.This needs to be maintained.For reasons already recorded, sentence under Section 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would required to be set aside.I thus pass the following order :ORDER (A) For above reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.In the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the conviction under Section 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is converted into conviction and sentence under Section 451 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 25 two years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each, and in default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused shall further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) fmp/cri836.15 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the prosecution case, between 03.02.2014 and 08.03.2014, the petitioner had purchased total quantity of 2086 bags of paddy from the second respondent under nine bills.The cost of the paddy so purchased was Rs.19,48,834/-.Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards partial discharge of the said liability.The balance was Rs.17,23,834/-.The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.132 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent alleging that the petitioner along with another accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of I.P.C. On the ground that the registration of the said case and continuance of the investigating amounts to clear abuse of process of law, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. and the connected proceedings.I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.I have also perused the records carefully.The first respondent Mr.Gunasekaran, Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, is also present along with the records.I have the benefit of going through the entire case diary also.A perusal of that records and the F.I.R. would go to show that the petitioner was doing paddy and rice business in Tirupattur in the name and style 'J.K.Traders'.The second respondent is also doing the same business in Tirupanipettai, Tiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District.According to the further case of the prosecution, when the second respondent demanded payment of dues, the petitioner declined to pay the same and instead he had threatened him along with his manager namely the second accused.On these allegations, the F.I.R. was registered by the first respondent on 01.05.2014, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of I.P.C.The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that assuming that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and other events which came to light during subsequent investigation are true, the same would only make out a pure and simple civil dispute and these allegations do not make out any offence more particularly offences punishable under Sections 420 or 506 of I.P.C. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the registration of the F.I.R. and continuance of the investigation amounts to clear abuse of process of law and therefore the entire proceedings commencing from F.I.R. should be quashed.Since the entire case is quashed, the rice bags seized from the rice mill of the petitioner shall be returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur to the petitioner unconditionally under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. The vehicle already released to the petitioner on conditional basis shall be retained by the petitioner unconditionally as provided under Section 452 of Cr.P.C.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.132 of 2014 is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.S.NAGAMUTHU,J.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur.The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.O.P.No.20776 of 2014and M.P.No.1 of 201427.10.2014

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant Rajjulal Choudhary (PW-1) was resident of village Saleha.On 7.11.2000 at about 3:30 p.m., he was going to Nagod to see his ailing mother, who was admitted in the Hospital at Nagod.When he was going on the road, the appellant, who was sitting on a flour mill detained him and abused the complainant with obscene words.Also he abused him with words relating to his caste and gave him slaps etc. He threw him on the ground and sat on his chest and thereafter, he gave so many fists to the victim.The witnesses intervened and thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot.The complainant went to see his ailing mother and at about 9:00 p.m. he came back to village Saleha and lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Saleha.(Delivered on 10th day of March, 2015) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 20.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No.48/2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 341, 323, 506(Part-II), 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Special Act') and sentenced to six months S.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, two months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's R.I. with 2 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively.All the sentences to run concurrently, whereas the default sentence was also imposed in lieu of payment of fine.He was sent for his medico legal examination and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Panna, who committed the case to the Special Court.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea 3 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.Also he took a plea that a compromise took place between the parties and the complainant took a sum of Rs.2500/- to do the compromise.However, thereafter, the complainant did not accept the compromise.In defence, Bahori (DW-1) was examined.The Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.In the present case, Rajjulal Choudhary (PW-1), Nanni Bai (PW-2) and Ghaseeta (PW-3) have stated that they were the eyewitnesses.Lakhanbai (PW-4) and Dayaram (PW-5) were examined as eyewitnesses but they turned hostile.Lapaiya (PW-7) was also examined as eyewitness and he has partly turned hostile.Rajjulal (PW-1) has stated that the appellant was abusing him with the words related to his caste.His testimony is supported by Nanni Bai wife of the complainant and Ghaseeta father of the complainant.However, if the evidence of Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta is considered then, it would be clear that they were not present at the spot from the very beginning.4 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 They were informed that the appellant was assaulting the victim then, they went to the spot and hence, they were not the witnesses of portion of crime when the appellant abused the victim with the words related to his caste.Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta have stated that during the assault, the appellant was abusing the victim on the basis of his caste but according to the victim Rajjulal, the appellant abused him with the words relating to his caste in the beginning of the crime and during the assault, he did not state such words.In the FIR Ex.P/1, it is not mentioned that the appellant repeated such words during the assault.Hence, the testimony of Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta cannot be believed.The appellant would have told such words to the victim Rajjulal, where these witnesses come to the spot with delay.Rajjulal has accepted that there was no annoyance between the appellant and him in the past and unexpectedly, the appellant abused and assaulted him.He had filed the FIR Ex.P/1, which was a written report.It was strange that the incident was caused with the victim Rajjulal and thereafter, he did not take care to lodge the FIR or to get his treatment.On the contrary, he went to 5 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 see his ailing mother, who was admitted in the Hospital at Nagod and therefore, the FIR was lodged with the delay of 18 hours.According to the document Ex.P/6, the incident took place on 7.11.2000 at about 3:30 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on 8.11.2000 at about 9:30 a.m. The reasons relating to the delay in the FIR shown by the complainant Rajjulal appears to be unacceptable.A written report has been given at Police Station, Saleha and therefore, Rajjulal had an opportunity to cook a case against the appellant.As the witnesses Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta were telling a falsehood that the appellant had abused the victim Rajjulal with the words related to his caste, whereas such allegations are not true then, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant Rajjulal while lodging the FIR had mentioned about the fact that the appellant abused him with the words relating to his caste and therefore, a doubt is created as to whether the appellant had abused the complainant on the basis of words related to his caste or the complainant on the basis of his caste had lodged the FIR of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act to get the advantage of his caste.Hence, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant 6 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 abused the victim with the words relating to the caste of the complainant.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant has given a proof that he was a member of scheduled caste.The complainant and his witnesses have stated that the complainant was "Chaudhary" by caste and in the certificate Ex.P/9, Tahsildar concerned has issued the caste certificate that the complainant belongs to the community of Chaudhary, and "Chaudhary" falls within the category of scheduled caste.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that according to the list of scheduled caste prevailed in the Madhya Pradesh, there is no such caste "Chaudhary" which falls in the scheduled caste.On the contrary, if the complainant would have claimed in the certificate that he was "Chamar" by caste then, that certificate could specify that he was a member of scheduled caste.The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant can be accepted because Tahsildar concerned has issued such a certificate, which has no legal value.It is expected from an officer to verify and inquire about the caste of a particular person and to 7 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 issue the certificate.On the contrary, Tahsildar issued the certificate that being "Chaudhary" by caste, the complainant was a member of scheduled caste, whereas no such caste is declared to be a scheduled caste for Madhya Pradesh in the schedule appended in the Constitution.Hence, the complainant could not prove that he was a member of scheduled caste.Hence, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.So far as the other offences are concerned, the complainant and his witnesses did not tell the specific words, told by the appellant so that those words could be considered that whether those would have fallen within the category of obscene words.He did not state before the trial Court that the appellant executed his threatening as told on the date of incident or not.If any threatening was given by the appellant on the date of incident, even then it does not fall in the category of criminal intimidation and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 506 of the IPC.The trial Court has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 506(Part-II) of the IPC.Similarly, it was alleged by the complainant Rajjulal that he was going to Nagod and in the way, the appellant started uttering obscene words to him and words on the basis of his caste by detaining him.However, technically it can be said that due to overt act of the appellant, he was restrained to go further but no intention 9 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 of the appellant to restrain the complainant to go further is proved and therefore in absence of any intention, no offence under Section 341 of the IPC is made out against the appellant.However, Rajjulal (PW-1), Nanni Bai (PW-2) and Ghaseeta (PW-3) have stated that the appellant assaulted the victim by kicks and fists and also by slaps.The defence witness Bahori (DW-1) has admitted that the quarrel took place between the appellant and the complainant.Though, he has stated that the complainant fell down on the earth due to his drunken condition but it is accepted by the witnesses that in the incident, the complainant fell down on the earth.If the complainant was in a drunken condition then, it was not possible for him to visit the village Nagod to see his ailing mother and thereafter, to come back.Therefore, that fact cannot be accepted that the complainant Rajjulal was in drunken 10 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 condition.Looking to the evidence of defence witness Bahori (DW-1), the testimony of Rajjulal, Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta appears to be acceptable that the appellant assaulted the victim Rajjulal.It is not necessary to prove the physical injury for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.If any bodily pain was caused to the victim then, offence under Section 323 of the IPC is made out.It is for the appellant to prove that he was given any grave or sudden provocation or he had a right of private defence.In alternate, the appellant could not prove such fact.The incident took place when the complainant was going on a way and therefore, no overt act of the complainant was proved that he gave sudden or grave provocation to the appellant and any right of private defence was accrued to the appellant.The appellant gave more than one assault and therefore after the result of his first assault, he continued to assault the victim and hence, the trial Court has rightly found that the appellant had voluntarily caused hurt to the victim Rajjulal.Therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, the 11 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 appellant was the first offender, who was a youth of 23 years of age at the time of incident.Since he was above 21 years of age, it is not a case in which, he may be released on probation but looking to his first offence and the fact that he did not use any weapon, his offence under Section 323 of the IPC, it would be proper that a maximum fine may be imposed upon the appellant for that offence.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 341, 294, 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charges.It is informed that the appellant has deposited the fine more than of Rs.1,000/- before the trial Court for other offences, therefore, he would be entitled to get the remaining fine amount back from the trial Court and hence, no default sentence is required to be provided.The appellant is on bail.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 10.03.2015 pnkj

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

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

Shri Tajuddin Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Vijay Sunderam, Panel Lawyer for the State.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.The petitioner is alleged with house-trespass, rape and criminal intimidation.

['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.

/326/307/304/379/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of : Mannan Sk.... ... petitioner Mr. Biswajit Hazra, Ms. Debrapriya Samanata, Mr. Arif Mohammad Khan ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Murshidabad P.S. Case No. 129 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000 under Sections 147/148/149/324/326/307/304/379/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.The State opposes the prayer primarily on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Court more than 17 years after the case was lodged.However, the State fairly submits that the petitioner's name does not figure in the statements obtained.The charge-sheet has long been submitted.Considering the delay in the matter and the fact that the charge- sheet was submitted in 2001, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the dates fixed.In default of the petitioner attending the trial, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the petitioner's bail without reference to this Court.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 petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The accused in C.C. No. 173 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, has filed this application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said proceedings against him.The said petition came to be filed in the following circumstances.The Assistant Divisional Engineer T. N. E. B. Palani, gave a complaint on 27-8-1984 alleging that during the inspection of S.C. 160 Neikkarapatti distribution, belonging to the petitioner, he noticed M.R.T. seals provided in three phase meter in the service missing and that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity by opening the cover of the meter and reduced the recorded units thereunder.On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No. 435 of 1984 Palani Taluk, Police station, under S. 397 I.P.C. read with Sections 39 and 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. The said complaint was investigated by one Muthuswami, Sub-Inspector, and he examined as many as ten witnesses and after obtaining opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade I and Grade II) sent the final report dt. 7-5-1985 under S. 173 Cr.P.C. to the Court, to the effect that no case was made out against the petitioner, and the case was referred as 'mistake of fact'.Refer notice under S. 169, Cr.P.C. was also served on the petitioner on 18-5-1985 and his acknowledgment was obtained.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dindigul also on receipt of the final report and after perusing the connected records accepted the final report sent by the said Muthuswami and passed an order on 12-6-1985 as follows-Recorded as "mistake of fact".When the charge-sheet was returned by the Magistrate on 14-2-1986, whether permission has been obtained to reopen, the respondent resubmitted the same on 15-2-1986 stating the circumstances under which it was reopened and seeking permission to investigate the same.The Magistrate passed an order on 19-2-1986 to the effect that permission is granted to investigate the case.He took cognisance of the case and numbered the same as C.C. 173 of 1986 and issued summons to the accused.On receipt of the said summons the accused has filed this application.Petition allowed.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Ls Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD).No.7682 of 2019 19.09.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.5 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 20194.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.5.Considering the fact that the investigation is almost over, this Court cannot quash the First Information Report at this stage.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.7.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed 19.09.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ls To1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this third application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first application was rejected on merit vide order dated 8-8-2018 in M.Cr.The applicant after being arrested in connection with Crime No.7/1999 registered at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 324 of IPC, the applicant was released on bail.The prosecution story in short is that the present applicant along with co-accused assaulted the complainant and also caused hindrance in discharge of official duty.Initially the applicant was released on bail and thereafter she continued to remain absent before the trial court.On the basis of aforesaid allegation crime has been registered.Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is, therefore, directed that, applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Committal Court for his appearance during trial on the dates fixed by the concerned Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts which are not in dispute in the present case is that accused Chhotelal (since acquitted) is the Sarpanch of the village and Amasso Bai is his daughter.Tejania Bai (PW4) is the sister of deceased Gulabi Baiga whereas Jimmi Bai (PW5) and Premlal (PW1) are his wife and son respectively.The Merg registered by R.D. Dwivedi (PW15) is Ex.A :: 3 ::The seizure of the blood stained soil were made and the statement of Premlal, Budhram, Tejania Bai, Jimmi Bai, Bajaria Bai and Ramailal were recorded.On 18.3.2006 accused Ramchandra, Tejilal and Shyamlal were also interrogated and as per their information Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8 and Ex.(01/02/2018) As per : J.K. Maheshwari, J.Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.1.2007 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.178/2006 convicting the appellants for the charge under Section 302 read with 201 of the IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for life and three years respectively with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- each, in default R.I. for three months and two months respectively.The dead body of the deceased was found on date of incident i.e. 15.3.2006 while the head was found on 18.3.2006 at the difference place.As alleged, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.3.2006, at about 5 p.m. in the evening, the mother of Premlal alongwith Bajaria Bai reached on the field.After coming back at about 7 p.m., it was told by her that the dead body of her husband Gulabi without head is lying near a culvert.Premlal reached on spot alongwith mother where the dead body was lying.Buddhu Gaur has told that about 10-11 a.m. in the morning, Gulabi was seen going towards Taparia.Thereafter, at about 3 p.m., Laxman told him that the dead body of Gulabi is lying in a culvert.Premlal and others made an attempt to find out the head of the deceased but could not trace out, however, the information was given to the Police Station on the next date i.e. 16.3.2006 which was registered at Crime No.24/06 under Section 302 read with 201 of the IPC.P/9, the head of the deceased was found and the recovery of Jarkati (Sickle) was also made, thereafter, the Panchanama was prepared.After completing the investigation challan was filed before the competent Court.Since the offence was triable by the Court of Session, therefore, it was committed, where the charge under Section 302 read with 201 of the IPC was framed against the present three appellants and Chhotelal.It is said that his conduct is doubtful and as apparent from the fact that he has not disclosed the name of the accused persons to Budhram (PW2) though narrated the incident immediately.His conduct is further doubtful because he has not informed regarding the death of the deceased to the family members, though, they visited on the spot.Further his conduct is doubtful as at the time when he was preparing the country made liquor, the incident took place but he did not make any attempt to save the deceased if assaulted by accused.In addition thereto, as per the statement of Ramailal (PW8) and Jhallulal (PW13), the seizure were made in between 9 - 10 a.m., though they were arrested later on.On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Shrivastava, learned Dy.It is the contention that Laxman (PW3) is the eye-witness to the incident, merely non-disclosure of incident for 2 - 3 days would not make him doubtful to acquit the accused persons for commission of murder of the deceased, therefore, maintaining the conviction, the appeal may be dismissed.He in his statement said that while he was preparing country made liquor, deceased Gulabi was sitting there.Three persons namely Shyamlal, Ramchandra and Tejilal came and assaulted Gulabi by means of Knife, stones and Sickle.At that time, he ran away and narrated the incident to Budhram.His statement :: 6 ::During this time, he narrated the incident to Budhram without disclosing the name of any accused person in the evening, as reveal from his testimony as well as from the testimony of Budhram.Eye-witness have never made any attempt to save the deceased merely on the pretext of fear and he has also not informed to the family members of the deceased, though, they were known to each other and was staying on the field alongwith deceased at some distance for considerable long time.He has not informed the incidence to police though he must immediately informed.The defence was put regarding enmity due to election of the Panchayat.He admitted that Major Temre of Police Station, Kundam is in his relation.When a specific question was put that you yourself has murdered the deceased and the weapon and other things have been kept in the hut by you, as Budhram should not doubt you, who was also staying on the field alongwith Gulabi, however, after murder of Gulabi, you disclosed the said fact to Major Temre and being his relative in the police department, he saved you.Even having such specific defence and putting the specific question, he has not informed the police for three days, regarding the incident and after three days, he became eye-Shyamlal Baiga and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A. No.318/2007 articles have been made prior to the arrest of the accused persons.The said fact would reflect from the testimony of Ramailal (PW8) and Jhallulal (PW13) co-relating with the memorandum Ex.P/7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P/9, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/11, Ex.P/12, Ex.P/13, Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15 and Ex.In such circumstances, neither the testimony of the eye-witnesses is of sterling character nor the seizure prior to arrest is justified but the trial Court without considering this vital aspect, relying upon the statement of eye-witnesses coupled with the seizure of the articles and the head of the dead body, convicted the appellants.In addition, such circumstances, one fact is also having much relevance that the weapon seized was sent for FSL examination and the report of FSL do not corroborate with the allegation of use of those weapons in commission of the offence.In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion, neither the testimony of eye-witnesses is of sterling character which can be relied upon to convict the appellants nor the seizure of the articles prior to arrest is justified.In that view of the matter, merely relying upon the testimony of Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and relying upon the statement of Budhram (PW2) and the seizure, conviction directed by the trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law.In fact, the prosecution has failed to prove the :: 8 ::Shyamlal Baiga and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A. No.318/2007 involvement of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt in commission of murder of deceased Gulabi.In such circumstances, the appellants deserve to be acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside.Instead, the appellants are acquitted of the offences.The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to them.They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.At the end, it is my duty to record the word of appreciation in favour of the amicus curiae who assisted the Court in the disposal of the held-up case which was pending since last about ten years, however, his assistance is hereby acknowledged.Appeal allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 0.2018 82 KB CRM No. 8100 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17th September, 2018 in connection with Ghoksadanga Police Station Case No. 54 of 2018 dated 15.04.2018 under Sections 341/324/326/307/109 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Malin Roy and others ... Petitioners Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Mr. Pronojit Roy ... for the petitioners Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Mr. Manoranjan Mahata ...for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Ghoksadanga Police Station Case No. 54 of 2018 dated 15.04.2018 under Sections 341/324/326/307/109 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and says that all the petitioners have been named as being a part of a group which attacked the victim and caused his death.However, the statement against the other petitioners do not appear to be of any eye witness.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The prayer 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. ) 2

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (II) of IPC, 1872, in Crime No.338 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2020 around 11 am, the defacto complainant while purchasing fish, the petitioner and his brother along with others enquired the defacto complainant about the discrepancy occurred near the pond and suddenly the petitioner's brother and others have abused and attacked the defacto complainant.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and the injured discharged from the hospital.Hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mannargudi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two 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 Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020 the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:Page 3 of 6[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.Page 5 of 6O.P.No.9262 of 2020 24.06.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] 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 himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020 [f] 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, Mannargudi.The Inspector of Police, Thirumakottai Police Station, Thiruvarur, Mannargudi – 614 001 Tamil Nadu.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 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.

W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 1 of 5No child has been born out of the said wedlock.On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner (husband).The salient terms and conditions of the settlement as enshrined in the order dated 19th August, 2015 are as follows:-The parties shall get dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent without levelling allegations and counter allegations against each other in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi.The respondent/husband shall pay a total sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac Fifty Thousand only) as full and final settlement to the petitioner/wife qua all her claims/maintenance past, present and future arising out of the marriage with respondent which shall include her permanent alimony, istridhan, dowry articles, maintenance, etc.The settlement amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- shall be paid by the respondent/husband to the petitioner/wife by way of cash/DD in three installments in the following manner:-permanent alimony, dowry articles, maintenance past, present and future etc. against the petitioner.Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakh has already been received by respondent no.2 (wife).The balance sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs has been brought to the Court in the shape of a Demand Draft dated 15.03.2016 bearing No. 133792 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 3 of 5 0741/Rohtak-Sonepat Road, Delhi, in favour of respondent no. 2(wife) herein (copy of the same has been placed on record).The latter acknowledges receipt thereof subject to its encashment.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 3 of 5In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 5th March, 2016 has already been obtained by the parties from the concerned Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi.Ms. Garima Dalal, respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer namely SI Mahendra Pratap, Police Station- Keshav Puram, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 5 of 5CRL.M.A. No. 4808/2016 (Exemption)Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.W.P. (CRL.)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 153/2013 under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station- Keshav Puram, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 1 of 5(i) First installment of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 2 of 5 Thousand only) at the time of recording statements in First Motion Petition u/s 13B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act which shall be filed by the parties jointly within a week from today.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 2 of 5(ii) Second installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) at the time of recording statements in Second Motion Petition u/s 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act which shall be filed by the parties jointly within one month after expiry of statutory period of six months after first motion.(iii) Third and last installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) shall be paid at the time of quashing of FIR No. 153/2013, PS Keshav Puram, U/s 498A/406 IPC State vs. Sandeep Kundu & Ors., which shall be moved within one month of Second Motion before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the union that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 12.50 lakhs towards all her claims vis.a vis.Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent; and since the settlement between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No. 153/2013 under Sections 406/498A IPC W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 4 of 5 registered at Police Station- Keshav Puram, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject to his depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 4 of 5It is also observed that as a consequence of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties to the marriage, a quietus will be applied to the following cases, in addition to the disposal of the present writ petition:-(i) CC No. 146/4/15 titled as Garima Dalal vs. Sandeep Kundu & Ors.under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner, pending in the Court of Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi.(ii) Bail Application No. 5955/RC titled State vs. Sandeep Kundu, pending in the Court of Sh.Kanwal Jeet Arora, Learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi.With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 18, 2016 SD W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 5 of 5

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

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

The appellants in Crl.(a) P.Ws.1 and 2 are father and mother respectively and P.W.3 is the uncle of P.W.9 Ms.During the year 2002, P.W.9 was hardly aged at 8 years.She was studying in III Standard in a private school at Puducherry.She used to go to the school in a rickshaw in the morning and return in the evening in the same rickshaw.On 18.10.2002, as usual, P.W.9 had gone to the school.The school working time was over at 03.30 p.m. P.W.9 came out of the school to go to her house.It is alleged that at that time, one person, who was not already known to P.W.9 (identified as A1), came to the said place.He told P.W.9 that her parents had gone to Chengi to purchase a land and they had sent him to take her to Chengi.Believing his words, she went along with him.He took her to the place where he had parked a scooter.The 1st accused then took P.W.9 in the said scooter to a C.D. Shop at Puducherry.P.W.9 was asked to sit on the scooter itself.Two other persons were already lying in wait for the 1st accused (Those two persons have been later on identified as accused 2 and 3).The accused 2 and 3 took P.W.9 in the same scooter.The 3rd accused drove the scooter and the 2nd accused sat as a pillion rider and P.W.9 was made to sit in between them.They drove the scooter to Chengi Kottai.For some time, they made her to sit there.When she enquired, they said that her parents would come.Then, they took P.W.9 to a house of a relative of the 2nd accused.They kept P.W.9 in the said house.The 2nd accused went out of the house.Then, on the next day, in the afternoon, the 2nd accused returned to the said house where P.W.9 was kept.The 3rd accused also came.Again, they took P.W.9 in the very same scooter.They again took P.W.9 in the Scooter to Chengi.When the scooter was nearing a petrol bunk, policemen came in a TATA Sumo Car.The TATA Sumo Car hit the scooter.The accused 2 and 3 jumped out of the scooter and started running.P.W.9 fell down from the scooter.But, from the TATA Sumo Car, the grandfather of P.W.9 and others got down.The accused 2 and 3 could not be caught hold as they ran away from the scene of occurrence.(c) Reverting back to the family of P.W.9, since P.W.9 did not return from the school, P.W.1 and other family members went in search of her.They were told by someone near the vicinity of the school that P.W.9 was taken by an unidentifiable male in a scooter.Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report and Ex.P.1 is the complaint.He forwarded both the documents to court.(e) P.W.12 took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements.But, he could not succeed.P.W.12 during investigation found that the said telephone call was that of a public booth at No.27, Villupuram Road, Chengi.Therefore, suspecting that the child had been taken to Chengi, along with another Sub-Inspector of Police, he went to Chengi.While so, again P.W.1 received a phone call from Phone No.04145 222594 and again such demand was reiterated.During investigation, it turned out that it was from a public booth at Villupuram Main Road, Appambut, Chengi.The investigation revealed that it was again a public booth at No.162, Tiruvannamalai Road, Chengi.(f) P.W.12, when enquired the person who was present there, he identified the 1st accused who was staying somewhere near the said booth.P.W.12 arrested the 1st accused.He disclosed that P.W.9 had been kept by the accused 2 and 3 at Sathyamangalam.Therefore, along with the grandfather of P.W.9 and others, they went in search of her.She has further stated that at that time, an unknown person came to her, persuaded her and told her that her parents had gone to Chengi and he would take her to Chengi.Then, he took her in the Scooter (M.O.1) to a C.D.Shop in Puducherry.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the learned Counsel for the appellants is not able to make out any mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused.The trauma of P.W.9 on account of the above crime committed would be everlasting.Having considered all the above, we are of the view that sentencing these three accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the offence under Section 365 read with 34 of IPC would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:A.No.594 of 2015 are the accused 1 and 2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.64 of 2016 is the 3rd accused in S.C.No.30 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry.They stood charged for offence under Section 364-A read with 34 of IPC.By judgment dated 09.09.2015, the trial court convicted all the three accused under the said charge and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.On seeing them, P.W.9 returned.Thus, P.W.9 was rescued.Apprehending that it was a kidnapping, P.W.1 went to Pondicherry Police Station on 18.10.2002 and made a complaint at 08.00 p.m.(d) P.W.12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.319 of 2002 under Section 363 of IPC.They found the accused 2 and 3 moving in the scooter bearing Registration No. PY-01 A 0443 along with the child.When P.W.12 with his vehicle tried to intercept the accused 2 and 3, they abandoned the scooter along with the child and ran away.P.W.12 then examined P.W.9 and recorded her statement.On 20.10.2002, P.W.12 recovered a compact disc in which the telephone calls and conversations had been recorded and he forwarded the 1st accused to court for judicial remand.Then, he altered the case into one under Section 364-A read with 34 of IPC against all the three accused.Then, he arrested the other accused and forwarded them to court.The investigation was continued by P.W.13 who laid charge sheet against the accused.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, by his order dated 09.04.2003 committed the said case to the Courts of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for trial.The case was made over to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry on 11.04.2003 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry for trial.Then, on administrative grounds, the Chief Judge, Puducherry, by order dated 28.11.2006, withdrew the said case from the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry and transferred the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry for trial.Accordingly, the original records of the case were sent from the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry.But the properties (material objects) collected during investigation and submitted to the learned Magistrate were not sent to the trial court.There were number of correspondences between the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in this regard wherein the trial court wanted the said properties to be sent to the trial court so as to commence the trial.But the properties were never traced out.The learned Judge recorded that since for more than 11 years, the case was pending without any progress in the trial and since the accused was entitled for speedy trial as a fundamental right, he decided to proceed with the case, even in the absence of the production of the case properties.Accordingly, the trial was commenced on 14.11.2014 and the judgment was pronounced on 09.09.2015, convicting all the 3 accused under Section 364-A read with 34 of IPC.During the course of trial, in order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as we have already pointed out, 13 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 1 material object, namely, the Scooter bearing registration No.PY 01 A 0443 were marked .Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl.He has stated that since the occurrence was 12 years before, he had forgotten everything about the case.Thus, he did not speak any fact in favour of the prosecution.He only admitted the complaint, namely, Ex.P.1 and his statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is of no use for the prosecution in any manner.P.W.2 is the mother of the victim girl.She has stated that when P.W.9 was doing 3rd standard, the rickshaw puller who used to take P.W.9 to the school, came and told that one person had taken her.He has further stated that thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and made a complaint.Thus, his evidence is also of no use to the case of the prosecution.P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.As a matter of fact, he was examined to speak about the telephone calls made by the accused 2 and 3 from a STD Booth.P.W.5 has also turned hostile.She was also examined to speak about the fact that the accused 2 and 3 spoke from a telephone booth on the day of occurrence.P.W.6 has also turned hostile.He was also examined to speak about the accused 2 and 3, who according to him, they came in a scooter along with the child and made a phone call.P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.8 is the sister--in-law of the 2nd accused.She has also turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.9 victim girl has stated that in the usual course, she went to the school on 18.10.2002 and at 03.30 p.m. after the school was over, when she came out of the school, the 1st accused took her in a scooter by deceiving her that he was taking her to Chengi where her parents had gone to purchase a land.She has further stated that he took her to a CD shop in Puducherry from where she was taken in M.O.1 Scooter by the accused 2 and 3 to Chengi.She has narrated the entire events in a vivid manner as we already stated.She has further stated that she was kept in the house of one woman at Chengi Fort and on the next day, when they took her in the same scooter to Chengi, police came and intercepted and rescued her.P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police at Chengi Police Station.He has further stated that when the accused 2 and 3 were found moving in M.O.1 Scooter, they were intercepted by the police and at that time, they have started running away, abandoning the scooter and the child.P.W.11, the then Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, has spoken about the Test Identification Parade conducted.According to him, P.W.9-Sangavi identified all the three accused during Test Identification Parade.P.W.12 has spoken about the investigation done and P.W.13 has spoken about the further investigation and his final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that in this case, except the evidence of P.W.8, there is no other evidence to prove the charges.For these reasons, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry, would vehemently oppose this appeal.He would submit that though it is true that the family members of P.W.1 and others have turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.9 would be suffice to sustain the conviction.He would further submit that during the Test Identification Parade also, P.W.9 correctly identified all the three accused.Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants deserve to be confirmed.We have considered the above submissions.But, unfortunately, P.W.1 could not support the case of the prosecution, as according to him, he had forgotten the events, which took place 12 years before.Thus, the allegation that all these accused demanded ransom from P.W.1 for releasing the kidnapped P.W.9 has not been proved.P.W.9 has stated that as usual, she went to the school in the morning on 18.10.2002 and after the school time was over at 03.30 p.m., she came out of the school.Thus, P.W.9 has identified the 1st accused as the said person who took her from the school to the CD Shop.She has identified the 1st accused in the Test Identification Parade as well as during the trial also.We do not find any reason to reject the said identification made by P.W.9 on both occasions.According to the further evidence of P.W.9, in the C.D.Shop, two other persons were already lying in wait.Those two persons took her in the very same scooter to Chengi Kottai.She has identified the accused 2 and 3 as those two persons who took her to Chengi Kottai.Thus, the accused 2 and 3 have also been identified during Test Identification Parade and during the trial of the case.P.W.9 has further stated that she was taken to Chengi where they made her to wait for some time and took her to a house and they kept her there during night.P.W.9 was waiting for the parents to come.One of the accused gave a skirt and told her that it was given by her parents.The next day, the woman in the house shouted at the 2nd accused.Then, in the evening, they took again P.W.9 in the same scooter.It was only, at that time, the scooter was intercepted by the police, namely, P.Ws.10 and 12 and the girl was secured.This fact has been spoken by P.Ws.10 and 12 also.Thus, she was kidnapped and illegally confined by them.The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.9's evidence cannot be believed as there are discrepancies.In this regard, we have to state that at the time when she was kidnapped, she was hardly aged at 8 years.After the arrest of the accused, the Test Identification Parade was conducted on 30.10.2002, at the earliest point of time.In that Test Identification Parade, P.W.9, correctly identified all the three accused as culprits.There is no evidence even to remotely infer that before 30.10.2002, P.W.9 would have been tutored to identify these three accused as the culprits.P.W.9 has got no enmity against the accused.After all, she was a child.Then, it was withdrawn by the Chief Judge, Puducherry, on 28.11.2006 and transferred to the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry, for disposal.Thus, it was pending on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge from 28.11.2006 onwards.Though the charges in this case were framed as early as on 28.07.2005, it was not known as to why it had taken about 11 years for the completion of the trial.This disturbed our mind.Therefore, we called for remarks from the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry, as to why there occurred such undue delay of 11 years for the disposal of the case.The learned II Additional Sessions Judge by Letter No.193/Jud/II ADJ/2016 dated 05.07.2016 has submitted to this Court that since the case properties were not received by the trial court for more than 9 years either from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry or from the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry, the trial could not be commenced on time.The learned Judge has further stated that the properties have not been traced out so far.As a result, the accused have escaped from the punishment for the offence under Section 364-A of IPC.The Registry is, therefore, directed to hold a thorough enquiry into the above episode as to how the valuable property in a sensational case has disappeared and to take appropriate action.The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Puducherry.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.S.NAGAMUTHU,J.

['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2009 on receipt of DD no. 68B, SI Saheb Singh along with HC Rajesh reached at the spot i.e. Enkey India office, near KDR factory, GTK Road, Jahangirpuri where dead body of a lady was lying in a pool of blood and blood was also coming out from the head of that lady.There were four injury marks on the head and both cheeks of the dead body.Since last one year, complainant's wife was working at Kohinoor Beauty Parlour at B-39, West Patel Nagar, Delhi on 35 per cent profit basis and Sanjeev Kumar was owner of the said beauty parlour.Due to some dispute over money, complainant's wife was not going to the said Beauty Parlour from the last ten days and Sanjeev Kumar had telephoned to call his wife but his wife did not go there.On 22-02- 2009 at about 10 pm, Sanjeev Kumar came to the house of complainant in black colour Santro car bearing no. DL3C AQ-7008 and asked them to talk.Complainant sit near the driver seat while his wife Pinki and daughter sit on the back seat of Sanjeev Kumar's car.Sanjeev Kumar drove the car towards Jahangirpuri Metro Station and then turned it towards GTK Depot and when the car reached near KDR factory, in front of factory no. B-3, Enky India office, Sanjeev stopped the car.Sanjeev Kumar asked complainant and his wife Pinki to get down from the car and to go back to their house.As soon as complainant and his wife Pinki got down from the car, Sanjeev Kumar fired two-three times from his pistol on Pinki due to Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 2 of 19 which she along with her daughter fell down on the road.Complainant got perturbed.On hearing the sound of firing, many people gathered at the spot.Sanjeev Kumar ran towards GTK Depot, By- pass in his car.Complainant lifted his daughter in his lap.Someone dialled to PCR.During investigation, Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs were taken.Blood sample, earth control, three empty cartridges were lifted from the spot and taken into police possession.The dead body was shifted to mortuary.The IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded statement of witnesses.During investigation, it was revealed that Santro car bearing no. DL3C- AQ-7008, in which Sanjeev Mahajan ran from the spot, was standing at Outer Ring Road, near Income Tax Colony.It was further revealed that said car was registered in the name of Ajay Kumar r/o Flat no. D-45, Gujaranwala Apartments, J-Block, Vikaspuri, Delhi.Ajay Kumar disclosed that after getting financed, he had given the said car to Sanjeev Mahajan.Sanjeev Mahajan was not found despite search.Postmortem was got conducted on the dead body of deceased Pinki from BJRM hospital mortuary.The case property was deposited in the malkhana.The testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh is further corroborated from the statement of PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra, a Security Guard in KDR factory that he heard the noise of the firings and one person shouting "bachao-bachao" and on opening the gate of the factory, he saw the deceased lying on the ground few steps away from the gate with blood oozing from her mouth after which, he informed the Police Control Room.During cross examination, PW13 stated that shouts of Bachao Bachao was in a gents voice which would also establish that PW1 was present at the spot and escaped after the gun shots.During investigation, PW 5 SI M.D. Meena, who was part of the crime team stated that when he reached the place of incident he saw a body of a lady lying with blood scattered at the spot and Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 13 of 19 having bullet mark injuries on both sides of head ear and check and three empty shells with mark "KF 765" were lying there.As per the said register, at serial No. 914 Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sohan Lal, V& PO Bhikwind was issued license of 12 bore double barrel gun vide serial No. 14460 by the order of District Magistrate Amritsar.PW25 further stated that as per the said entry, the holder of the license can carry his weapon all over India and he proved relevant entry as Ex. PW25/A. PW25 also stated that aforesaid person was also issued one Addl.PW28 Sh.V. R. Anand, Asstt.Director, Ballistic Division, FSL, Rohini, Delhi stated in his examination in chief that on 25.08.2009 one sealed parcel was received in his office by messenger HC Joginder from P.S. Jahangirpuri and on 11.02.2011, one another sealed parcel was received through messenger Const.Rajender Singh.PW28 stated that all the seals on the parcel were intact and on opening the parcel No. 1, three 7.654 mm cartridges marked as EC-1 to EC-3 were taken out and on opening the second parcel, Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 14 of 19 one bullet and one deformed bullet marked as EB-1 & EB-2 respectively were taken out.PW28 examined the said exhibits and cartridges EC-1 to EC-3 were fired empty cartridges and bullets EB-1 & EB-2 corresponded to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridges.PW28 further stated that individual characteristic of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC-1 to EC-3 and TC-1 to TC-5 in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpur (FSL NO. 10/F- 5254) were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical.PW28 also stated that mark EC-1 to EC-3 were fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex. F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposied in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F- 5254).PW28 further stated that individual characteristic of rifling marks present on bullet marked as EB-1 and TB-5 in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL NO. 10-F-5254) were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical.PW28 stated that EB-1 was fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex.F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposited in case FIR NO. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F-5254).PW28 also stated that individual characteristic of rifling marks present on bullet marked as EB-2 were insufficient for comparison and opinion whether it was fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex.F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposited in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F-5254).After Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 15 of 19 examination, report running into 3 pages Ex.PW28/A was prepared in his office on his dictation.PW28 further stated that on 29.11.2010, one sealed parcel was also received in his office and seals on the parcel were intact.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 217/09 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offences under Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 1 of 19Due to bullet injury in the head, the complainant's wife Pinki died on the spot.During investigation, Inspector J. K. Sharma conducted investigation from the driver of Sanjeev mahajan namely Maninder Singh, partner of Kohinoor Beauty Parlour namely Karan Singh and some other people but he could not be found.The scaled site plan was got prepared from draftsman.In the meanwhile, information was received that wanted accused Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 3 of 19 Sanjeev Mahajan was arrested in case FIR no. 83/09 u/s 25 Arms Act by the Crime Branch SOS and the pistol by which he fired bullet at Pinki, was also recovered from him.On 05.06.2009, accused Sanjeev Mahajan was arrested from Patiala House Court and his one day PC remand was taken from the court.Accused Sanjeev Mahajan gave disclosure statement that due to financial disputes with Pinki, he fired at her from his licensed pistol whose license had expired.Accused led the police to the place of incident and the place where he left the Santro car.Accused disclosed that he threw the cloths in the water of Haridwar which he wore on that day of the incident.Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini.After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused Sanjeev Mahajan u/s 302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 3 of 19After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court.Charge under Section 302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."The prosecution, in the course of the trial, relied upon the testimonies of 35 witnesses and also placed on record several exhibits whereas one witness has been examined by the accused in his defence.Statement of accused was recorded under Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Trial Court, after scrutiny of the evidence, found that prosecution had been able to prove the case against the appellant and, accordingly convicted him for the offences and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinabove.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 4 of 19While arguing the appeal, Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are wrong and illegal as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by filling in lacunas in the investigation.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution rests only on the sole testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, whose presence at the spot is highly suspicious; that there are inconsistencies and material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses; that there are many loopholes in the investigation; that the santro car allegedly used by the appellant was identified by PW1 Surenderjeet Singh within 2 hours of the incident whereas the said car was seized by the officials of Police Station Maurya Enclave on 23.02.2009; that the alleged FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed; that prosecution has failed to bring on record the call record of the phone used for informing the police about the alleged incident; that the informer i.e. PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra was not cited as a witness to the memos and recoveries; that the weapon of offence i.e. Pistol could not be identified by PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is the sole eye witness of the incidence; that the bullets allegedly recovered from the body of the deceased were not produced before the learned Trial Court and were not exhibited and in this manner, the weapon of offence does not get connected with the offence; that the investigating agency has manipulated the case and the investigation Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 5 of 19 has not been conducted properly; that PW8 Maninder Singh and PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra are planted witnesses to implicate the appellant falsely in the present case.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 5 of 19On the other hand, Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal filed by the appellant and argued that it is a case of direct evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt; that PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, husband of the deceased, being the eyewitness, saw the appellant firing three rounds of bullets at his wife.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 6 of 19 become witness to the criminal proceedings or investigations and hence there are no public eye witnesses to the alleged crime and appellant cannot take benefit of faulty/defective investigation.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 6 of 19We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their rival submissions.In order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimony of the material witnesses and documents.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution on the testimony of sole eye witness of the alleged occurrence is PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is husband of the deceased and since he is a highly interested witness, therefore, no reliance should have been placed on his statement.In a case, where conviction is based on the sole testimony of an eye witness, it becomes necessary to evaluate the truthfulness and reliability of the said witness.In the present case also, it needs to be examined whether the testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is the single witness to the incident can be relied upon.PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, deposed :"I am working as an electrician in A Block Market, Jahangir Puri.Accused Sanjeev Mahajan, now present in the court, was running a beauty parlour by the name Kohinoor Beauty Parlour at West Patel Nagar.My wife was working in the beauty parlour for the last 1-1 years before her death.She was working with accused on a 35% profit in the partnership.About 10-15 days before her murder, Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 7 of 19 she was not going to the parlour owing to the reason that our daughter was unwell.Accused made a telephone call to her to join her work in the parlour but my wife refused.He took us in the car on the pretext that he wanted to talk to us.Our daughter was also with us.I was sitting besides the driver seat in the car while my wife and daughter were sitting on the rear seat.The accused took the car to Jahangir Puri and from there, to KDR factory at G.T. Road.Accused stopped the car near the KDR factory and asked us to get down and go back to our house.When we got down from the car, accused Sanjeev Mahajan also got down and fired on my wife Pinki thrice from his pistol.My wife along with the child fell down and started bleeding and died at the spot.Accused then fled away towards by-pass with his car.I lifted my daughter.I got scared and rushed towards to the house of my in-laws at I Block, Jahangir Puri which was nearby to the spot.But, my in-laws were not present at the house and therefore I telephonically informed my father in law and then again came back at the spot.The PCR van had reached at the spot.Police had recorded my statement Exbt.PW-1/A which bears my signatures at point A. After about one and a half hour - two hours, the police officials asked me to indentify one car standing near Sunday bazaar, Pitam Pura.I went there and identified the car.Police enquired the name of the owner of the car.The body of my wife was rushed to BJRM Hospital for post-mortem.The body after post-mortem was handed over to me vide receipt Exbt.PW-1/B. My statement was recorded by the police regarding the identification body of my deceased wife which is Exbt.PW-1/C. I had shown the place of occurrence to the police.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 8 of 19 identify the pistol if shown but can identify the car..."Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 7 of 19PW6 SI Sahib Singh deposed that the spot was inspected by crime team and three empty shells were found at the spot were lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. PW23 SI Ravinder had proved the arrest of appellant and the recovery of one loaded pistol with 6 live cartridges and a Arms Licence with bullets having marking "KF 765".Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 13 of 19On opening the parcel, one pistol 7.65 mm calibre bearing No. RP-129479, one test fire cartridge case and five 7.65 mm cartridges were taken out.These exhibits were already marked in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL 2009/F-2386) as F-1 and A-1 to A-6 respectively.PW28 examined the exhibits and two 7.65 mm cartridges from laboratory stock were test fired through the pistol marked Ex.PW28 also stated that the said report Ex.PW28/B was correct and may be read as part of his evidence.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 14 of 19Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 15 of 19The parcels received in the FSL were intact.Individual characteristic of refilling marks present on bullet as stated above were found identical.PW28 proved his report as correct.PW17 Dr. K. Goel proved the post-mortem (Ex. PW17/A) on the body of the deceased which was referred by PW34 Inspector J.K. Sharma with alleged history of gunshot injuries.PW17 Dr. K. Goel opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature and were Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 16 of 19 result of firearm which caused cranio-cerebral injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 16 of 19PW27 Sh.V. Shankaranarayanan proved his report Ex.PW27/A (FSL Report) and Ex.PW27/B (Serological Report) on the basis of Ex. 1, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d (clothes of the deceased) and Ex. 5 (metallic pieces).The ocular testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh stands corroborated with the medical evidence led by the prosecution through PW17 Dr. K. Goel as well as scientific evidence led through PW27 Sh.V. Shankarnarayanan that appellant had committed murder by firing bullets from his licensed pistol on deceased as a result of which she died on the spot.The bullets recovered were compared and found to be identical.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 28/07/2018 10:43:06Heard on admission.Learned Special Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State; as such, no further notice is required.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Heard on I.A. No.12462/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Raman Singh Uikey.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of suspension of recovery of fine amount (I.A.No.12463/2018).Consequently, I.A.No.12463/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.300048/2008 by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni reveals that appellant Raman Singh Uikey has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 28/07/2018 10:43:06 471 I.P.C. R.I. for 2 3 Rs.30,000/- In default CRA-5459-2018 of years fine R.I. For Deposited 6 months 3 Atyavashya R.I. for six Rs.30,000/- In default of k Vastu months fine R.I. For 7 Adhiniyam Deposited 6 months 1955 13(1) Corruption R.I. for 3 Rs.30,000/- In default of d/13(2) And years fine R.I. For Prevention Deposited 6 months Act 1988 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended and he be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No.12462/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Raman Singh Uikey, is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19-12-2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

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