Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

M.C. No.3800/2012 Page 1 of 7I have carefully considered the submissions.The respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner.He met accused No.1, Sarita Dode, the present petitioner, in the office of Davish Group in the month of April, 2011, where she was working as a receptionist.The said company was dealing in money trading.It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the petitioner became familiar with him and in the month of May, 2011, he was induced by the petitioner to part with a sum of `1 lac on the pretext that she would invest the same in some money trading business which will double his amount to `2 lacs within a period of two months.On the basis of the said representation, the respondent No.2 is alleged to have handed over an amount of `1 lac to the petitioner in the presence of Vishal Baitha and Dhanraj Dode, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in the complaint.This amount was handed over on Crl.After a couple of months, that is, in the month of August, 2011, the respondent No.2 stated that he demanded his money back from the petitioner but the amount was not returned, on the contrary, the petitioner is alleged to have given a photocopy of her PAN card and voter ID card to him with a view to gain his faith regarding the genuineness of the investment being made by her.M.C. No.3800/2012 Page 2 of 7The second allegation which is made by the respondent No.2/complainant is that on 20.9.2011, the petitioner, who had come to stay with complainant, left the house of the complainant whereupon, he found out that a gold ring and a gold chain belonging to him were missing.On 30.9.2011, the petitioner along with accused No.2, namely, Vishal Baitha, again came at the residence of the complainant and it was then that the complainant noticed that the accused No.2 was wearing his gold chain and gold ring.It seems that the respondent/complainant had an impression that both these items were stolen from his residence while the present petitioner was living with him.The respondent/complainant alleges that he made repeated complaints to the police and since they failed to take any action, he lodged the complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. No.3800/2012 Page 3 of 7The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein for quashing of order dated 14.8.2012 by virtue of which she has been summoned in Complaint Case No.10/1/12, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri to face the trial for an offence under Section 420/380/34 IPC.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case under Section 380 or 420 IPC is made out Crl.M.C. No.3800/2012 Page 1 of 7 warranting the summoning of the petitioner.In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the impugned order and the documents filed along with the petition.M.C. No.3800/2012 Page 3 of 7After filing of the complaint, the respondent No.2/complainant examined himself as CW-1 and proved the complaint exhibit CW 1/A, the notice exhibit CW1/B, he testified against the present petitioner in respect of the averments made by him in the complaint.The present petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised questions which go into the merit of the case or which raise the disputed question of facts which can be adjudicated only once he enters into the appearance and cross-examines the witness/complainant at the stage of pre-charge evidence because both these offences, for which the present petitioner has been summoned, are warrant trial offence where pre-charge evidence has to be recorded.

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

e) It is further alleged that the source of Ballast supply to railway was not capable to undertake delivery of such huge quantity within a short period of 3/4 months.It was further asserted that signature of one of the P.W. It was fake and that of two others were found to be visually fake.The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ application may be summarised thus :By an order dated May 8, 1998 the then Hon'ble Chief Justice appointed Justice Anil Kumar Sen, a retired Chief Justice of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator in respect of all the 26 applications filed by the petitioner.b) On August 31, 1998, the learned Arbitrator allowed the claims of the petitioner in full and passed awards amounting to Rs. 32,83,36,357/-including interest.c) Thereafter, on December 10, 1998 the Railway Authority filed 26 applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside those 26 awards.In course of hearing of such applications under Section 34 of the Act, the Railway Authorities for the first time alleged that no contract was executed between the parties and that the petitioner did not execute any work whatsoever and that the petitioner had committed forgery and was guilty of fabricating documents.It was further alleged that the petitioner influenced some of the officials of the railways and in collusion and conspiracy with them procured the award.d) Subsequently on the complaint of the Railway Administration, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a case being No. R.C. 18 of 1999 dated June 14, 1999 against the petitioner and some railway employees.The sum and substance of the complaint is that on verification of the signatures in the tender papers, it was found that the signatures, other than those of two officers, were not genuine and that one of them was not available in the station and was attending a foreign training in U.K. It was further alleged that seals and stamps available with the letters of the contractor said to be deposited with the Railway Authority are not genuine because such type of seal or stamp was not used by the Railway Receipt Section of the concerned offices.By this writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR mainly on the ground that before lodging such complaint on 24th May, 1999, which was registered on 14th June, 1999, the Railway Authority earlier lodged two other complaints before the CBI, one in the month of October, 1998 and other in the month of March, 1999 but the CBI after investigation having found no merit in those complaints, did not proceed any further.According to the petitioner the sole object of the respondents is to get rid of 26 awards given against the Railway Authorities.The petitioner, thus, prays for quashing the FIR not only on the ground of malevolence but also on the ground that earlier two complaints having already been lodged, no investigation can continue on the basis of the FIR registered on June 14, 1999 which is the third complaint.The Railway Administration although has been added as respondent and contesting the proceedings has not come forward with any affidavit-in-opposition but this writ application is opposed by CBI by filing affidavit-in-opposition.In the affidavit-in-opposition, the CBI has even though disputed the allegations contained in the writ application but the specific allegations made in paragraph 56 of the writ application that investigation had started on the basis of third complaint has not been specifically dealt with by the CBI Authority.In view of such submission, this Court directed the learned Advocate for the CBI to produce those documents in Court.Pursuant to such direction, Mr. Roy the learned Counsel for the CBI produced those documents in original as also the xerox copies thereof with a prayer for return of originals after comparing those with the xerox copies.The learned Magistrate allowed such prayer directing the police to stop investigation.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri G.P. Singh learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 482 Cr.Due to the compromise, there is no need to proceed further in this case as the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 3 are living happily as husband and wife and both the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 did not want to contest this case and therefore it was prayed that the proceedings of the case should be quashed.From the side of opposite party no. 2, short counter affidavit has been filed on 14.10.2019, in paragraph no. 6 of the said affidavit, it has been mentioned by her that keeping the wishes of her daughter i.e. the opposite party no.3, the opposite party no. 2 later on became ready to solemnize the marriage of opposite party no. 3 with the accused-applicant no. 1 and with the interference of some respective family members of both the sides, marriage was performed on 12.04.2018 and further it is mentioned that she does not want to press the Special Case No. 85 of 2017 which is proceeding before the trial court under the abovementioned sections.Pursuant to which their marriage was performed on 12.04.2018 and now they are residing happily as husband and wife.

['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 21.10.2020 OP

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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.

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.107 of 2010, on the file ofthe learned Sessions Judge [Mahalir Fast Track Court], at Nagercoil.He stoodcharged for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 315, 302, 316 and 201of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was an young girl, aged about 18 years.Theaccused is her father.She was born to the first wife of the accused.The accused, PW-4 andthe deceased were residing together at Ambalakadai Thattarakudivilai Taluk inKanyakumari District.According to the case of the prosecution, the accusedhad sexually exploited the deceased, on many occasions at his house under threat and coercion and as a result, she became pregnant.When the deceased informed the same to the accused, he decided to terminate the pregnancy.Therefore, it is alleged that the accused decided to kill the deceased.It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceasedherself told the accused to kill her by giving sleeping tablets.It isfurther alleged that accordingly, on 29.05.2010, around 10.00 AM, the accusedtook PW-4 to his field and then, left her at the house of her mother.Beforeleaving the house, at 10.00 AM, he told the deceased to be ready to die.Accordingly, around 12.00 noon, he returned home.The deceased had just taken bath, changed her dress and she was ready.The accused, at that time, gaveten sleeping tablets to her.The deceased consumed all the ten tablets.Within a short while, she fell asleep.Thereafter, the accused carried her tothe bathroom and put her in the water tank.He immersed her head into thewater and she died.Then, in order to make it appear as though some culpritentered into the house, caused death and committed robbery of the personalbelongings of the deceased, he sprinkled chilly powder inside the house.Then, he removed a gold chain, a necklace and other properties belonged tothe deceased and fled away from the scene of occurrence.Then, he went to the house of his mother-in-law, took PW-4 withhim and returned home.PW-4 and the deceased knocked at the door.There was no response.Then, they forcibly opened the door, entered into the house andthey found the deceased lying dead.Thereafter, along with the special report, PW-2 and PW-3 produced the accusedbefore PW-24. PW-24 arrested him.While in custody, he made a confession voluntarily in which hedisclosed the place, where he had hidden the jewels.In pursuance of thesame, the accused took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide outand produced MO-1 to MO-5, which are the gold jewels belonging to thedeceased.PW-24 recovered the same under a mahazer.On returning to the Police Station, PW-24 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand.He also handed over the material objects to the Court.At his request, theaccused was sent to the Forensic Lab for extracting blood for DNAexamination.Accordingly, the blood samples taken from the accused and the DNA extracted from the accused were compared with the DNA extracted from the foetus, which was preserved from the dead body of the deceased.The DNA report revealed that the accused was the biological father of the foetus.He examined few more witnesses, collected all the material records andthen, handed over the investigation to PW-26 for further investigation.PW-4, the second wife of the accused, has stated that in themorning, the accused left the house leaving the deceased alone at her house.In the evening, when she returned, she found the house bolted from inside.When she knocked at the door, there was no response.PW-9 was running a Medical Store at Ambalakadai.According to him, two days prior to the occurrence, the accused came to the Medical Shopand purchased ten Donocut volume [two mg] tablets.PW-10, a neighbour of the deceased, has stated that the deceased, on one occasion, came and told thatthe accused misbehaved with her.PW-11, yet another neighbour of thedeceased, has stated that on 29.05.2010, he found the accused scaling thecompound wall.PW-12 is the Forensic Expert, who examined the internal organs of the deceased.According to him, diazepam was found in the visceral organs.S.NAGAMUTHU, J.By Judgment dated 07.08.2014, the Trial Courtconvicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:- Section of LawSentence of imprisonment Fine amount 376 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.No fine.315 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.316 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.The sentences have been ordered to run consecutively.Challenging the saidconviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.Accordingly, he gave some drugs to her.But, the said attempt failed.The accused pretended as though he was not aware of the cause of death of the deceased.Thereafter, the accused wentto the Arumanai Police Station and at 08.00 PM, on 29.05.2010, he made a complaint as though some culprit had trespassed into his house, committedrobbery and killed the deceased.Based on the complaint, PW-1 registered acase in Crime No.151 of 2010, under Sections 454, 380 and 302 of the IndianPenal Code.EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P2 is the First Information Report.Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over theinvestigation to the Inspector of Police.Taking up the case for investigation, at 08.15 PM, on 29.05.2010,PW-24 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of thewitnesses.He recovered water from the tank in a bottle for the purpose ofchemical examination.He recovered a small amount of chilly powder lyinginside the house of the accused.Then, he conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased.EX-P23 is the inquest report.Then, he forwarded the dead bodyfor postmortem.PW-17 - Dr.He noticed a male foetus, measuring 16 cm, with an umbilical cord in the uterus.He used the foetus for DNAexamination.EX-P17 is the postmortem certificate and EX-P18 is his finalopinion.He opined that the death of the deceased was due to drowning.Hefurther opined that the diazepam was found in the visceral organs.When the investigation was in progress, on 31.05.2010, theaccused, on his own, went to the office of PW-2, who was the then VillageAdministrative Officer of Andukodu Village.At that time, PW-3, the RevenueInspector was present in the office of PW-2, on official visit.PW-2, anAssistant was also present.At that time, the accused wanted to give aconfession voluntarily.In the said confession, theaccused disclosed about the sexual exploitation, the consequential pregnancyof the deceased, administering sleeping tablets and then, he confessed thathe killed the deceased by immersing into the water.PW-26, on completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 26 witnesses wereexamined, 31 documents and 10 material objects were marked.She forcibly opened the door and found the deceased lying dead.The jewels worn by the deceased were also found missing.PW-5 has spoken about the preparation of ObservationMahazer and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of material objects from theplace of occurrence.PW-6, the Head of the Sniffer Dog Squad, has stated thatthe Sniffer Dog was brought to the spot.However, it did not get any clue.PW-7 and PW-8 have not stated anything incriminating against the accused.PW-15, a neighbour of the deceased, has stated that on hearingthe alarm raised from the house of the deceased, he went to the house, wherehe found PW-4 and the deceased.PW-16, a Forensic Expert, has spoken about the DNA examination conducted by her.According to her, the DNA extracted from the accused and the DNA extracted from the foetus of the deceased were compared and the DNA report revealed that the accused was the biologicalfather of the foetus.PW-17 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW-18 has stated that theaccused was working at his office during the relevant point of time.PW-19has stated that he handed over the dead body to the hospital for postmortem,as directed by the Investigating Officer.PW-20 has stated that he handedover the visceral organs to the Forensic Lab, as directed by theInvestigating Officer.PW-21 has stated that he handed over the blood samplesextracted from the accused to the Forensic Lab for DNA examination.PW-22 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.PW-23 hasstated that the accused purchased chilly powder from his shop.PW-24 to PW-26 have spoken about the investigation conducted by them and the filing of finalreport.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against him, he denied the same as false.However, he did notchoose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Courtconvicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgmentand punished him accordingly.That is how, the appellant is now before thisCourt with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and alsoperused the records carefully.In this case, there can be no denial of the fact that at the time ofdeath of the deceased, she was pregnant.The foetus found on the body of thedeceased was subjected to DNA examination.A comparison of the DNA extracted from the blood of the accused with the DNA extracted from the foetus hadrevealed that the accused was the biological father of the foetus.Thisitself would clearly go to show that the accused had sexual intercourse withthe deceased.The deceased was a minor at the time of occurrence.It is notthe case of the accused that he had sexual intercourse with the deceased withher consent.His defence was a total denial.This false plea of the accused,which is contrary to the proved medical evidence, would go to show that theaccused had sexual intercourse with the deceased, without her consent.Thus,the prosecution has clearly established beyond reasonable doubts that theaccused had committed rape on the deceased.So far as the death of the deceased is concerned, the doctor, whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, gave opinion that the death ofthe deceased was due to drowning.The chemical examination conducted on the visceral organs revealed that the deceased consumed sleeping tablets also.Itis the case of the prosecution that the accused gave tablets to the deceasedand wanted her to consume.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the saidextra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be true.We find no force in the said argument at all.Though PW-2 andPW-3, who are independent Government Officials, have been cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited from them so as to create even a slightestdoubt in their veracity.In the saidconfession, he has stated that he gave ten sleeping tablets to the deceasedso that she could die.But, the death of the deceased did not occur due tothe same.The accused had carried the deceased, when she was under the influence of drugs and dropped into the water tank.By immersing her headinto the water, he caused her death by drowning.It is not the case of the accused that he had thrown the dead bodyinto the water under the belief that she was no more.It is common knowledgethat immediately, after consuming sleeping tablets, the person, who consumedtablets, would not die.It will take a long time.Therefore, it cannot beconcluded that the accused was not aware of the fact that the deceased wasstill alive.Thus, from the above circumstances, the prosecution has clearlyestablished that it was this accused, who had sexual intercourse with thedeceased, gave sleeping tablets to her, carried her to the open terrace andimmersed her head into the water, which resulted in her death.Thus, the saidact of the accused would squarely fall within the ambit of First Limb ofSection 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, he is liable to bepunished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceasedherself consumed sleeping tablets and therefore, the act of the accusedcannot be stated to be a murder.As we have already pointed out, though tit is true that the deceased hadherself consumed drugs, the death of the deceased was caused by the accused by immersing her head into the water.Thus, the argument of the learnedcounsel for the appellant in this regard is rejected.The accused has got no explanation as to how MO-1 to MO-5 came into his possession.A natural presumption, out of the disclosure statement made by the accused,which resulted in recovery of MO-1 to MO-5, for which the accused has got noexplanation, is that it was this accused, who committed robbery and alsoremoved the jewels from dead body of the deceased.Thus, from the evidencesavailable on record, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved the casebeyond reasonable doubts.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, we do not find anyreason to interfere with the same, as the Trial Court has imposed a veryminimum punishment, which also proportionate to the gravity of the offencesas well as the mitigating circumstances.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed; the convictionand sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, by Judgment dated 07.08.2014, made in S.C.No.107 of 2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge[Mahalir Fast Track Court], at Nagercoil, is confirmed.1.The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Sessions Judge [Mahalir Fast Track Court], at Nagercoil.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The first respondent purchased equity shares and fully convertible debentures in the appellant company.These fully convertible debentures were subsequently converted as equity shares.It appears that 2,584 option forms out of 1,44,252 have been received undelivered.Mr. Chagla has made a statement that in respect of these undelivered option forms, shareholders would be allowed to retain their shares.Mr. Chagla further stated that the company has received around 143 complaints alleging that the shareholders have encashed the cheques through inadvertence or error and even those shareholders will be allowed to retain their shares provided they return the money within two months.The respondent company shall keep in trust for such shareholders a sum of Rs. 100 per share plus five debentures of Rs.10 each to be dealt within the following manner.a) If the share holder is desirous of obtaining the shares, the sum of money and debentures so retained shall be paid over as price of the shares to a seller identified by the respondent who shall transfer to such shareholder an equivalent number of shares as the number held by him on the record date.If the shareholder has not elected to receive the shares till that period, the sum of money and debentures will together with the net income if any accrued thereon be handed over to the shareholder as and when required by him.The respondent shall within four weeks publish public advertisement of the aforesaid offer in Indian Express in English and Maharashtra Times in Marathi in Bombay and Lokmat Times in English and Lokmat in Marathi at Aurangabad "In view of the fact that the scheme has been substantially implemented and the fact that the Union of India/ Regional Director has not raised any objection before the ld Company Judge, we are inclined to accept the statement made by Mr Chagla as indicated above.There appears to be some fraud committed, resulting in falsification of records without the knowledge of the actual investors.One such case involves the first respondent, whose address was changed without her knowledge, though she did not give any change of address.Thus, she did not receive any dividend on the shares nor any notice either from her Agent or from the appellant.The first respondent sought issuance of share certificates from the Sterlite Optical Technologies Limited and also sought to know the procedure on the issuance of duplicate certificate to Sterlite Industries (India) Limited.The holding of the first respondent was accordingly confirmed by the second respondent.The order dated 19.04.2002 passed by the High Court of Bombay speaks about reduction of capital shares from Rs. 10 to Rs.5 as stated above.The scheme also contemplated buyback of shares from those who are willing.The first respondent did not make any endeavour to express her willingness.It is to be noted that no offer of buyback was given.The first respondent sought an advice on buyback.Thereafter, the first respondent wrote to the appellant regarding Folio Number-R-03228 alone.The first respondent was informed that the request made was under consideration.On 14.06.2002, the first respondent has informed Share Proservices that she has not received any dividend and her address has been wrongly recorded.She has further informed that she has not received any buyback offer.A specific request has been made to pay the dividend from the year 1996 onwards.Thereafter, on 13.07.2002 Share Proservices informed the first respondent that the request made by her was under consideration.This is with respect to the letter dated 14.06.2002 sent by the first respondent.Thereafter, on 09.11.2002, the said services issued certificates of shares in Sterlite Optical Technologies Limited in favour of the first respondent.She sent series of communications to Share Pro-services stating that she did not accept the buyback offer and she should be given the unpaid dividends.The said Services also sought certain documents from the first respondent.In the meanwhile on 29.12.2003, the first respondent gave a complaint to the Assistant General Manager, Investors Service Cell, Mumbai.A communication was sent by the second respondent stating that it was not responsible for the fiasco.The Bombay Stock Exchange wrote a letter to the appellant on 31.07.2007 stating that the first respondent never agreed to sell her shares and the letter was wrongly interpreted.This Company Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was arrayed as the first respondent therein, against the order made in C.P.No.1051 of 2010 on 23.03.2015 by the Company Law Board in allowing the prayer seeking re-instatement of shares in the name of the first respondent by directing the appellant to rectify the register of members by re-instating the name of the first respondent to an extent of 2911 equity shares and issue fresh share certificates and declare the entitlement of the first respondent to the bonus shares and dividends.On 02.08.2000, as there was a mis-merge between the asset and equity capital, a Scheme was sought for.The merger was between Sterlite Industries (India) Limited viz., the appellant as it was known earlier and the resultant company Sterlite Optical Technologies Limited.A subsequent order was passed by the said Court on 19.04.2002 in Company Petition No.203 of 2002 connected with Company application No.18 of 2002, which includes the Scheme of Arrangement between the first respondent and the equity shareholders.The following are the relevant paragraphs.4.PURCHASE OF SHARES:-An appeal was filed before the Division Bench, wherein a contention was raised that a silence cannot be construed as an offer.While repelling the said contentions and after noting down the fair statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the following order was passed.On 10.02.2006, the appellant came with a rights issue entitling the first respondent to 5822 equity shares held by her on 1:2 ratio.Few days later, on 23.5.2007, a complaint was acknowledged by Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter called as the SEBI).The second respondent sent two letters one to the first respondent and other to the Bombay Stock Exchange.Thereafter, the first respondent issued legal notice and sought remedy by invoking Section 111A read with 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 with the following prayers.Direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate 87,330 equity shares in the name of the petitioner or in the alternative Direct to assess and pay the value of the impugned 87,330 equity shares after valuing the shares based on the highest price quoted in the Stock Exchange during the period of the alleged lodgement of the application/Consent for buyback by the Petitioner and the date of effecting the registration of the buyback.2. Direct the Respondent No.1 to pay the dues for an amount of Rs.12,36,795.50 (rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred ninety Five and Fifty Paisa only) to the petitioner being dividends declared by Respondent No.1 from 1996 till date.3. and grant such other and further reliefs as the honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.The Tribunal, after noting all the facts, was pleased to pass the following order.In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of relief.Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents,(a) to rectify the register of members by reinstating the name of the petitioner to an extent of 2911 equity shares and also the bonus shares which was issued from time to time.(c)the petitioner is entitled to bonus shares issued by the company from time to time.(d) further the petitioner is entitled to dividends on the shares which she is entitled from time to time.With the above directions the CP is disposed of.No orders to to costs.Challenging the same, the present Company Appeal has been filed.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the written submissions.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the company petition in C.P.No.1052 of 2010 filed before the Company Law Board ought to have dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.The order passed by the Company Law Board suffers from non-application of mind.The Scheme as approved by the High Court of Bombay is binding on the first respondent.The Company Law Board has not taken into consideration all the subsequent developments, including the restructuring that took place.Thus, it cannot adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that originally there were two Schemes contemplated.Admittedly, the first respondent was not put on notice.There is absolutely no material to hold that the first respondent was put on notice, received the intimation and accepted or refused the offer expressed.The first respondent had been knocking on the doors of the appellant right from the year 2001 onwards.There is absolutely no material to hold that the first respondent was put on notice, received the option form as per approved scheme and the cheque sent.On the contrary, a fraud was committed against the first respondent though not by the appellant, but by some one acted on its behalf, resulting in registration of case in Crime No.57 of 1999 under Sections 406, 420 and 120 of IPC.It is also an admitted fact that the members of the first respondent was fraudulently changed.Hence, as rightly found by the Company Law Board, such a negligence on the part of the appellant cannot enure to its benefit as against the first respondent.The change of address of the first respondent was expressly unauthorised and illegal.The first respondent has taken a consistent stand throughout.Accordingly, the company appeal stands dismissed.

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

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

(Passed on this 18th day of September, 2015) This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District - Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.197/2015 dated 09/06/2015 whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under section 307 of IPC against the present applicants.According to the prosecution story, the incident took place on 14.03.2015 at 7:30 pm at village - Talodi.The complainant was going with his father Motilal to milk their buffaloes.They were stopped by the accused persons Prakash, Babulal, Balram and Dharmendra, the present applicants.It is alleged that the accused Dharmendra was armed with sword while, remaining accused were armed with lathi.They started using 2 abusive language against them.Accused Dharmendra gave blow by sword on his left leg and accused Balram and Babulal gave blows by lathi on his waist and shoulder.The blow given by accused Babulal on head of his father Motilal, due to which, he fell down.On hearing commotion, wife of the complainant Sunita Bai and their maternal uncle Shobharam came there and tried to intervene.They were also injured by the present applicants.I have gone through the charge-sheet and medical papers which show that in the X-ray report of Sunita Bai, no bony injury was found, similarly, in the X-ray report of Shobharam, no bony injury was found and Motilal was subjected to CT Scan.No bony injury was found on his scull and only three lacerated wounds were found on his head.Taking into account the medical papers filed with the charge-sheet, it is apparent that there was no injury dangerous to life found on the body of Motilal or the persons, who were allegedly seriously injured in the incident.A quarry report was also made, which is on record.In answer to the quarry report, the doctor replied that the injuries were grievous and dangerous to life but it is not proved by X-ray and higher examination.He further submits opined that in case, patient could not be given proper treatment, the injuries could have been dangerous to life.This is only a general opinion.No particular injury was mentioned and on the basis of such general opinion, charge under section 307 of IPC cannot be framed.In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and this revision deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned second Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the revision is hereby, allowed.Learned Additional Sessions Judged is directed to re-hear the parties and frame charges under proper sections of IPC except under section 307 of IPC.With these observation and direction, the revision stands disposed of.C.c as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Item No. 13And In the matter of: Khokan Garai @ Asim Garai & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat Police Station Case No. 285 of 2013 dated 13.07.2013 under sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner No.1 is the principal accused whereas the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents.The victim, who is a 17 (seventeen) year old girl, has been kidnapped and her statement has been recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ALLOWED Hence, we allow this application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each with one surety each 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 .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

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

(Delivered on 27/6/2017) Per Prakash Shrivastava, J :-1/ These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 7.2.2007 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Barwani in Sessions Trial No.50/2006 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of one year RI.2/ Two appeals against the same judgment of conviction and sentence by the same accused are not maintainable, hence the Criminal Appeal No.71/2008 filed later in point of time is dismissed.3/ The prosecution case is that on 6.4.2006 around 10 P.M. complainant Kashiram was sitting outside his house, when his uncle Chandar Singh came shouting on Bhimsingh that he had killed his goats by giving beans of Khejde (Khejde Ki Phali).Appellant who was sitting in the house of his father Bhimsingh, came out with a Falia in his hand telling Chandar Singh that he was abusing and shouting his father daily, therefore, he would kill him and appellant gave a blow of Falia on Chandar Singh which caused injury on the left side of his neck and Chandar Singh fell down and died on the spot.The eyewitnesses Gulsingh, Dinesh, Anita and Savitri Bai came running and appellant ran away towards the field carrying Falia in his hand.4/ After investigation Challan was filed and the appellant was charged for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC.He had abjured his guilt and the trial took place, in which he has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned order.She further submits that the appellant has already remained in custody for considerable long period of time.6/ Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.7/ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that PW-8 Dr. Deepak 3 had conducted the postmortem of deceased Chandar Singh and had found one cut injury posterolateral with anterior extending which was spread from back side of the neck to posterolateral anterior.The postmortem report is Ex.The cause of death was cut of neck, spinal cord and excessive haemorrhage.Though PW-8 has not stated in the P.M. report whether the death was homicidal or suicidal but considering the nature of injury and the eyewitnesses account discussed hereinafter, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the death was homicidal.8/ The FIR Ex.P/1 was promptly lodged by Kashiram after the incident disclosing the details of the incident as also the names of the eyewitnesses Gulsingh, Dinesh, Anita and Savitri Bai.PW-1 Kashiram, one of the eyewitness of the incident, has stated that Chandar Singh was coming from the side of the road abusing Bhimsingh and alleging that he had killed his goats by giving beans of Khejde.Appellant was sitting in the house of his father Bhimsingh and he had given blow with Falia saying that he would kill him, which had caused injury on the left side of the neck of Chandar Singh.The version of other eyewitnesses PW-3 Gulsingh, PW-5 Sheru, PW-6 Dinesh and PW-7 Manjiya is the same, who have duly supported the prosecution case.No other witness has stated about prior enmity.Hence prior to the incident there was no enmity between the appellant and deceased Chandar Singh.16/ All the eyewitnesses have consistently stated that at the time of incident Chandar Singh was abusing Bhimsingh, father of the appellant.Their statement also reveal that appellant was provoked by it and he had given blow of Falia to Chandar Singh.17/ The eyewitnesses have also stated that at the time of the incident appellant was sitting in the house of his father.None of the witnesses have stated that Chandar Singh had come prepared with Falia to his father's house to attack 6 Chandar Singh.18/ Considering the aforesaid factual and legal position, it is clear that in the present case there was no previous enmity.

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

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

rpan Ct.And In the matter of:- Renuka Ghosh & Anr. - Petitioners Mr. N.N. Adhikari Mr. Subarnabindu Roy ...for the Petitioners Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ...for the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hasnabad Police Station Case No.131 of 2013, dated 22.03.2013 under Sections 147/148/149/302/353/186/333 of the Indian Penal Code, have filed this application for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned advocate for the Petitioners as well as the learned advocate for the State.rejected The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.The Petitioners may apply for regular bail.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record.This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Misc.Case No.1768 of 2015 (State vs. Aquil Ahmad and others) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki [arising out of Case Crime No.845 of 2013 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 (452 IPC added during investigation), P.S. Kotwali City, District Barabanki including the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in Criminal Misc.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime number, therefore, decided by the present common order.The applicants are in custody since 15.02.2017 relating to Crime No.72/2017 registered at Police Station - Dehat District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 294, 506 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are youths of age group of 22 to 24 years, who have no criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged against the co-accused Jitendra @ Bheem Singh that he fired with a gun upon the deceased Rajendra causing his death.Only single injury was found to the deceased Rajendra, whereas so many accused persons were implicated because they were the relatives of main accused Jitendra @ Bheem Singh.No conduct of the applicants is established to show their common intention or common object with the co- accused Jitendra @ Bheem Singh.Prima facie no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against any of the applicants either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2380/2017 & 3457/2017 IPC.The applicants are in custody without any sufficient reason.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 2380/2017 & 3457/2017It is directed that the applicants namely Ashish Yadav @ Kalu and Shailu @ Shailendra Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Bhind to appear before the committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused married the deceased-Shanthi, on 15.09.96, as arranged by their parents and both of them were living together as husband and wife, at Nellorepettai in Gudiyatham Taluk.While so, on 27.02.97 between 2.00 p.m. and 4.30 p.m., the deceased was found drowning in a lake in the village, which was noticed by PW6 and on hearing the alarming voice raised by the persons including her husband the deceased was rescued from the lake but subsequently, she died.On a complaint given by PW1, who is a close relative of the deceased, the law was set in motion and the revision petitioner, his father and mother were arrayed as A1, A2 and A3 respectively, and as such facing the trial.In support of the contention of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined and 9 exhibits were marked.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted the revision petitioner, under Section 304(B)IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I., under Section 498(A) IPC, sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo 3 months R.I., and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. The Trial Court has acquitted the other accused.Against which, the petitioner/accused, preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Vellore, which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court below and dismissed the appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no evidence to convict the petitioner/accused under the above said Sections.According to the learned counsel, the deceased Shanthi wife of the revision petitioner was not done to death by homicidal violence, nor committed suicide but it could have been an accident on account of drowning.The learned counsel further contended that as per the prosecution case, on seeing the drowning of the deceased, the revision petitioner also raised alarming voice.The Assistant Surgeon PW9 attached to the Government Hospital, Gudiyattam who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased-Shanthi and found the following injuries as stated in the post mortem certificate, ExP4 1/ 2 linear abrasions each 2 x = cm on right shoulder2/ Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on right cheek6.As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the above said injuries could have been caused even due to falling down in the lake.PW6 is the eyewitness to the occurrence.According to him, the decease had fallen down into the lake by accident and on hearing the hue and cry of the public, he went to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased alive and according to him the petitioner who was also raising alarming voice.Then, the deceased was rescued from the lake by the persons available there.Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Hospital, where she died.Then her body was taken into an auto to the residence of the revision petitioner.The evidence of eye witness PW6 and the medical evidence would clearly show that the deceased had died due to drowning, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that as per Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, there shall be a presumption of guilt if it is a dowry death and as contemplated under Section 304(B) IPC, the Court shall draw the presumption of guilt in case of dowry death until the contrary is proved by the petitioner/accused.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the medical evidence and the evidence of eye witness would probabilise that the deceased could have accidentally fallen down into the lake and get aberrations and other symptoms of drowning.It is not in dispute that PW1 is a close relative of the deceased, Pws 2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of the deceased, merely on the ground of their close relationship, courts cannot discord their evidence, but scrutinize their evidence with due care.PW2, father of the deceased has stated in his evidence that he had invited his daughter the deceased and her husband, the petitioner herein to his residence in Orissa, as he was employed there and according to him they had stayed there for about a week there, then the deceased informed her father that her husband was harassing by demanding TVS 50, grinder, and also money and thereby causing mental and physical cruelty.PW3 the mother of the deceased has also deposed similar evidence that the revision petitioner/accused had caused dowry harassment.It is seen that Ex.B2 Inland letter dated 19.12.96 sent by PW2, to one Govindammal, who is his sister stating that he had aggrieved over the ill-treatment of his daughter meeting out at the hands of the revision petitioner and hence he requested his sister by the letter to look after his daughter.The said Inland letter would show that the revision petitioner/accused was in a habit of causing dowry harassment, after the marriage with the deceased.As found by the Court below, the prosecution evidence is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 498 (A) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore I am of the view to confirm the conviction and sentence rendered by the Court below, under Section 498 (A) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that the charge against the revision petition/A1 has not been proved under Section 304 B IPC beyond reasonable doubt, though the charge under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been proved.Therefore considering the facts and circumstances, leniency would be shown to the revision petitioner/accused in respect of imposing sentence.

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

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

It is alleged that the complainant is the wife of the younger brother of the applicant.The applicant Anil Parashar with the connivance of other accused Subhash Parashar prepared forged I.D in the Face Book and threatened the complainant.Shri Ravindra Singh, Advocate for the complainant.This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 20.1.2015 in connection with Crime No. 12/2015 registered at Police Station Padav, Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 354 (C) , 507, 509, 34 of IPC and under Section 67 of I.TNot only, he sent obscene S.M.S but also and uploaded her naked photos in the Face Book.On the report of complainant, crime has been registered.The applicant has been falsely implicated.On behalf of the complainant, application is opposed vehemently and it is argued that the applicant not only made a fake I.D on the Face Book in the name of complainant Shailja Parashar and various filthy messages but also her nude photos have been uploaded on the Face Book.He has also uploaded the mobile number of the complainant on the said Face Book I.D. The applicant has also uploaded false and fake messages on the Face Book with regard to illicit relationship between the complainant and her counsel.The complainant also alleges that the applicant along with the absconded co-accused his brother Subhash Parashar affixed posters in the Court premises, Bus Stand, City Centre and other places, showing illicit relationship of the complainant with her counsel Shri D.N. Bajpai.The counsel Shri D.N. Bajpai has also filed a defamation suit against the applicant and co-accused Subhas Parashar before the JMFC, Gwalior.The complainant further stated that if the benefit of bail given to the applicant, he may go to any extent in doing such acts, which would hurt and damage the image of the complainant and her reputation.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs/-

['Section 498A 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.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore in CMP.No.8523/2005 in CC.No.279/2003, dated 22.8.2006, refusing to dispense with the personal appearance of the Petitioners.The case of the Prosecution is that the Petitioners are the step brothers of the complainant Doriswamy and on 27.12.1980, the complainant along with his father Muthuswamy, his step mother Saraswathi entered into a deed of partnership for running a business under the name and style of M/s.Hotel Sri Thevar and in pursuance of the said deed of partnership, the complainant has entrusted a sum of Rs.35,000/- by way of share of contribution towards capital.While so, the Petitioners without the consent of the complainant entered into another partnership deed on 1.7.1981, thereby dishonestly concealed and removed the legitimate share of the complainant and thereby committed the offence under Sections 406, 418, 424, 477 of IPC.It is submitted by the Petitioner that the 1st Petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and had undergone bypass surgery and therefore, he was unable to appear before the Magistrate Court for every hearing.As regards the 2nd Petitioner, he is looking after multifarious business such as running of the hotel at Coimbatore and it requires constant travel and personal involvement.On the above said grounds, the Petitioners have filed a petition to dispense with their personal appearance under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Deceased Keshav had failed to pay any amount of fine.The accused persons had, therefore, started to nurture ill-will against deceased Keshav.Stones began to be pelted on the house of deceased Keshav who was compelled to leave his village Daviya Govind and shift to village Bhonti.On 3-6-1985 deceased Keshav with his Samdhi Patua (PW 12) again visited village Daviya Govind.On the following day, i.e., on 4-6-1985 at about 7.30 a.m. when deceased Keshav was at the house of Paltu (PW 3) in that village, all the 11 accused persons armed with lathi, Lohangi etc., came to the house of Paltu and forcibly carried deceased Keshav to the house of one of them, i.e., to the house of accused/appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh.The deceased was shut inside that house and beaten there.The deceased's son Nihalsingh (PW 1) reached that house and found that sound of beating was coming from behind the closed doors.He rushed to lodge a report (Ex. P/1) at Bhonti Police Station.The report was lodged at about 9.30 a.m. On the same day the Police reached the house of accused/appellant No. 1 Randhirsingh when the dead body of deceased Keshav was found lying in front of the door of that house.Two of the accused, namely, Randhir Singh and Kallua were arrested by the Police from the village on the same day and a Mogri and a lathi were respectively recovered on their information and at their instance.The rest of the accused persons were arrested after lapse of some days.Lathis were recovered on the information given by each of the accused.JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.The prosecution story was that a theft had occurred at the house of appellant No. 1 Randhirsingh Lodhi @ Randhira, which deceased Keshav, among some others, was suspected to have committed.Appellant Randhir Singh had for that reason beaten deceased Keshav and the latter had also reported the matter at Pichhore Police Station.A Panchayat was held in village Pichhore which had imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000/- on deceased Keshav for committing that theft.Post mortem examination of deceased Keshav revealed 9 wounds on his body coupled with fracture of right tibia and fibula bones and right ulna bone.The death, according to the doctor, was on account of shock due to multiple injuries and fracture of bones.On these facts, all the accused persons were charged of the offences under Sections 148, 342/148 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code.At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge however convicted the accused persons of the offences under Section 147 in place of Section 148, Indian Penal Code, Sections 343/149, Indian Penal Code and Section 304-II/149, Indian Penal Code in place of Sections 302/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner already indicated.Shri B. Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, argued mainly to contend that the prosecution story was not proved.With regard to the main part of the prosecution story that deceased Keshav was beaten to death inside the room of the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh behind closed doors, it was submitted that there was no eye-witness account to show who were present inside the room and who actually beat the deceased.It was submitted that there was also no circumstantial evidence to establish the presence of any of the accused in the room at that time or indicating participation of any of the accused in the allged beating.Even though the dead body of deceased Keshav in a battered condition was recovered by the police soon after the incident lying near the door of the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh, it was stressed that the exact place where the dead body was found was a common compound of a number of houses called a Bakhal.With respect also to the remaining part of the story, the point sought to be made out was that some of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile; and others who supported it, were interested and related witnesses.It was also pointed out that F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) of the incident was lodged by deceased's son Nihalsingh (PW 1), who had not witnessed any part of the incident.He had lodged the report on the information given to him by his brother Gyansingh, who was not examined by the prosecution.Learned counsel also took this Court through the entire evidence in support of the above submissions.The weakest part of the prosecution case no doubt consists of the circumstance that there is no evidence to show who were present inside the closed doors of the room of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh and who actually participated in the alleged beating of the deceased.Nihalsingh (PW 1) no doubt tried to say in his evidence that before proceeding to lodge a report, he had reached the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh and had actually peeped through the crevice of the closed doors of the house.He claimed in his evidence that he had seen some of the accused persons holding different weapons and actually beating the deceased inside the room.There is no difficulty in holding that this part of his evidence was an improvement.Nihalsingh was contradicted both by report, Ex. P/1, and his police statement, Ex. D/1, showing that he had not done any kind of peeping nor seen any part of the actual assault taking place inside the room.He had at best heard only sound of beating emanating from that room.He had shouted for opening of the door but when it was not opened, he had hastened to the Police Station to lodge a report.He brought the Police to the room.It was the evidence of Sub-Inspector Shri J. S. Kushwaha (PW 14) that he had gone to the place of occurrence and got the door of the house in question opened.But it was not his evidence that any of the accused persons was actually found present in the house.Panchanama (Ex. P/3) prepared by him on the occasion of getting the door opened, does read that appellant Randhir Singh had opened the chain of the door from inside.This fact was however not elicited from Shri Kushwaha with reference to the Panchanama prepared by him.Instead the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri A. N. Vijay allowed the Panchanama to be treated as substantive evidence by getting it simply exhibited in the evidence of the witness.It is indeed unfortunate that the learned Judge after such experience should have committed such a rudimentary mistake in the recording of evidence.He however deposed to the fact that dead body of deceased Keshav was found lying just in front of the door of the house of appellant No. 1 Randhirsingh.He also deposed that he arrested appellants Randhir Singh and Kallua on the same day from the village and got a Mogri and a lathi respectively recovered at the instance and on the information of these accused persons.It is also true that neighbours having their houses in the locality in question and examined as prosecution witnesses turned hostile and had to be cross-examined by the prosecution.Those witnesses were Maniram (PW 2), Palturam (PW 3), Mohanlal (PW 4) and Anandilal (PW 5).It was understandable that they felt great reluctance to depose against the accused persons, who belonged to their own village.Considering such reluctance, their evidence to the extent it supported the case of the prosecution could be safely relied upon as truth wrenched out of their lips.There were also some prosecution witnesses who were related to the deceased.In this category belonged the evidence of Nihalsihgh (PW 1), and Kamal Singh (PW 13) both sons of the deceased, Premabai (PW 6), daughter-in-law of the deceased and Patuwa (PW 12) Samdhi of the deceased.The fact that they were relatives should not however detract from the value to be attached to their evidence, because naturally enough, they could also be expected to be interested in seeing that the real culprits were punished.They could not be expected to adopt a course by which innocent persons got substituted for the persons really guilty of the crime.The fact that these witnesses were not merely related witnesses but perhaps also shared hostility towards the accused persons, may make it necessary however to scrutinise their evidence carefully before the same is accepted.To begin with, there was the evidence of Palturam (PW 3), a hostile witness, on the initial part of the prosecution story.His evidence was that some 2 or 3 months prior to the death of the deceased, a theft had taken place in the house of appellant No. 1 Randhirsingh.Deceased Keshav, among others, was suspected to have committed that theft.The deceased was actually beaten by accused Randhir Singh and Harprasad on that occasion.A report against the accused persons was made by deceased Keshav.One of the suspects of that theft was Ramdayal (PW 11), who was also examined by the prosecution.The evidence of Ramdayal was also to the effect that Randhir Singh and others had beaten Keshav at that time and deceased Keshav on his part had made a report in the police station.Palturam (PW 3) further went on to state that a Panchayat was held which imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000/- on deceased Keshav on the charge of having committed that theft.Deceased Keshav paid no money towards that fine, with the result that he was compelled to leave the village.It was only a day prior to his murder that the deceased had come to visit the village in question.There was also the evidence of Mohanlal (PW 4), another hostile witness, to the effect that on the day of occurrence, 11 accused persons arraigned in the present case had come armed with lathis to the house of Paltu and had forcibly carried away deceased Keshav, who was sitting in that house, towards the direction of the house of appellant Randhir Singh.This was also the evidence of Premabai (PW 6), daughter-in-law of the deceased.Her evidence does not contain any exaggeration.If she were minded to exaggerate the story, she could have easily stated that she had also gone to the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh to see what was actually taking place there, but she candidly admitted that she had thereafter not gone to the house of appellant Randhir Singh.She was a new person in the village and being a young married woman had not thought it proper to stir out of the house of the deceased, her father-in-law.She had seen all the accused persons forcibly taking away her father-in-law, the deceased Keshav, from the neighbouring house of Paltu.Ramdayal (PW 11) gave a vivid description.He stated that three or four of the accused were catching hold of deceased Keshav when forcibly carrying him away from Paltu's house while the remaining accused persons were giving jabs by lathis to the deceased.There was good evidence to show that when the Police arrived at the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh, the dead-battered body of deceased Keshav was found just outside the door of that house.The house of appellant Randhir Singh is situated among a cluster of houses with a common gate, which is called Bakhal.Naturally the compound where the body was found lying, was a common compound of the said cluster of houses.The fact remains that the dead body was found just outside the door of the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh.There was also the evidence of Shri J. S. Kushwaha (PW 14) that he had arrested the accused/appellants Randhir Singh and Kallu on the very day of the incident and further that a Mogri (a wooden log used for washing clothes) was recovered by him on the information and at the instance of appellant Randhir Singh and a lathi on the information and at the instance of appellant Kallu.These articles were found to be blood stained on the report of Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar (Ex. P/13), though the origin of the blood could not be determined vide the report of Serologist (Ex. P/37).It is no doubt true that prosecution did not examine the deceased's son Gyansingh, who had allegedly seen the accused persons in a body forcibly carrying away the deceased from the house of Paltu.There was however on this point the evidence of Kamalsingh (PW 13), another son of the deceased.On this point, there was also the evidence, as already indicated, of Mohanlal (PW 4), Premabai (PW 6) and Ramdayal (PW 11).It may be proper here to notice the kind of injuries sustained by the deceased.The evidence of Dr. Choudhary (PW 7), who performed post mortem examination on the deceased, would show that there were, as may as 9 ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased.Those injuries were :(i) Contusion 32 cm X 6 cm on the right leg with fracture of both tibia and fibula at the upper ends.(ii) Contusion 30 cm X 6.5 cm on the left leg.(iii) Swelling 15 cm X 5 cm on the right dorsal of foot.(iv) Swelling 12 cm X 4 cm on left dorsal of foot.(v) Contusion 3 cm X 4 cm on right elbow with fracture of ulna.(vi) Contusion 10 cm X 6 cm on left buttock.(vii) Contusion 8 cm X 6 cm on left buttock.(viii) Contusion 10 cm X 5 cm on right buttock.(ix) Lacerated wound 4 X 1 X 1 cm on parietal region at the middle.In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died due to shock on account of multiple injuries and fracture of bones.It is evident that the deceased was brutally beaten to death.Learned Sessions Judge considering the non-vital parts on which injuries were caused, thought that not murder but the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304, Indian Penal Code was committed.The State has not come up in appeal to challenge the acquittal of the accused for the offence of murder.It would be proper to sum up at this stage the various circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence.Some 2 or 3 months prior to the death of deceased Keshav, appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh had beaten deceased Keshav on the ground that it was he who had committed theft at his (Randhir Singh's) house.A Panchayat was also convened in the village, which punished deceased Keshav to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- for the alleged theft.The deceased was unable to pay anything towards fine.His house in the village thereafter started to be stoned by the villagers.The deceased was forced to leave the village, that is village Daviya Govind.One day prior to the incident, i.e., on 3-6-1985, deceased Keshav with his Samdhi Patuwa (PW 12) had come back to visit the village in question.On the date of the occurrence i.e. on 4-6-1985, at about 7.30 a.m. when deceased Keshav was sitting in the neighbouring house of Palturam (PW 3), all the 11 accused persons came there in a body armed with lathis.They forcibly carried away deceased Keshav from that place towards the house of one of the appellants, i.e. towards the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh.The deceased's son Nihalsingh (PW 1) went outside that house.He found the doors of the house closed.He shouted for the door of the house being opened.It was of no avail.He heard the noise of beating coming from inside the closed room of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh.He rushed to lodge a report (Ex. P/1) stating that his father was being beaten and may be saved.The Police reached the place of occurrence with him.The dead battered body of the deceased Keshav was found lying in the common compound just outside the door of the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh.Appellant Randhir Singh and Kallu were arrested from the village on the same day who got a blood stained Mogri and lathi recovered in that order, at their instance.On the above facts, it was clearly established that all the accused/appellants had committed rioting in forming an unlawful assembly and in forcibly and physically carrying away deceased Keshav from the house of Palturam towards the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh.All the accused/appellants were rightly convicted of the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.There may be an element of conjecture in holding that all the accused had gone inside the room of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh and had actually participated in the beating or at least shared the common object of beating of the deceased.It is also doubtful if there were at least 5 of the accused persons inside the room to form an unlawful assembly.There is however no doubt that at least appellant Randhir Singh and Kallu had participated in beating of the deceased and wrongly confined him, while the beating was taking place.Not only the dead body was found lying just outside the door of the house of appellant Randhir Singh, but also blood stained Mogri and lathi respectively were recovered from them by the Police on the very day of the occurrence.Appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh had also a very strong motive to beat the deceased.These two appellants, viz., Randhir Singh and Kallu had committed also offences under Sections 342/34 and 304 (part 11)/ 34, Indian Penal Code.It is true that the learned Sessions Judge failed to frame substantive charges under Sections 342 and 302, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.The charges framed were for constructive liability for these offences with the help of Section 149, Indian Penal Code.In the present case, I find that although charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 342 and 302, Indian Penal Code with the help of Section 149, Indian Penal Code, the language of the charges framed against each accused person stated that he too had committed the said offence, beside being vicariously liable for that offence by reason of having been committed by another, being a member of the unlawful assembly.They were in substance charges framed for both substantive as well as constructive liability.The accused persons could not therefore complain of any prejudice if they arc convicted of substantive offences vis-a-vis the offences under Sections 342 and 304 (part II), Indian Penal Code.It would however be harsh if the appellants after a lapse of about 8 years from the date of occurrence are sent back to jail to suffer short sentence of jail imposed on them for the offence of rioting under Section 147 Indian Penal Code.It would be proper to reduce that sentence to a sentence of substantial fine.The sentences visited for the other offences are commensurate with the gravity of the crime and need no interference.For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code is maintained.The sentence of 6 months' R.I. visited for the offence thereunder is reduced to a fine of Rs. 500/- each.In default of payment of fine, each appellant shall undergo R.I. for 6 months.The convictions of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh and appellant No. 2 Kallu are further altered from Sections 342/149 and 304 (part II)/149, Indian Penal Code to Sections 342/34 and 304 (part II)/34, Indian Penal Code.The sentences of 6 months' R.I. and R.I. for 7 years for these offences on these .two appellants are maintained.The conviction of the remaining appellants for offences under Sections 342/149 and 304 (part II)/149, Indian Penal Code are set aside and they are acquitted of those offences.Appellants 1 and 2 Randhir Singh and Kallu shall surrender to custody to serve out their sentences.The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded on them shall run concurretly.The fines imposed shall be deposited by the appellants within 2 months from today.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Background facts in nutshell are as follows:-On the intervening night of 28/29th January, 2004, HC Bhagwat Prasad (PW 28) posted at PCR Control Room received a call at 10 p.m. that one lady was murdered near Kabari Market, Dilshad Colony.He reduced the same in writing and flashed the same to NE Control Room.On receipt of this information through wireless operator, ASI Badloo Singh (PW 15) recorded the information vide DD No.30A Ex.PW15/A which was assigned to SI Sanjay Kumar (PW27) for necessary action.SI Sanjay Kumar along with Constable Ved Pal (PW 14) reached at the place of occurrence and found blood spilled in quite a volume near Kabristan.Public persons informed them that injured had been removed to GTB Hospital by PCR.As such after leaving Constable Ved Pal at the spot, SI Sanjay Kumar proceeded to GTB Hospital.He collected the MLC of victim on which there was mention of "cut throat injury" and "brought dead".Duty constable Mukesh(PW10) of GTB Hospital handed over a Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 2 of 52 sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital along with MLC No. C208/2004 to SI Sanjay Kumar.No eye witness was available at the hospital.As such SI Sanjay Kumar went to place of occurrence.No eye witness met him at the spot.He came to know the name of deceased as Mumtaz @ Mamta, W/o Mohd. Jaffar.A rukka was prepared and after making endorsement Ex. PW 27/B on DD No. 30A, he got the case registered through Constable Ved Pal.Investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Bakshi Ram (PWA. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 2 of 5229) who also reached the spot.Crime team along with photographer reached at the spot.After getting the case registered, Constable Vedpal came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the Investigating Officer.He further informed that he met the lady Mumtaz in the house of one Shravini at her residence bearing Flat No. 805, Shantideep Apartments, Shalimar Garden, Shahibabad, Distt.UP adjoining Seema Puri.Thereafter, a Crl. A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 3 of 52 police official along with Constable Ashok went to the house of Shravini who gave the whereabouts of Mamta @ Mumtaz that she was the wife of one Jaffar, resident of E-44/A-116 Jhuggi, New Seemapuri.She further informed him that Mamta was her friend and she used to tell her that one three storied constructed house at New Seema Puri bearing No. E-352 was in her name and her husband Jaffar @ Raju wanted that house to be transferred in his name.Shrawani took to the residence of Mumtaz where Shahida, mother of Mumtaz and Monohara, sister of Mumtaz met them.Husband of Mumtaz was not present in the house.Shahida and Monohara informed that they had been waiting for Mumtaz since morning and there was quarrel between Mumtaz and her husband and her husband had also left the house.Shahida and Monohara were taken to GTB Hospital where they identified the dead body of Mumtaz.During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Mumtaz was already married having two children from her first husband and after leaving her first husband, due to certain differences, she married accused Jaffar and had been living with him for the last six - seven years.It was further revealed that Jaffar was also having affair with one lady Kajal.Jaffar was harassing Mumtaz on two counts.First that property should be transferred in his name and second his relationship with Kajal.Search was made for Jaffar but he could not be found.Post mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. N.K.Aggarwal (PW 16) who gave his report Ex.PW 16/A. After getting the post mortem conducted, the dead body was Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 4 of 52 handed over to her mother.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 4 of 52It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation, it was revealed that accused Jaffar was found sitting at STD Booth, R.K. Telecoms, J-20, New Seema Puri on the day of incident making telephone calls from the telephone booth.As such, inquiries were made from owner of the STD booth, namely, Rajan (PW 20) who verified that Jaffar @ Raju had made telephone calls from his STD Booth on 28th January, 2004 between 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm and collected call details.On verification of the call details, it was revealed that the accused Jaffar had made telephone calls to his sister at Meerut at Phone No. 951212525550 on the day of incident.Efforts were made to trace Jaffar but he could not be made available.On 31st January, 2004, on the basis of secret information regarding presence of accused Jaffar in New Seemapuri, a raiding party comprising of Inspector Bakshi Ram, SI Sanjay Kumar, SI Kiran Pal, ASI Shahid Khan, Const.Rajiv, Const.Rohtash, Const.Sukhbir and Const.Virender was organised.Sister of deceased Monohara was also called and accused Jaffar was found present in a gali at a little distance from his residence.He was arrested on the identification of Monohara vide arrest memo Ex. PW 19/C. On interrogation, the accused confessed the guilt and made a disclosure statement Ex. PW 19/E which revealed that there were some disputes between accused with his wife on account of transfer of property bearing No. 352, New Seema Puri, Delhi.At the instance of accused Crl. A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 5 of 52 Jaffar, documents of the said property, Ex. P2 along with currency notes of Rs.5,000/- Ex.P1 were recovered from almirah in the house of the accused which were seized vide memo Ex.PW 19/F. It was revealed that on 27th January, 2004, accused Jaffar had hatched a conspiracy with Sajid @ Moni and Shahnawaz at F-45, Old Seema Puri and also made a plan to commit murder of deceased Mumtaz.Accused also disclosed that it was agreed between them that one floor of the house shall be given to Sajid @ Moni and Rs.2500/- cash would be given to Shahnawaz with assurance to provide him some regular business in the same vicinity.He also disclosed that Rs.5000/- which were recovered at his instance were arranged by his sister living in Meerut to execute the said conspiracy.On the day of incident, i.e., on 28th January, 2004 he had telephoned his sister from R.K. Telecom from STD Booth asking her to make arrangement of Rs.5000/- as Id was approaching and he needed money.Thereafter his sister arranged Rs.5,000/- and sent to him.Accused Jaffar led Inspector Bakshi Ram and other police officials to the house of the sister of Sajid @ Moni at Pilakua Village, U.P where Sajid @ Moni was found and arrested at the pointing out of accused Jaffar vide arrest memo Ex.Accused Sajid made a disclosure statement Ex. PW 19/H and at his instance one ladies purse of deceased Mumtaz was recovered from the house of sister of Sajid which contained a mobile phone, cosmetic items and one mini album of photographs related to the family of the deceased which were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PW 19/J collectively Ex.Thereafter, in pursuance to the Crl. A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 6 of 52 disclosure statement of accused Jaffar and Sajid, police party went to village Hazipur of the accused Shahnawaz, who was found present in the house.He was apprehended at the pointing out of accused Mohd. Jaffar.He was interrogated.During interrogation accused Shahnawaz made a disclosure statement Ex.PW 19/L that the weapon of offence, i.e., Hathora (hammer) has been thrown by him near the spot in Seema Puri, Delhi and he could get the same recovered.Thereafter, accused Sajid Ali took them to F-45, Old Seema Puri and got recovered bloodstained clothes, i.e., Pant Ex. P6, Shirt Ex. P7 and Jacket Ex. P8 and said clothes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.All the three accused pointed out the room at Old Seema Puri where they hatched a conspiracy to kill Mumtaz.Pointing out Memo Ex.PW 19/N1 was prepared.Thereafter, they reached Kabristan near the place of occurrence from where hammer was recovered at the instance of accused Shahnawaz from under the garbage.The hammer, Ex. P9 was taken into possession vide seizure memo PW-19/P. Subsequently, all the exhibits duly sealed were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi from where report Ex. PW 29/A and serological report Ex. PW 29/B were received.Test Identification Parade of lady purse was conducted by PW-30 Shri Pratap S. Malik, MM, Delhi.Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh.All the incriminating evidence was put to all the accused while recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Jaffar in his statement admitted that Mumtaz @ Mamta was married to one Nizam and out of the said wed lock she had two children.She was left by her husband and thereafter she got married with him.He, however, denied that he was having any extra marital relation with girl, namely, Kajal with whom he was living at Old Seema Puri or that he used to quarrel with his wife on account of this extra marital relationship and used to threaten her to kill.He admitted that prior to death of Mumtaz, she had purchased a house bearing No. 352, New Seema Puri in her name.However, according to him the said property was purchased by him.He denied that he wanted to get the said property transferred in her name and that on that account, he used to quarrel with her.He has denied the rest of the prosecution case.According to him, on 28th January, 2004, he had sent Mumtaz to Laxmi Nagar to purchase clothes on the eve of Id but she did not return till 3:00 am.Thereafter, two police officials came to his house and took him to police station.On reaching police station, he was informed by the SHO regarding the factum of committing murder of his wife Mumtaz.He admitted that on 28 th January, 2004, between 2:00 pm to 6:30 pm, he made telephone calls from STD Booth, R.K. Telecom run by PW-20 Rajan and that he made a telephone call to his Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 9 of 52 sister at Meerut.He denied having asked his sister to arrange the amount of Rs.5000/-.He also denied making any disclosure statement or getting recovery effected.His signatures were obtained on many blank papers at police station.b) Recovery of knife at his instance.According to PW-18 Anwara, appellant was having extra-marital relation with Kajal and used to reside at Old Seema Puri.It is however pertinent to note that Monohara was examined as PW-3 but the testimony of this witness is confined to identification of dead body of deceased in GTB hospital.The other incriminating piece of evidence against accused Sajid is the recovery of bloodstained clothes from house No.F-45, Old Seema Puri, U.P. No concrete evidence has come on record as to whom this house belongs.Some shaky evidence has come that this house was taken on rent by co-accused - Zaffar, however, the landlord of the house was not examined to prove this fact.Moreover, according to PW-19 Inspector Bakshi Ram, the room was found locked.It was opened by accused Sajid Ali after taking key kept under a brick and he got recovered a rexin bag containing bloodstained clothes from the room.After recovery the room was again locked and the key was again kept under brick.Key of the room was not taken into possession by the Police.Further in cross-examination, he contradicted himself by deposing that pant, shirt worn by accused could be easily seen from the door of the room which were hanged by the accused on the hanger affixed in the wall.It seems highly improbable that clothes having blood stains would be retained by the accused and would be hanged on the hanger affixed in the wall.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.These appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 1 of 52 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 9th March, 2010, vide which the appellant Jaffar @ Raju and Sajid Ali @ Moni were convicted while co-accused Shahnawaz was acquitted.Vide order dated 11th March, 2010 both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 1 of 52Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken by PW 13, Constable Padam Singh.IO lifted some blood from near the kuredan, some blood stained earth and earth control which were kept in plastic container and sealed in separate pullandas and were taken into possession.Five slips on which telephone numbers were written were recovered from the dead body which were also taken into possession.Investigating Officer contacted on the telephone numbers written on the slip and out of which one was traced as Ashok Kumar.Call was made to Ashok Kumar from the spot and he was asked to come to GTB Hopsital.Ashok Kumar came to the Hospital and identified the deceased as one Mamta @ Mumtaz, resident of New Seemapuri.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 7 of 52 persons for offences under Section 302/120B/34 IPC.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 5 of 52A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 6 of 52After hearing arguments on charge, charges for offence under Section 120B IPC was framed against all the accused.Charge for offence u/s 302 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC was framed against accused Jaffar whereas charge for offence u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against accused Sajid Ali @ Moni and Shehnawaz.A separate charge for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused Sajid @ Moni.All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 30 witnesses, viz, Sh.Patmal (PW1), Ms. Sahida, W/o Abdul Hakim (mother of the deceased)(PW2), Monohara (sister of deceased)(PW3), Ms. Shravini @ Seema Mukherji (PW4), Nasir Sheikh S/o Abushadikh Sheikh (PW5), Ms. Babbo, W/o Uttam Kumar (PW6), Mr. Uttam Kumar, S/o Mahavir Singh (PW7), Mustaq, S/o Sheikh Nizam @ Ramu (PW8), H.C. Yashbir Singh (PW9), Const.Mukesh (PW10), Const.Dinesh (PW11), Const.Virender Singh (PW12), Const.Padam Singh (PW13), H.C.Ved Pal Singh (PW14), ASI Badloo Singh(PW15), Dr. N.K.Aggarwal Professor and Head, Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS, GTB Hospital (PW16), SI Udey Kumar (PW17), Ms. Anwara w/o Sahid Ali (PW18), SI Kiran Pal (PW19), Rajan S/o Satya Prakash (PW20), H.C.Rohtash (PW21), H.C.Naresh Pal (PW22), H.C.Kirender Singh (PW23), Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, CMO GTB Hospital (PW24), SI Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 8 of 52 Mukesh Jain (PW25), Inspector Y.K.Tyal (PW26), SI Sanjay Kumar (PW27), H.C.Bhagwat Prasad (PW28), Inspector Bakshi Ram (PW29) and Sh.Pratap S.Malik, POLC, KKD (PW30).He pleaded his innocence and alleged false implication in the case.Accused Sajid Ali and Shahnawaz also denied the case of prosecution.They also pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case.None of the accused preferred to lead defence evidence.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 9 of 52The Trial Court on considering all the evidence on record found the appellant Jaffar and Sajid Ali guilty, however, co-accused Shahnawaz was given benefit of doubt and order of acquittal was recorded.We have heard Mr. S.B. Dandapani, counsel for the appellant Jaffar @ Raju, Mr. K.M.M Khan, counsel for the appellant Sajid Ali and Ms. Ritu Gauba, Addl.Public Prosecutor for State at great length and have perused the record.Learned counsel for the appellant Jaffar has raised the following contentions:-a) The learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in proper perspective.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 10 of 52 authorities relating to restriction of conviction on circumstantial evidence the judgment is unsustainable in law.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 10 of 52b) Accused has been convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC but conspiracy has to be proved as a substantive evidence.No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that the appellant was present at the spot or that he entered into any conspiracy with co-accused to kill Mumtaz.Reliance was placed on Sherimon Vs.c) According to the prosecution, the appellant had a motive to do away with the deceased inasmuch as the appellant wanted to get property transferred in his name.However the deceased had no financial capacity to purchase the property.The prosecution witnesses could not give any cogent evidence regarding source of income of the deceased.In fact the property was purchased in the name of deceased but consideration was paid by the appellant.PW-7 Uttam Kumar himself admitted that at the time of registration of the document, the appellant had accompanied the deceased and if he at all wanted to get the property in his name, same would have been done at that juncture itself.The other motive alleged by the prosecution is that the appellant had extra-marital relation with a lady Kajal.However, Kajal was never contacted during the entire investigation of the case nor examined as a witness.No evidence has come on record to prove even this fact.As such, motive to commit crime is not Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 11 of 52 proved.When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is duty bound to prove motive to commit crime which it has failed to prove.Reliance was placed on Surinder Pal Jain Vs.Moreover material witnesses are only the relatives of the deceased and for that reason they have implicated the appellant falsely in this case.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 11 of 52d) The circumstances pertaining to recovery of documents of the property or Rs.5,000/- is not to be given any credence inasmuch as the deceased was residing in the same house along with the appellant.The documents pertaining to the property were lying in the house, that being so, if the recovery was effected from the house of the accused that is not an incriminating piece of evidence against him.Similarly recovery of Rs.5,000/- does not connect him with the crime.Learned counsel for the appellant Sajid Ali raised following submissions:-a) The appellant was arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Jaffar.However the appellant cannot be implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused unless there is other incriminating evidence against him.Reliance was placed on Harichand Kurmi Vs.b) There is a doubt about the place from where the appellant was arrested inasmuch as, in the arrest memo, in column (5), the Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 12 of 52 appellant was shown to be arrested from P.S. Seemapuri.However later on white fluid was put and Pilakua, U.P was shown as the place of arrest.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 12 of 52c) Some recovery is alleged to have been effected at the instance of this appellant.However, the material witnesses i.e. sister of the appellant and Imran were not examined by the prosecution.Moreover the recovery is in contravention of the provisions of Section 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.There is no independent witness of recovery despite the fact that there was no dearth of independent witnesses.Learned counsel for the respondent combated the aforesaid proponents.Learned counsel has advanced the following submissions:-a) There is no manipulation in the arrest memo.By inadvertence, in column No.(4) P.S. Seemapuri was written.However necessary correction was made.The mere fact that the material witnesses are relatives of the deceased is no ground to discard their testimony inasmuch as the relation witnesses have no motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case and to let the real accused go scot free.Reliance was placed on Mookkoiah & Anr.b) There is no reason to doubt the discovery statement leading to recovery.The independent witnesses were reluctant to join the proceedings.Moreover there is no rule of law that testimony of police officials cannot be relied upon.In fact they have to be Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 13 of 52 given same credence as that of the testimony of the public witnesses.Reference was made to Karamjit Singh Vs.State (Delhi Administration), (2003) 5 SCC 291 and C.Ronald and Another Vs.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 13 of 52c) The report of serological department opining the same blood group on the weapon of offence and the clothes of the deceased as that of accused are strong piece of incriminating evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.d) Mere fact that sister of accused Sajid Ali or Imran were not examined by Prosecution is of no consequence as it is the prerogative of Prosecution to examine any witness.Reliance was placed on Banti @ Guddu Vs.e) The appellant Jaffar had strong motive to enter into a conspiracy with co-accused to commit murder of deceased inasmuch as he wanted to get the property transferred in his name.Moreover he was having extra marital relation with Kajal.Furthermore, motive is such a factor which is known to the assassin and no one else knows what gave birth to such evil thoughts in his mind.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 14 of 52f) The trial court has kept itself alive to the parameters of circumstances and there can be no trace of doubt that all the circumstances cumulatively prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.There is no dispute that deceased Mumtaz met a homicidal death inasmuch as, post mortem on the dead body of Mumtaz was conducted by Dr. N.K.Aggarwal who on examination found following injuries on her person:-a) Cut throat wound of 10x4 cm present over the middle front of neck exposing the structures of neck.Wound was 4.5 cm below the chin in the middle and 7.5 cm above the supra sterna notch on the right side.It was 4.5 cm below the left angle of mandible and left angle of the wound is 3.5 cm downwards and inwards to left angle of mandible.The wound has cut the major vessels of the neck and muscles both sides.The wound has also cut the trachea in the middle front.b) Lacerated stab wound of 2x2.2 x 6 cm present 2.5 cm above the suprasternal notch.The wound has gone downwards, outwards and backwards for a distance of 6cm and ended into the muscles of neck.The margins of wound was partially lacerated.c) Abrasion of 1x 0.5 cm present above outer angle of right eye-brow.d) Abrasion of 1.2x0.6 cm just below and outer to outer angle of right eye.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 15 of 52Doctor gave his post-mortem report Ex. PW16/A opining that the cause of death in the instant case was cut throat injury.Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The crucial question for consideration was who was responsible for this homicidal death.There is no eye witness to the incident.The entire case of prosecution revolves around the evidence which is circumstantial in nature.The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as regards accused Jaffar is:-a) Conspiracy hatched by him with co-accused Sajid Ali and Shahnawaz to commit murder of Mumtaz;b) Motive to commit murder of Mumtaz as he wanted property purchased by Mamta to be transferred in his name and also because he was having relation with a lady named Kajal;c) Recovery of Rs.5,000/- and papers pertaining to property at his instance.a) Disclosure statement made by the co-accused Jaffarc) Recovery of his blood stained clothes andd) Recovery of purse containing mobile and other articles belonging to the deceased.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 16 of 52According to PW-4 Shrawani, deceased was a housewife.PW-5 Nasir Sheikh deposed that Mamta was doing stitching work.PW-6 Babbo also deposed that Mamta told her that she was doing work of export although she herself was not aware what she was doing.PW-7 Uttam Kumar could not say as to what was the source of income of Mumtaz.The testimony of PW-18 Anwara is also silent regarding the source of income of deceased.Furthermore, according to PW-5 Nasir Sheikh and PW-18 Anwara, the property was purchased by Mumtaz out of her own money and contribution made by her mother, however, mother of Shahida has nowhere deposed that she made any contribution for purchase of the property by her.In fact, she could not even say when the property was purchased by her daughter and from whom and for what consideration.Under the circumstances, no cogent evidence has come on record to prove the source of income of the deceased by which the property was purchased in her name.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 27 of 52PW-2 Shahida has deposed that Jaffar used to beat her daughter as he wanted to get the property transferred in his name.PW-4 Shrawani has deposed that she was informed by Mumtaz that she was having two-three properties in her name, i.e., two residential houses and one shop and that the appellant wanted to get the property transferred in his name.According to PW-18 Anwara, one month prior to her murder, deceased purchased a house and when appellant came to know about this fact, he started quarrelling with her and he wanted to get the house transferred in his name.However, testimony of this witness does not find corroboration from PW-7 Uttam Kumar, who deposed that about three four months before the incident, deceased purchased a three storied house bearing E-352, New Seema Puri.After 1 months of registration of said property Mumtaz told him that she wanted the house to be transferred in the name of her mother and her children.However, he could not say as to why she wanted the house in the name of her mother and children.Since the witness did not supported Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 28 of 52 the case of prosecution he was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that husband of deceased Mumtaz, namely, Jaffar wanted the house to be transferred in his name or that Mumtaz refused to transfer the house in his name.Although, he deposed that once he came to know that there had been a quarrel between the deceased and Jaffar, however, he could not give reasons of that quarrel.In cross- examination by the counsel for the accused Jaffar, he deposed that at the time of purchase of the property, her husband had accompanied her to the office of Sub-Registrar at Seelampur.The total sale consideration in respect of the property was paid by the deceased Mumtaz in the company of her husband.If that is so, then question of Jaffar coming to know about the registration of property in the name of Mumtaz does not arise.Moreover, if he wanted the property to be purchased in his name, at least he could have done it jointly with Mumtaz even at that time.As regards, PW-8 Mushtiaq, son of the deceased from her first marriage, he was aged about 12 years and although he deposed that Jaffar used to beat and harass his mother since the time she purchased the house as he wanted the same to be transferred in his name, however, in cross-examination, he deposed that he used to reside with his grandmother and father Nizam whereas deceased used to reside with accused Jaffar.That being so, since the witness was not residing with the deceased how could he say that the appellant was beating and harassing the deceased on account of getting the property transferred in his name.The result of the aforesaid discussion is that no cogent evidence has come on record Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 29 of 52 either to prove the source of income of the deceased or to prove that she was harassed or that the appellant wanted the house to be transferred in his name or used to harass the deceased on that account or in order to achieve that goal, he entered into conspiracy to get the deceased murdered.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 28 of 52A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 29 of 52The other motive alleged by the prosecution is that appellant was having extra marital relation with one Kajal.Here, it may be mentioned that testimony of PW-3 Shrawani, PW-4 Monohara, PW-6 Babbo, PW-7 Uttam Kumar is completely silent regarding appellant having any extra-marital relation with another woman.Although PW-5 Nasir Sheikh deposed that a lady Kajal used to stay along with Jaffar, however, there are no allegations of harassment to the deceased on that account.In fact, according to this witness, Kajal was residing with the accused Jaffar in the same house where deceased was residing and all the daily expenses were being borne by Mumtaz and Kajal and there are no allegations that there was any ill will between the deceased and the appellant on that score.There used to be quarrel between the deceased and the appellant on that account.Keeping in view, the fact that testimony of most of the witnesses is completely silent regarding appellant having any relation with any other woman and according to Nasir Sheikh, she was living in the same house with the deceased but there was no quarrel on that account and during entire investigation, prosecution did not try to contact Kajal to Crl.As such the recovery of property papers and the money does not connect the appellant with the crime.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 31 of 52As per prosecution case, after appellant-Jaffar was arrested he made a disclosure statement and led the police party to Pilaqua, UP.Sajid @ Moni was apprehended from the house of his sister on pointing out of accused - Jaffar.He was arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit PW19/G1 and he made a disclosure statement Exhibit PW19/H and disclosed that he had kept the knife used in the offence at the house of his friend and he had kept the bloodstained clothes at Old Seema Puri and that he can get recovered purse of deceased from the house of his sister.Thereupon accused Sajid @ Moni got recovered a hand bag (purse) containing one mobile phone and some Crl.Then, he took the police party to Old Seema Puri at his rented room at first floor and got recovered bloodstained clothes i.e. pant, shirt and jacket.Such statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker.(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.These provisions require the officer making the search under Chapter VII to call two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate and if no such inhabitant of that locality is willing to be a witness to the search, then to call Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 42 of 52 persons of any other locality to attend and witness the search and for that purpose, the officer making the search is empowered to issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.The search has to be made in their presence and a list of things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which the things are found, is required to be prepared by the said officer and signed by such witnesses.In the present cases, purse containing mobile and other articles belonging to the deceased is alleged to be recovered from the house of sister of accused Sajid Ali.PW12 Constable Virender Singh and PW19 SI Kiran Pal admitted that no respectable of the area was asked to join the raid.PW21 HC Rohtash also admitted that neither Pradhan of the village nor mohalla persons were asked to join proceedings.PW 29 Inspector Bakshi Ram, however, tried to improve by deposing that public persons were asked to join but none agreed.She nowhere deposed that she ever came to the Court or was asked to join any TIP proceedings or that she identified the purse belonging to her deceased sister.In fact, even the purse was not shown to her during her deposition.Furthermore, the Crl. A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 47 of 52 purse was allegedly containing mobile phone belonging to the deceased however no attempt was made by the prosecution to connect the mobile phone with the deceased.Under the circumstances, the recovery of the bag belonging to the deceased containing mobile phone and other items is not duly proved.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 47 of 52However, PW-27 SI Sanjay Kumar could not say from which place of the house accused got knife recovered.In fact he went on stating that he himself did not see accused taking out churi.In pursuance to a question put to him as how he knows that churi was recovered.He replied that when accused was brought in that house at that time he was not having any churi and when he came out he was having churi.In regard to this recovery also the seizure memo does not mention the house number from where recovery is alleged to have been effected.The house is not in exclusive possession of the accused but it belongs to his friend Imran, however, Imran was not joined in the proceedings and is not a witness to the seizure memo.Under the circumstances, at best the accused can be imputed with the knowledge that the knife was lying in that house and not that the knife was used Crl.Sister of Sajid Ali from whose house purse containing various articles allegedly belonging to deceased and Imran from whose house weapon of offence is alleged to have been recovered were very material witnesses but no attempt was made to join them in the investigation.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 48 of 52Furthermore, post mortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. N.K.Aggarwal.Doctor gave his post-mortem report Exhibit PW16/A opining that the cause of death in the instant case was cut-throat injury.Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.After seizure of the weapon of offence, it was sent to FSL.As per FSL report Exhibit PW29/A "all metallic weapon of offence having rusty brownish stains" was received.The FSL result nowhere speaks that this metallic weapon of offence was "chhuri".Subsequent opinion of doctor was not obtained for confirming whether the injuries were possible by the weapon of offence which was alleged to have been recovered at the instance of this appellant.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 49 of 52Much emphasis was laid by learned APP for contending that clothes of deceased, weapon of offence, clothes of accused Sajid were sent to FSL.As per report Ex. PW29/A given by Sh.V. Shankar Narayan, Sr.Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, blood was detected on the clothes of deceased, weapon of offence and clothes of Sajid Ali.As per report of biology division PW 29/B, gauze cloth piece, blood stained gauze cloth, jacket, salwar, brassier and underwear of deceased were opined to be of "human origin" and blood group was Crl.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 50 of 52 B. Same opinion was given in regard to weapon of offence and jacket and pant of accused Sajid Ali.Prosecution, however, did not establish what was the blood group of the accused.This blood group Bmay belong to others as well.In the aforesaid circumstances, the recovery of bloodstained clothes or the weapon of offence on its own is a circumstance too fragile to bear the burden of appellants conviction for murder.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 50 of 52That being so, the disclosure statement of appellant Jaffar may raise a suspicion against accused but it is well settled that suspicion, howsoever grave, must not be allowed to take the place of proof.As held in Haricharan Kurmi (supra), it has been a recognized principle of administration of criminal law in this country for over half a century that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence.In criminal trial, there is no scope for applying the principle of moral conviction or grave suspicion.In criminal cases where the oral evidence adduced against an accused person is fully unsatisfactory and prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a co- accused, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assist the accused and compels the court to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him and so, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.That is precisely what has happened in these appeals.A. No. 1057/2010 & 736/2010 Page 51 of 52On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances which could link the appellant with the crime.In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the two appellants Jaffar and Sajid Ali are set aside and the accused are ordered to be acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.The appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.The trial court record be sent back forthwith.SUNITA GUPTA, J REVA KHETRAPAL, J May 08, 2013 rs/as/aks Crl.

['Section 120B 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.

The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are/were the partners of accused No. 1 and are/were looking after the day-to-day affairs of accused No. 1 during the relevant period.Both accused No. 2 and 3 are/were in- charge o and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No. 1 and are thus jointly and severally liable for the acts.Save and except the cheque numbers, date of cheque and the amount, all averments in para 4 of both the complaints are identical.I note the averments in para 4 only in one complaint.It reads as under:That the accused failed to make the timely re-payments and consequently a huge outstanding, including interest, accrued in their account.After a lot of persuasions and repeated follow-ups the accused issued a cheque No. 819645 dated 15.7.2002 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Janpath, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards part discharge of the aforesaid liability.The cheque was signed by the accused No. 2 Ramesh Bareja as partner of accused No. 1 M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation.(2) The said amount was for 2.5 months.Therefore, the accused had issued us a cheque No. 3358762 dated 23.3.1998 drawn on State Bank of Saurashtra, Kalanala Branch, Bhavnagar for a sum of Rs. 62,250/-.On presentation of the said cheque in our account the accused had stopped payment on the said cheque so it was returned.Learned Counsel for the respondent complainants contended that a copy of the partnership deed was also filed which would show that the appellants were active in the business.No such document was filed with the complaint or made part thereof.The said decisions would not strictly be attracted when the dispute relates to a partnership firm.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

After they left, upon her protesting, they started beating her and threatened her that they would pour acid on her face.Her husband and both her sisters-in-law above-mentioned also threatened her that they would pour petrol on her and kill her.On her again protesting against the threats advanced by them, her husband pulled her inside the bath room.Her sister-in-law Amrita brought a can of kerosene oil from the kitchen and handed over the same to Himanshi (husband's sister).Her mother-in-law told Himanshi to pour kerosene oil upon her, which she did.Upon this, she (the petitioner) started shouting "Bachao Bachao", and on her screaming, her sister-in-law's husband, Vikas Gupta (husband of Meenakshi) tried to shut her mouth and her other sister-in-law Amrita also joined him.Upon the exhortation of her mother-in-law, her father-in-law took a match box and handed over the same to her husband, who took out a match stick, ignited the same and threw the same on her.JUDGMENT Reva Khetrapal, J.This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Police of Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi to add Sections 307/384/506/120B/34 of IPC in the case registered by them at the behest of the petitioner, being case FIR No. 56/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.The facts are in a narrow compass.The petitioner on 20th September, 2006 laid a detailed complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitampura, New Delhi alleging the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498A/406/307/384/506/120B/34 I.P.C. The said complaint on 10th January, 2007 culminated in the registration of FIR No. 56/2007, under Sections 498A/406/34 of I.P.C, Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi.Aggrieved by the registration of the said FIR only under the aforesaid sections, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for addition of offences under Sections 307/384/506/120B/34 I.P.C on the ground that the police cannot be allowed to tone down the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons in the complaint and to register a case for the commission of less grave offences at its own whims and fancies.The petitioner alleges that on 13th June, 2006, on the occasion of her husband (Sameer's) birthday, at about 7 P.M., when her father and brother-in-law (jija) came to her matrimonial home with gold ring, gifts, sweets and a birthday cake too, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law (Amrita and Meenakshi), brother-in-law (Vikas Gupta) and husband (Sameer) abused them for not giving dowry articles and threw away all the gifts brought by them including the sweets, and turned away her father and brother-in-law (jija).However, the match stick went out due to throwing upon her.On seeing her death in front of her, she was so shocked that she fell upon her knees and begged them not to kill her, but to give her two days time to ask her parents to fulfill all their demands.On her begging them and extending the aforesaid promise, they locked her in the bathroom and went for their dinner.She spent the entire night in the bathroom without dinner.According to the petitioner, on 5th August, 2006, her father-in-law Om Prakash Gupta, his brother Jai Prakash Gupta and the latter's wife Kusum Gupta insisted that she should sign some stamp papers and also blank papers.She saw that the stamp papers had been written upon and contained statements from her side that her in-laws had returned to her all her dowry articles, jewellery, etc. and that they were not making any demands for dowry.She accordingly refused to sign the same.Thereupon, her sister-in-law (Himanshi), her father-in-law (Om Prakash Gupta), his younger brother Jai Prakash Gupta and the latter's wife Kusum Gupta mercilessly beat her.Her mother-in-law stated that she should leave her matrimonial home and divorce her husband, Sameer Gupta, so that they could re-marry their son with a foreigner, who was the younger sister of Kasha, wife of Deepak Gupta (her brother-in- law).Thereafter, she was locked in a room without food or medical treatment.On the following day, she was compelled to do all the house work even though she was running high fever.The petitioner alleges that on the above facts set out in her complaint, all the aforesaid persons be tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, and be also charged and tried for the offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 of the Code, as she was put in fear of injury to sign the stamp papers and other papers, which may be got converted into valuable security by the aforesaid accused persons.Accused not only threatened her with dire consequences, but threatened to implicate her parental family members in false cases.Hence they were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. as well.I have heard Shri Vijay Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State.Ms. Gupta urged that a preliminary inquiry had been made into the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the incidents alleged to have occurred on 13th June, 2006 and 5th August, 2006 and no substance in the allegations of the complainant had been found.The complainant claims that the accused persons attempted to set her on fire, but she was providentially saved on account of the fact that the match stick was extinguished.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (Open Court)Aziz @ Guddu (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 31.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.137/11 arising out of FIR No.267/08 registered at Police Station Dabri by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 395/412 IPC.By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2012, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395 and 412 IPC.Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.05.2008 at about 11.45 A.M. at house No.RZ-B-2, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, Crl.A.No.1073/2012 Page 1 of 5 Dabri, he and his associates committed decoity and deprived the complainant Smt.Seema Sharma and her family members of cash and gold/silver ornaments using deadly weapons.Daily Diary (DD) No.22 (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded at 01.05 P.M. at Police Station Dabri regarding the incident.The investigation was assigned to SI Narender Singh who with Const.Amar Singh went to the spot.After recording complainant-Seema Sharma's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) he lodged First Information Report.Efforts were made to find out the culprits but in vain.On 31.08.2008 SI Narender Singh received DD No.111-B (Ex.It was further informed that Rajan Saha had made a disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the decoity in question.When he declined to participate in the TIP proceedings, he was taken on remand.TSR mini door for `2,10,000/- and Hunk motorcycle for `59,000/- purchased out of the booty in the name of his brother-in-law Manoj was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement.The looted mobile phone bearing IMEI Crl.A.No.1073/2012 Page 2 of 5 No.359945000295694 of make-Fly with sim No.9910211900 was also recovered from him.He disclosed the names of the associates and it led to the apprehension of Mohd.Shakil, Mohd.Vakil, Zaved @ Mukesh and Mohd.Aziz @ Guddu (the appellant).They were also arrested and recoveries were effected at their instance.Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu got recovered a buttandar knife used in the offence along with two gold rings.During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and after completion of investigation a charge- sheet was submitted against all of them for committing offences under Sections 395/397/412 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Vide order dated 07.08.2009, the appellant and his associates were charged under Sections 395/412/397/34 IPC.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove the charges.In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.He is not involved in any criminal case and his overall jail conduct is satisfactory.It is informed that the appellant is aged about 26 years and is unmarried.A.No.1073/2012 Page 4 of 5 He has old and sick parents to look after.The appellant has no criminal past history/antecedents and was the first offender.Though the assailants were armed with deadly weapons, no physical harm was caused to any of the inmates.Rajan Saha examined his brother-in-law Manoj Kumar as DW-1 in defence.On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted all of them under Section 395/34 IPC.Rajan Saha, Aziz, Shakil and Vakil were also convicted under 412 IPC.They were, however, acquitted under Section 397 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal.A.No.1073/2012 Page 3 of 5A.No.1073/2012 Page 1 of 5A.No.1073/2012 Page 2 of 5A.No.1073/2012 Page 3 of 5During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant - Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction.He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him and is not a previous convict.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.Since the appellant - Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 395/412 IPC and accepts it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence in the statements of PW-1 (Seema Sharma), PW-2 (Rajbala) and PW-3 (Noor Alam), inmates of the house, who identified him as one of the assailants coupled with recovery of robbed articles at his instance, his conviction is affirmed.The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395/412 IPC.Considering these mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to seven years each under Sections 395 and 412 IPC.Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed except that the default sentence for non-payment of fine of ` 25,000/-each under both the heads would be three months each.A.No.1073/2012 Page 4 of 5The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record be sent back immediately.6. Order dasti.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 20, 2014/ tr Crl.A.No.1073/2012 Page 5 of 5A.No.1073/2012 Page 5 of 5

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2) The facts in brief are that on 26th May, 1983, Raj Kumar nephew of the accused had picked up a quarrel with Virender Singh (deceased) and Dhan Raj.On the following day, Virender Singh and Dhan Raj were seen sitting in the park by the complainant Kundan Singh.At about 9 P.M., Kundan Singh beard an exchange of hot words between Rajesh on the one side and Virender and Dhan Raj on the other.Kundan Singh rushed there to pacify the warring groups.In the meantime, Bhuvan also reached there.Rajesh accused at that time proclaimed in a loud voice that he would teach them a lesson for giving beating to Raj Kumar.When the scuffle between them started, Kundan Singh intervened and separated them.Rajesh accused then left for his house in anger, while hurling abuses.With the intention to patch up the disputes, Kundan Singh, complainant Along with Virender, Bhuvan and Dhan Raj, followed the accused to his house.Bhuvan was ahead of them all.The moment Bhuvan after climbing the platform (chabutra) had reached the gate of the appellant's house no. 105-D, Rajesh all of a sudden, came out armed with a knife and instantly stabbed Bhuvan on his left leg.The accused then gave blows with the same knife on the chest of Virender and escaped with it, towards ganda nallah.Both Bhuvan and Virender started bleeding.Virender had hardly retraced 4/5 steps when he fell down on the ground while holding his chest.He was immediately put on a cot and was removed to his house from where his father rushed him to Hindu Rao Hospital.Bhuvan was also removed to the Health Centre of the Delhi University by his father.(3) At the hospital, Dr. G.K. Tandon examined Virender Singh.He found that there was no pulse, no heart sounds, no respiration and the pupils were dilated and fixed.The patient was declared "brought dead", vide Mlc Ex. Public Witness IO/A.(4) Constable Bishamber Singh was on duty at the Hindu Rao Hospital.He immediately conveyed the message on telephone to the Duty Officer in Police Station Roshnara, that Shri Hoshiar Singh got his son admitted in the hospital, who has been declared brought dead and that some officer be sent.This information was recorded at serial No. 21A in the Daily Diary Register.After preparing Mlc Ex. Public Witness 6/A, patient was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital.On examination by Dr. Sudhir Malhotra at the Hindu Rao Hospital, the injury was described as simple vide endorsement Ex. Public Witness S/A.(6) During the course of investigation, S.I. Satya Parkash took into possession the MLCs of Virender Singh deceased and Bhuvan Chand from the hospital.The blood-stained pant of Bhuvan Chand was taken into possession vide memo Ex. Public Witness 2/A after it was converted into a sealed packet.From the place of occurrence, the 1.0. lifted blood and control earth from 4 places, converted them into packets.A pair of chappal belonging to the deceased was also converted into a sealed parcel.then prepared the site plan.Ex. Public Witness J6/B at the pointing out of Kundan Singh and Dhan Raj.The scene of occurrence was also got photographed by Head Constable Mahipal Singh.(7) Public Witness -11 Satya Parkash, the Investigating Officer, then conducted the Inquest proceedings by filling Inquest form Ex. Public Witness I/A and got the dead body delivered to Constable Surinder Pal and Dalip for sending it to the Mortuary.On the next day, he received the post-mortem report.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Rajesh Kumar has challenged the.;Judgmentof the learned lower court passed on 3rd September, 1984, holding him guilty under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of Virender Singh and also under Section 324 Indian Penal Code for causing a simple injury with a sharp-edged weapon on the person of Bhuvan Chand.On the same day, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life Along with a fine of Rs. 500.00 , in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo R.I. for one year for stabbing Bhuvan Chand under Section 324 Indian Penal Code Both the sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.Public Witness -15 Tapraj Singh, Sub-Inspector had received the message and immediately deputed Satya Parkash Sub Inspector for investigation.The Investigating Officer on receipt of this report reached the place of occurrence and recorded the statement Ex. Public Witness 3/B of Kundan Singh.Underneath it, be made his endorsement and sent the Ruqa to the Police Station on the basis of which Fir No. 243 (Ex. Public Witness 15/C) was registered at about 11.15 P.M.(5) Bhuvan was first removed to Wus Health Centre, University of Delhi by his father at 9.40 P.M. where he was examined by Public Witness -6, Dr. Gurdeep Singh.On local examination, he noticed a two inch long incised wound, muscle deep gapping on the anterior, lateral aspect of thigh about six inch from the left anterior superior liliac spine.The case property was then deposited in the Malkhana and later on was sent to the office of the C.F.S.L. In due course of time, the reports of C.F.S.L. Ex. Pa, Pb and Pc were received.(8) The accused after escaping from the scene of occurrence absconded.He could only be arrested on 25-6-1983 from village Jatpura, District Bulandshahar, U.P., though he was a native of village Kalyanpur, District Aligarh.After the necessary investigation, the Sub Inspector filed the charge sheet in the court.(9) The accused in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .denied the prosecution case in toto.He, however, admitted his arrest on 25-6-1983 from village Jatpura.He took the stand that the deceased and the prosecution witnesses were inimically deposed towards Raj Kumar, son of his sister-in-law, who was residing with him at D-105, Reids Line, Delhi.These persons, according to him had pelted stones on the evening of 27th May, 1983 at his sisters house and broke window-panes.The plea was that a few of the stones had hit the inmates of the house.He further stated that the deceased and his companions were drunk.He denied having caused any injury to Virender or Bhuvan.He examined Ranbir Sharma, his sisters husband, in his defense.(10) The learned lower court mainly relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence in basing the conviction.The Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the theory of pelting of stones as not only improbable but not even possible to have taken place before the incident.Feeling aggrieved from the said finding, Rajesh has preferred this appeal.(11) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused acted in his right of private defense and the defense of the property of his sister, when the deceased Along with his companions came together and pelted stones and broke window panes of the house.At that point of time, feeling insecure, that they may not cause any harm to his person, he assaulted the deceased Virender Singh and caused injuries to Bhuvan.While exercising the right of self-defense, he had no intention to doing more harm than was necessary.At the most, according to the learned counsel, the accused can be said to have exceeded the right of private defense.He had no intention to cause such bodily injury to Virender which would cause his death.The offence, it is urged, squarely falls under Section 304 part Ii, Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 IPC.(12) To substantiate his submission, learned counsel referred and relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses, and the photographer Head Constable Mahipal Singh.On this aspect, Public Witness -5 Dhan Raj, while under crossexamination , stated that some children who were present at the pulia (culvert) of the park, after coming to know about the incident bad reached quarter No. 105 and pelted stones, at about 12.30 in the night breaking glass window panes.They had hardly pelted 2/3 stones but nobody was hurt.At that time, the police was also present.Public Witness -II, however, admitted that windowpanes were broken and glass pieces were lying scattered there, when he reached the spot at about 1.15 A.M. to take the photographs from various angles.Besides these two witnesses, Kundan Singh denied having seen any- body pelting stones at the house of the accused.Similarly, Bhuvan Chand denied the suggestion that anyone of them shouted, abused or pelted stones at the house of the accused causing breakage of window panes.On the basis of this evidence, learned counsel wants the court to draw the inference that the stones must have been thrown at the house of the accused by the deceased and his colleagues before they tried to enter the house.We are not impressed by this argument.Such an inference cannot be drawn from the above evidence.At the most, it can be said on the scrutiny of that evidence produced by the prosecution that there were few stones lying near the house of the accused and a few window panes were found broken.But from this evidence, it cannot be said certainty that stones were thrown at the house before the actual incident.(13) Learned counsel then read the evidence of DW-I Ranbir Sharma, brother-in-law of the accused.According to this witness, he bad been residing in quarter No. D-105, Reids Line for the past 6/7 months.Narrating the incident, he deposed that on 27-5-83, when he returned from his duty at 7 P.M., he took the tablet of Navalgin as at that time, he was not well due to severe headache.He went to bed inside the room, near the windows.After about one or two hours, he heard the sound of stones being pelted on the walls, windows and doors of his quarter.In fact, one or two stones bit his head after passing through the window panes.He immediately got up and while he was in the process of putting on his clothes, he heard the abuses being hurled.When he came out, he saw the injured persons being removed.These rules apply equally if not more strictly on the criminal side."We have been taken through the cross-examination of Rambir Sharma and we do not find a single suggestion regarding the pelting of stones on the quarter and the breaking of window panes.It was required of the prosecutor to have cross-examined this witness to contradict him in case the prosecution was not accepting the version given in examination-in-chief.When they demanded payment of their dues, the appellant refused to pay insisting that nothing was due from him and Curtly asked them to quit the house.The labourers came out of the house but waited at a distance of 250 ft.At about 9.30 P.M. when the appellant was going in a jeep, the labourers raised their arms signalling to the appellant to stop the vehicle.

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

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

Its sources are the winds of circumstances and consciousness of man.(2) The First Information Report bearing No.RC2(A)/92-ACU(V) dated 25th July, 1992 was lodged against Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Ex-Member, Planning Commission, Harshad S. Mehta, a broker of Bombay, M/s. K.J. Investment Private Ltd. and others unknown.According to the prosecution, the Preliminary Enquiry conducted into the allegation revealed that Mr.V. Krishnamurthy as Member Planning Commission was in charge of key economic sectors including industry, energy, public enterprises, labour, employment and manpower.Investments Private Ltd. This cheque was accepted and paid in the account of M/s, KJ.Investments Private Ltd. As per Company's record, the petitioner Mr. K. Chandra is nobody in M/s. KJ.Investments Private Ltd.Two lakhs sixty three thousand and seven hundred shares (2,63,700) at a face value of RS.10.00 each of India Meters ltd. were lying with the Central Bank of India.The Central Bank of India was.a creditor since it had given loan to M/s. India Meters Ltd. The loan was converted into share holding by giving the shares to Central Bank of India.On 26th December, 1990 M/s. KJ.Investments Private Ltd. a company under the Companies Act was incorporated at Madras having Shri K. Jayaker and three others as Directors.M/s. KJ.Investments Private Ltd. applied for loan to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs from Sanwa Bank.The 'loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.51 lakhs only.It was released in two Installments of Rs.39 lakhs andRs.l2 lakhs respectively.It was the term of the loan that the same shall be repaid as per Schedule.However, on 6th November, 1991, M/s. KJ.Investments Private Ltd. applied for a fresh loan of Rs.20 lakhs.The second loan was also sanctioned without first discharging its liability.With the sanction of second loan, repayment was re-scheduled.This amount of Rs.32,74,000.00 was received by cheque.It was converted into demand draft by the Sanwa Bank, New Delhi favoring Central Bank of India for the purchase of balance shares num;bering 1,63,700 at the rate of Rs.20.00 per share (premium RS.10.00 each.).The facts of that case were that an F.I.R. was registered at Panipat against the accused resident of Delhi.The S.I.and two constables came to Delhi to investigate them.At Delhi these officials demanded bribe of Rs.2,000.00 for helping the accused persons to get them acquitted.The complainant showed inability to pay that amount but paid some amount.But then reported the matter to the Higher authorities who laid the trap.These three officials were apprehended and charged.JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) The law of bails, "has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely on one hand, the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime, and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence, namely the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty." In order to subserve this object, the legislature has given direction/guidelines for granting or refusing bail in addition the courts have evolved certain norms for the proper exercise of such discretion.He was also Chairman of the Committee on dis-investment in public enterprises.Mr. Harshad S. Mehta, a broker of the Bombay Stock Exchange and Chairman of Grown more Research and Assets & Management Ltd. (hereinafter called as the "GRAM").The business affairs of this company has an office in New Delhi managed by Mr. Mohan Dass Khandelwal, a broker of Delhi Stock Exchange.M/s. KJ.Shri K-Jayaker and Shri K.Chandra both @mL3 sons of Shri V. Krishnamurthy had financial interests in M/s. K. J. Investments Private Ltd. which were being promoted by Shri V. Krishnamurthy.Mr. V. Krishnamurthy and Mr. Harshad S. Mehta had meetings and conversations at Delhi and Bombay and during these meetings they discussed Government policies and Shri V. Krishnamurthy showed his willingness to promote the business interests of Shri Harshad S. Mehta.He then negotiated with Harshad S. Mehta for payment of an amount of Rs.32 lakhs.Subsequently, Mohan D. Khandelwal on behalf of Harshad S. Mehta contacted Mr. V. Krishnamurthy who instructed him to draw a cheque in favor of M/s. K.J. Investments Private Ltd. for an amount that shall be specified by his son Shri K. Chandra.Following a telephonic conversation between the two, Shri Mohan D. Khandelwal sent a cheque of Rs32,74,000.00 to Mr. K. Chandra for and on behalf of Mr. Harshad S. Mehta in favor of M/s. KJ.Investments Private Ltd. at the behest of Shri V. Krishnamurthy without any stipulation or condition for its return.This can be inferred from the fact that it was the petitioner who informed Mr. Khandelwal the exact amount to be paid and that the said amount on behalf of M/S.KJ.Investments Private Ltd. was received by the petitioner.The said amount was invested by the accused in the firm M/s. India Metre Ltd. which was lying sick.Therefore, he is guilty of abatement as well as of criminal conspiracy along with the others named in the F.I.R.Hence the furnishing of figure of Rs.32,74,000.00 was pure calculation.For conspiracy there has to be meeting of mind between Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Mr. Harshad S. Mehta and the petitioner.The amount of loan taken by M/s. K.J. Investments Private Ltd. was for consideration.It was to be repaid within 90/180 days and the company was to pay interest at the rate of 20%.These averments made by the C.B.I, in the remand applications clearly show that the petitioner had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the transaction which his father had with Mr. Harshad S. Mehta.The stand taken by the C.B.I. subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R. would show that the petitioner is innocent.(8) That summing up his argument, Mr. Anand contended that no offence under Sections 7,11,12 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the petitioner nor from the facts which have so far been placed on record show complicity of the petitioner either under P.C. Act or for criminal conspiracy.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1. Appellants Kiran Mehlawat and Surinder Singh and co- accused Jasvinder Singh faced trial for the charge of having murdered Pratap Singh (herein after referred to as the Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 1 of 45 "Deceased").Case of the prosecution was that in the intervening night of 28/29.07.1996 Const.Varinder PW-16 and Const.Babu Singh PW-18, were patrolling in the area around Deepali Chowk, Rohini when they saw a motorcycle bearing registration No.DBX-4874 (of Yamaha make) lying abandoned on a service lane near Deepali Chowk.They opened the dickey of the motorcycle where they found the registration certificate of the motorcycle from which they gathered knowledge of the Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 2 of 45 address of house bearing Municipal No.134, Sainik Vihar, New Delhi.They went to the house in question where they met Kiran, who informed them that the motorcycle belonged to her husband and that the same has been stolen.The police officers told her to check whether anything else was stolen and followed her as she went up to the first floor and saw the dead body of a male having an electric cord around the neck.Kiran told them that the dead body was of her husband.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 2 of 45Varinder PW-16, sent the aforesaid information through wireless to police post Shakti Vihar where DD No.23A Ex.PW-7/A was recorded; noting the aforesaid information.On receipt of the aforesaid information, Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, ASI Ram Swaroop PW-7 and HC Jagir Singh PW- 14 proceeded to the house in question.Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, recorded the statement Ex.PW-6/A of accused Kiran and made an endorsement Ex.PW-26/A thereon, and at around 01.00 AM handed over the same to HC Jagir Singh PW- 14, for registration of an FIR.HC Jagir Singh took the endorsement Ex.PW-26/A to the police station and handed over the same to ASI Dharampal PW-14, who recorded the FIR No.428/96 Ex.My marriage was solemnized 10 years back.On 26.07.1996 at around 07.00 P.M. my husband who was carrying a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with him had gone to village Mandora for the purposes of purchasing a piece of land.Yesterday at around 4.00 P.M. he came back to the house and after drinking a glass of water, he went to the first floor of the house.Some dirty clothes and cash was lying in the bag of my husband.I did not count the cash which was lying in the bag of my husband.After taking out the clothes from the bag and keeping them in a corner of the room I kept the bag containing cash on the bed in the same room.My husband went for taking a bath and I went to the other room.After taking bath, my husband switched on the air-conditioner, closed the room and started resting.I came downstairs and got busy in household work.At about 7.00 P.M. I closed the windows and doors of the house.At about 8.00-8.15 P.M. I took my children outside to buy them a cold drink and came back in the house after sometime.At about 9-9.15 P.M. I closed the main gate of my house as also other windows and doors of the house.Two gates which provide access to the first floor of the house were closed.At about 01.00 A.M. a police officer came to my house and informed me that our motorcycle has been found and that address of our house has been found in a motorcycle.The police officer further asked me to check if any other article has been stolen from the house upon which I went upstairs from the door on the front side because the inner gate was closed.I came upstairs and saw that there was dark inside the room.I switched on the light in the room and saw that my husband has been strangulated with a wire tied around his neck and that blood was oozing out from his ears.When I tried to move my husband I saw that he was lifeless and that he had died.The bag containing cash and some other things were missing from the room.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 4 of 45Thereafter Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, proceeded to inspect the house.He found a gold chain on the person of the deceased and some foreign currency notes and a gold bangle in an almirah in the room where the deceased was found dead and a torn slip of paper Ex.PW-7/D bearing the stamp of UCO Bank, Rohtak on the floor of the said room.Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, seized the aforesaid gold chain and torn slip of paper Ex.PW-7/D vide memos Ex.PW-26/H and Ex.PW-7/C respectively and handed over the foreign currency notes and gold bangle found in the almirah to accused Kiran in the presence of Rajinder Sehrawat PW-1, the husband of the sister of the deceased.On 29.07.1996 at about 01.15 P.M. the body of the deceased was sent to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital where Dr.L.T.Ramani PW-2, conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and prepared the report Ex.PW-2/A which records that an electric cord was found tied around the neck of the deceased; that one lacerated wound and some other injuries were found on the person of the deceased; that ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased which were caused with the cord found tied around his neck and that the same were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature; that the cause of death of the deceased was Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 5 of 45 asphyxia resulting from strangulation of neck; that other injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by a blunt weapon and the death of the deceased was caused 15 hours prior to the conduct of post-mortem.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 5 of 45After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the clothes and blood sample of the deceased on a gauze to Const.Joginder PW-19, who handed over the same to Inspector Naval Kishore, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-19/A.On 29.07.1996 SI Shanker Banerjee PW-5, recorded the statement Ex.PW-5/A of Dropadi, a maid servant employed at the house of the deceased, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that accused Kiran was having illicit relations with accused Jasvinder; that accused Kiran frequently used to meet accused Surinder and Jasvinder at her residence and that accused Kiran met accused Surinder at her residence on the day of the murder of the deceased.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-25/X of Dropadi and Vijay Pal respectively were suggestive of the involvement of accused Surinder and Jasvinder in the murder of the deceased, the police set out to apprehend them.On 30.07.1996 a police team consisting of SI Shanker Banerjee PW-5, SI Rajbala PW-11 and SI Yashpal PW-24, arrested accused Surinder from village Thuru.On being interrogated by SI Shanker Banerjee PW-5, in the presence of SI Rajbala PW-11 and SI Yashpal PW-24, accused Surinder made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/A wherein he stated that he had murdered the deceased at the instance of accused Kiran and that he can get recovered the sum of Rs.70,000/- given to him by accused Kiran for murdering the deceased.Pursuant thereto, accused Surinder led the aforesaid police officers to his residence and got recovered seven packets containing hundred notes of Rs.100/- each i.e. a sum of Rs.70,000/- lying hidden under heap of cattle feed.It may be noted here that a slip issued by UCO Bank Rohtak was found affixed on one of the packets.SI Shanker Banerjee PW-5, seized the aforesaid seven packets recovered at the instance of accused Surinder vide memo Ex.PW-5/D.Thereafter accused Surinder made another disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/F in the presence of Inspector Naval Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 7 of 45 Kishore PW-26 and SI Shanker Banerjee PW-5, wherein he stated that he can get recovered the shirt worn by him at the time of the murder of the deceased and the keys of the motorcycle of the deceased used by him for fleeing from the house of the deceased after committing his murder.Pursuant thereto, accused Surinder led the aforesaid police officers to a forest and got recovered a shirt and three keys lying hidden under bushes.Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, seized the aforesaid shirt and keys recovered at the instance of accused Surinder vide memo Ex.PW-5/G.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 7 of 45On the same day i.e. 31.07.1996 a police team consisting of Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26 and ASI Veena PW-10, arrested accused Kiran.On being interrogated by Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, in the presence of ASI Veena PW-10, accused Kiran made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-10/A wherein she stated that accused Surinder had murdered the deceased at her instance and that she can get recovered an iron rod used to murder the deceased.Pursuant thereto, accused Kiran led the aforesaid police officers to a room in her house and got recovered an iron rod lying hidden therein.Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, seized the aforesaid iron rod recovered at the instance of accused Kiran vide memo Ex.PW- 10/B.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 8 of 45Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 8 of 45On 01.08.1996 Inspector Hoshiar Singh PW-22, arrested accused Jasvinder from the residence of the deceased.Accused Jasvinder was interrogated and his confessional statement was recorded.We note that no recovery was effected nor was a fact discovered by the police pursuant to the said statement made by accused Jasvinder.On 09.08.1996 the iron rod recovered at the instance of accused Kiran was sent to Dr.L.T.Ramani PW-2, for his opinion regarding weapon of offence.Vide his opinion Ex.PW-2/B, the doctor opined that the lacerated wound and other injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by the said iron rod.The seized materials; namely the clothes and blood sample of the deceased, the iron rod recovered at the instance of accused Kiran and the shirt recovered at the instance of accused Surinder were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for a serological test.Vide FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-20/B it was opined that the blood group of the deceased was A and that human blood of group A was detected on the shirt recovered at the instance of accused Surinder.Needless to state, accused Kiran, Surinder and Jasvinder were sent for trial.At the trial, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses.(It may be noted here that the prosecution did not examine Dropadi as she could not be traced)Rajinder Sehrawat PW-1, the husband of the sister of the deceased, deposed that on receiving the information about the murder of the deceased he went to the house of the deceased.The police handed over the foreign currency notes and gold ring, found in an almirah lying in the room where the deceased was found dead, as also the gold chain found on the neck of the body of the deceased to accused Kiran in his presence.Prahlad Singh PW-4, the nephew of the deceased, and ASI Ram Swaroop PW-7, deposed that on receiving the information about the murder of the deceased they went to the house of the deceased where amongst other persons the mother of the deceased was also present.Varinder PW-16, deposed that in the intervening night of 28/29.07.1996 he and Const.The said registration certificate recorded that the owner of the motorcycle in question is a resident of house bearing Municipal No.134, Sainik Vihar, New Delhi.Pursuant thereto, he and Const.Babu Singh proceeded to the house in question where they met accused Kiran who informed them that the motorcycle found by them belonged to her husband i.e. the deceased and that the same has been stolen.There was no electricity in the house.What would a wife do on learning about the murder of her husband? She would raise hue and cry and inform the police or her neighbours or relatives about the murder of the deceased.However, accused Kiran does nothing of the kind but remains silent.She is directed to surrender and suffer the remaining sentence.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE February 26, 2010 dkb Crl.Additionally, appellant Kiran faced trial for the charge of having given false information to the police.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 1 of 45Vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2001, appellants have been held guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.10,000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.Additionally, appellant Kiran has also been held guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 203 IPC, for which offence she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine in sum of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten days.Co- accused Jasvinder has been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.PW-6/A.Relevant would it be to note that the statement Ex.PW- 6/A of accused Kiran reads as under:-Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 3 of 45Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 3 of 45Someone had committed robbery and killed my husband.An action be taken against him.Statement heard and admitted as correct." (Emphasis Supplied) Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 4 of 45Thereafter the police recorded the statement Ex.PW-25/X of Vijay Pal, the brother of accused Kiran, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that accused Kiran was having illicit relations with accused Jasvinder and that accused Jasvinder had told him that accused Surinder had murdered the deceased at the instance of accused Kiran.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 6 of 45Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 6 of 45Since the statements Ex.Charges were framed against them for having committed the offence punishable under Section Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 9 of 45 302/34 IPC.Additionally, a charge was framed against accused Kiran for having committed the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.Babu Singh PW-18, were patrolling in the area around Deepali Chowk, Rohini when they saw that a motorcycle bearing No.DBX-4874 of Yamaha make Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 10 of 45 was lying abandoned on a service lane near Deepali Chowk.On not finding the key of the said motorcycle, he and Const.Babu Singh opened the dickey of the same wherein they found the registration certificate of the said motorcycle.When he and Const.Babu Singh enquired from accused Kiran whether any other article has been stolen from her house she signalled towards a room where they saw that the deceased was lying dead.It may be noted here that the testimony of the said witness was not controverted on behalf of accused Kiran.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 10 of 45Babu Singh PW-18, deposed that in the intervening night of 28/29.07.1996 he and Const.Varinder, were patrolling in the area around Deepali Chowk, Rohini when they saw that a motorcycle bearing No.DBX-4874 of Yamaha make was lying abandoned on a service lane near Deepali Chowk.On not finding the key of the said motorcycle, he and Const.Varinder Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 11 of 45 opened the dickey of the same wherein they found the registration certificate of the said motorcycle.The said registration certificate recorded that the owner of the motorcycle in question is a resident of house bearing Municipal No.134, Sainik Vihar, New Delhi.Pursuant thereto, he and Const.Varinder proceeded to the house in question where they were met by accused Kiran who informed them that the motorcycle found by them belongs to her husband i.e. the deceased and that the same has been stolen.When he and Const.Varinder made enquiries about her husband, accused Kiran told them that her husband is sleeping upstairs.When he and Const.Varinder expressed a desire to meet her husband accused Kiran told them that there is no electricity in the house and thus she cannot go upstairs to call her husband upon which he and Const.Varinder along with accused Kiran went upstairs they saw that the deceased was lying dead in a room.It may be noted here that the testimony of the said witness was not controverted on behalf of accused Kiran.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 11 of 45Vijay Pal PW-25, turned hostile and denied having made statement Ex.PW-25/X to the police.Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, deposed that the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him.On receiving the information about the murder of the deceased he Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 12 of 45 went to the house of the deceased where he saw that the deceased was lying dead in a room and that a gold chain was present on the neck of the body of the deceased.He found some foreign currency notes and a gold bangle in an almirah lying in the room where the deceased was found dead.On being cross-examined about the whereabouts of the mother of the deceased around the time of the incident, the witness stated that (Quote): 'It is correct that mother of deceased her children were also staying in same house.Deceased of mother refused to make statement child of deceased was too small to say anything.Mother in law of Kiran had orally stated that accused Bablu, Surinder and Vijay etc had been visiting their house.I had not recorded any statement in the case diary about this fact.'Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 12 of 45In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. save and except admitting the factum of making of statement Ex.PW- 6/A accused Kiran denied everything.In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Surinder and Jasvinder pleaded innocence and denied everything.The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.As already noted herein above, the learned Trial Judge has convicted accused Kiran and Surinder.The reasons which led the learned Trial Judge to convict accused Kiran are that :- Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 13 of 45Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 13 of 45(i) Conduct of accused Kiran was suspicious inasmuch as she did not inform the police about the murder of the deceased and that she had deliberately disconnected the electricity of her house; (ii) Accused Kiran made a false claim to the police that a robbery has been committed in her house and (iii) The injuries found on the person of the deceased were possible to have been caused by the iron rod recovered at the instance of accused Kiran.The reasons which led the learned Trial Judge to convict accused Surinder are that :- (i) The fact that a slip containing stamp of UCO Bank Rohtak was recovered from the house of the deceased and accused Kiran and that a slip issued by same bank was found affixed on one of the packets of notes recovered at the instance of accused Surinder suggests that the packets of notes recovered at the instance of accused Surinder were given to him by accused Kiran to murder the deceased; (ii) Blood of same group as that of the deceased was found on the shirt recovered at the instance of accused Surinder and (iii) The fact that one of the keys recovered at the instance of accused Surinder was that of the motorcycle belonging to the household of the deceased suggests that the said motorcycle was used by accused Surinder for running away from the house of the deceased after committing the murder of the deceased.However, learned Trial Judge acquitted accused Jasvinder on the ground Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 14 of 45 that the prosecution has not led even a single piece of evidence which could connect accused Jasvinder with the crime of the murder of the deceased.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 14 of 45CASE AGAINST ACCUSED KIRANDuring the hearing of the above captioned appeals, two arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for accused Kiran.The first argument advanced was that the mother of the deceased was a material witness for the reason she could have thrown light on the events which happened around the time of the murder of the deceased as the testimony of Prahlad Singh PW-4, ASI Ram Swaroop PW-7 and Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, establishes that the mother of the deceased used to reside in the house where the deceased was found murdered and that she was present in the said house around the time of the murder of the deceased.Counsel urged that an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of the mother of the deceased in terms of illustration (g) appended to Section 114 of Evidence Act that had the mother of the deceased been examined she would not have supported the case of the prosecution.The second argument advanced was that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive of accused Kiran for committing the murder of the deceased.Counsel urged Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 15 of 45 that accused Kiran deserves to be acquitted for failure to establish motive is fatal to the case of the prosecution when the prosecution seeks to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of "circumstantial evidence".Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 15 of 45Who is a material witness? What is the effect of non- examination of material witness on the veracity of the case set up by the prosecution against an accused?Was any robbery committed at the house of the deceased and accused Kiran on the day of the murder of the deceased as claimed by accused Kiran?The evidence of witnesses namely Rajender Sehrawat PW-1 and Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, establishes that a gold chain was found on the person of the deceased and that some foreign currency notes and jewellery articles were found in an almirah lying in the room where the deceased was found dead on the day of the murder of the deceased.Had a robbery been committed at the house of the deceased and accused Kiran, the robbers surely would have taken gold chain present on the person of the deceased and other valuable articles lying Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 29 of 45 in the house of the deceased.The fact that valuable articles were found on the person of the deceased as also in the house in question when coupled with the fact that the police did not find any signs of forced entry into the house of the deceased belies the claim of accused Kiran that a robbery was committed in the house in question on the day of the murder of the deceased.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 29 of 45The fact of the matter is that accused Kiran tried to mislead the police by falsely stating that a robbery had been committed in the house in question on the day of the murder of the deceased.What turns thereon?In the decision reported as Mohibur Rahman v State of Assam (2002) 6 SCC 715 the deceased was last seen on 24.01.1991 at 05.00 P.M. at a bus stand in the company of accused Taijuddin and Mohibur Rahman and his body was found 13 days after at a distance of 30 to 40 kilometers from the bus stand where the deceased and accused was last seen alive.Accused Taijuddin met the mother and cousin of the deceased and falsely told them that the deceased had eloped with one Balijan Begum.One of the facts which led Supreme Court to convict accused Taijjudin was that accused Taijjudin had tried to mislead the relatives of the deceased.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 30 of 45In the decision reported as Basanti v State of HP (1987) 3 SCC 227 accused Basanti and Asoo Ram were charged with the offence of having murdered the husband of accused Basanti.One of the facts which led the court to come to the said conclusion was that she had tried to mislead the relatives of the deceased by falsely stating to them that the deceased had gone away from her village and had not returned.In view of the judicial decisions enunciated above, the fact that accused Kiran tried to mislead the police can certainly be used as an incriminating circumstance against her.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 31 of 45Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 31 of 45The post-mortem report Ex.The statement Ex.PW-6/A of accused Kiran was recorded at about 01.00 A.M. on 29.07.1996 as evident from the endorsement Ex.PW-26/A. In her statement Ex.In the absence of any explanation of accused Kiran about her movements between the period 09.00 P.M. to 01.00 A.M. in the intervening night of 28/29.07.1996, it is most reasonable to assume that accused Kiran would have at least gone once to the room where her husband i.e. the deceased was sleeping between the said period of 3 hours and would have learnt that the deceased has been murdered.Accused Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 32 of 45 Kiran breaks her silence only when Const.Varinder PW-16 and Const.Babu Ram PW-18, visit the house of the deceased and accused Kiran and discover that the deceased has been murdered.The aforesaid conduct of accused Kiran is most suspicious and speaks volumes about her guilt.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 32 of 45Another incriminating circumstance against accused Kiran is that accused Kiran has not offered any explanation as to what had happened in the house in question on the day of the murder of the deceased in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is an established fact that the motorcycle belonging to the household was found abandoned on the day of the murder of the deceased.Accused Kiran has also not offered any explanation as to how the motorcycle in question reached the place from where it was found abandoned in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C."Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 33 of 45 circumstantial evidence.The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character.In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation." (Emphasis Supplied)Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 33 of 45In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Kiran denied that Const.Varinder PW-16, Const.Babu Ram PW- 18 and Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26, visited the house in question on the day of the murder of the deceased.The depositions of aforesaid police officers that they had visited the house in question on the day of the murder of the deceased has not been controverted on behalf of accused Kiran thus it is established beyond any doubt that the aforesaid police officers visited the house in question on the day of the murder of the deceased.It is well established legal principle that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where an accused offers false explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of an established fact, said false denial supply a missing link in the chain of circumstances appearing against him.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 34 of 45 Maharashtra v Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and Kuldeep Singh v State of Rajasthan 2001 CriLJ 479)Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 34 of 45From the above discussion, following four incriminating circumstances appear against accused Kiran:- I Accused Kiran tried to mislead the regarding the murder of the deceased.II The conduct of accused Kiran was most suspicious around the time of the murder of the deceased.III Accused Kiran did not give any explanation in respect of the facts which were within her knowledge.IV Accused Kiran gave false answers in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.65. Are the aforesaid circumstances sufficient to conclude that accused Kiran is guilty of the murder of the deceased?The well known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that :- (a) the circumstances from which the inference of guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances;(b) the circumstances should be of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (c) Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 35 of 45 the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused.Of late, the courts have added two riders to the aforesaid principle namely, (i) there should be no missing links but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links can only be inferred from the proved facts and (ii) it cannot be said that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it may might be.In the decision reported as Rakesh Kumar v State 183 (2009) DLT 658 a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was member of, namely Pradeep Nandrajog J., held that circumstantial evidence in order to furnish a basis for conviction requires a high degree of probability, that is, so sufficiently high that a prudent man considering all the facts, feels justified in holding that the accused has committed the crime with which he is charged.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 35 of 45From the aforesaid four incriminating circumstances appearing against accused Kiran, a prudent man would definitely come to the conclusion that accused Kiran is the guilty of the murder of the deceased.CASE AGAINST ACCUSED SURINDER Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 36 of 45Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 36 of 45As already noted herein above, learned Trial Judge has convicted accused Surinder on the basis of following recoveries effected at his instance:-As per the case of the prosecution, three keys were got recovered by accused Surinder in the presence of police officers namely Inspector Naval Kishore PW-26 and SI Shanker Banerjee PW-5 and that one of them was the key of the motorcycle.The learned Trial Judge has accepted said fact ignoring that no police officer has said that the key was used on the motorcycle to start the same i.e. that the key was that of the motorcycle.No witness of the prosecution has deposed that he had been seeing the key and that it was the key of the motorcycle.Thus, it only stands established that a bunch of three keys was got recovered by Surender.There is no evidence that one out of the said key was that of the motorcycle.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 37 of 45The part of his confessional statement that he was wearing the t-shirt when he committed the crime is inadmissible in evidence.The prosecution had to prove through independent evidence that the said t-shirt was worn by him.In the decision reported as Prabhoo v State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1113 an axe, a shirt and a dhoti which were found to be stained with human blood were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance.It was laid down that it is fallacious to treat the fact discovered within Section 27 as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact.It was held that is not legally permissible to admit evidence of the alleged statement Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 38 of 45 of the accused that the axe had been used to commit the murder or the statement that the blood stained shirt and dhoti were his.It was held that from mere production of the blood stained articles by the accused, one cannot come to the that the accused committed the murder inasmuch as the fact of production cannot be said to be consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, for the reason it is quite possible that someone else committed the murder and kept the blood stained articles in the house of the accused and that the accused might have produced the said articles when interrogated by the police.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 38 of 45In the decision reported as Mani v State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (1) JCC 277 the case set up by the prosecution that the appellant and one Moyyasamy had murdered deceased Sivakumar who had strained relationship with Moyyasamy.On 24.11.1996 the deceased was chatting with his father Arunachalam and his other family members when the appellant came there and had a cup of coffee with Arunachalam.At about 6.00 P.M. the appellant took the deceased to his house.When the deceased did not turn up till 10.00 P.M. Arunachalam went to the house of the appellant and found that blood was oozing from the house.Since the house was locked Arunachalam came back to his residence Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 39 of 45 where one Amulnathan informed him that he had seen the deceased in the company of the appellant and Moyyasamy at 07.00 P.M. On the next morning at 6.00 A.M. Arunachalam again went to the house of the appellant and found trail of blood near the said house and ultimately from that he traced the body of the deceased which was lying in the nearby field.The appellant got recovered blood stained clothes and kodvul lying under the grass in an open ground which was 300 feet away from the field from where the body of the deceased was recovered.The Sessions Court convicted both the accused persons whereas the High Court acquitted Moyyasamy but convicted the appellant.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 39 of 45(ii) Arunachalam is not a trustworthy witness inasmuch in view of the fact that he realized that something unusual has happened at 10.00 P.M. but he did not lodge a report with the police till next day at 10 O clock; (iii) the discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon an and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery; (iv) the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes recovered at the instance of the appellant belonged to him; (v) there is serious discrepancy in Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 40 of 45 the evidence pertaining to the recovery and (vi) even if the evidence pertaining to recovery is accepted the fact that blood stained clothes and kodvul were recovered at the instance of the appellant does not connect the appellant with the crime.(Emphasis Supplied)Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 40 of 45In the decision reported as K.V. Chacko @ Kunju v State of Kerela (2001) 9 SCC 277 an axe which was found to be stained with human blood was recovered at the instance of the appellant.Had the prosecution been able to establish that one of the keys recovered at the instance of accused Surinder was that of the motorcycle of the deceased, the factum of recovery of key of the motorcycle of the deceased at the instance of accused Surinder would have gone a long way in proving the guilt of accused Surinder.However neither the investigating officer nor the prosecutor conducting the trial before the Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 42 of 45 learned Trial Court were alive to the aforesaid legal position with respect to Section 27 of Evidence Act and a valuable piece of evidence against Surinder has been lost due to lackadaisical attitude of the police and prosecutor.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 42 of 45The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to connect accused Surinder with the crime of the murder of the deceased.The conclusion of the entire discussion is that:- I Accused Kiran is convicted of the offences of committing the murder of the deceased and giving false information to the Crl.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 44 of 45 police.We maintain the sentence(s) awarded to accused Kiran by the learned Trial Court.Appeal Nos.515/01 & 533/01 Page 44 of 45

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

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

Heard on the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on 19.06.2020 for grant of bail on behalf of Mahesh Gond (Adiwasi) who is confined in custody since 11.05.2020 (but the counsel mentioned as 24.09.2020) in connection with the Crime No. 317/19 registered at Police Station, Bareily, District Raisen for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) F.N. of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.The prosecutrix was missing on 15.06.2019 thereafter, her father search out and lodged the report of missing person upon which the Crime 317/2019 under Section 363 of IPC was registered.Her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this M.Cr.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:(a) PW 1 Rohitkumar was residing in a tea stall which was situated near Gol Deul (Round Temple) in jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc Kabutar Galli at S.V.P. Road, Mumbai.He was residing there along with accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa, accused No. 2 - Lalbihari, deceased Bablu Thapa and one other person.Rohitkumar was working with caterers.Both the accused and the deceased used to work with caterers.Both the accused persons and the deceased were in habit of taking liquor and drugs.The day earlier, Rohitkumar, accused No. 2 Lalbihari and some others went to work for a caterer.They were working there till 2.00 or 3.00 a.m. As there was no conveyance to go back as it was late night, they slept there.(c) In the morning, they came back to Kabutar Galli at about 7.00 a.m. Both the accused, deceased and Rohitkumar went to country liquor bar.PW 1 jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc Rohitkumar was standing outside.Accused No. 1 -Rupesh Thapa and the deceased then went towards the Gol Temple.Rohitkumar and accused No. 2 Lalbihari went to Kabutar Galli.They took drugs.Accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa and the deceased came there and they started drinking liquor.After sometime, accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa and the deceased told Rohitkumar and accused No. 2 - Lalbihari to give them money.Both Rohitkumar and accused No.2 - Lalbihari refused to give money.Then the deceased took out a razor and assaulted Rohitkumar on the arm.The deceased also assaulted accused No. 2 -Lalbihari with razor on the chest.Then both of them ran away.Meanwhile police vehicle came to the spot on seeing the crowd.Police went inside the crowd and saw Bablu Thapa lying there.Police made inquiry about the identity of the person but no one gave any answer.Rohitkumar too did not give any answer.Appellant - Lalbihari Kishor Paswan i.e original accused No. 2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2014 against the very same Judgment and Order.By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default R.I. for six months.jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc The learned Sessions Judge further convicted appellant -Rupesh Babu Thapa i.e accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 37(1)(a) r/w 134 of Bombay Police Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences of imprisonment of accused No. 1 shall run concurrently.As both the appeals are directed against the very same Judgment and Order, we are deciding both the appeals together.(d) Accused No. 2 - Lalbihari told Rohitkumar that they will go and search for both the persons and assault them.Both of them started searching for jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc the deceased and accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa.When accused No. 2 - Lalbihari saw Bablu Thapa, accused No.2 - Lalbihari told Rohitkumar to assault Bablu Thapa but Rohitkumar refused.Then accused No. 2 Lalbihari went and held hand of Bablu Thapa and gave him a fist blow on the chest.Then accused No. 1 Rupesh Thapa took out a knife and stabbed Bablu Thapa on his neck.Bablu Thapa started screaming and running.Then accused No. 2 Lalbihari caught Bablu Thapa by neck and made him fall down.Then both accused ran away.(e) People gathered at the spot.He did jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc not say anything to the police.Then police took the body of Bablu Thapa to the hospital.After sometime, Rohitkumar went to chowky to inquire whether Bablu Thapa was dead or alive.Police asked him his identity whereupon Rohitkumar replied that Bablu Thapa was his friend.The next morning, Rohitkumar told the police that he had witnessed the incident.(f) As stated earlier, the police had arrived at the spot.ASI Indulkar who was in the police patrolling van, on seeing the crowd at S.V.P. Road, came to the spot.He saw one person (deceased Bablu Thapa) lying there with cut injury on the neck.They took the person to J.J. Hospital where he was declared dead.PW 2 ASI Indulkar then lodged F.I.R. The F.I.R was against unknown persons.After lodging the F.I.R., investigation commenced.After completion of investigation, charge sheet jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc came to be filed.Charge came to be framed against both the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.Additional charge was also framed against accused No. 1 Rupesh Thapa under Section 37(1)(a) r/w 134 of Bombay Police Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence was that of total denial and false implication.After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal preferred by the appellants against their conviction and sentence.We have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the learned APP for the State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt.The conviction of both the accused is based on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e PW 1 Rohitkumar and PW 3 Santosh.As the prosecution story narrated above is taken from the evidence of PW 1 Rohitkumar, we will not overburden the judgment by repeating the same here.In short, the evidence of PW 1 Rohitkumar shows that both the accused, deceased and he were friends.Rohitkumar saw accused No. 1 Rupesh Thapa giving a blow with knife on the neck of Bablu Thapa.Thereafter, he saw accused No. 2 -Lalbihari caught Bablu Thapa by the neck and made him fall down.Thereafter, both the accused ran away.The evidence of PW 1 Rohitkumar is assailed by both the learned counsel for the accused by pointing out that jfoanz vkacsjdj 9 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc though Rohitkumar is an eye witness to the incident, when police came to the spot where Bablu Thapa was lying injured or dead, Rohitkumar did not mention anything to the police about witnessing the incident.In fact, Rohitkumar has stated in his examination-in-chief that when Bablu Thapa was assaulted, people gathered at the spot.Police vehicle, on seeing the crowd, came to the spot.Police went inside the crowd and saw Bablu Thapa was murdered.Police inquired about the identity of the person but no one gave any answer.Rohitkumar also did not give any answer to the police about the identity of the deceased.Thereafter, Rohitkumar went to the garden and slept.Thereafter, Rohitkumar went to the chowky to inquire whether Bablu Thapa was alive or dead.Police inquired with Rohitkumar whereupon Rohitkumar replied that Bablu Thapa was his friend.Rohitkumar them again went to the garden and slept.The next day morning, police came and took him to V.P. Road Police Chowky.They made inquiry with Rohit Kumar.Rohitkumar replied that Bablu Thapa was his friend.Thereafter, Rohitkumar stated jfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc to the police that both the accused had assaulted Bablu Thapa.When the incident occurred and police arrived at the spot, Rohitkumar was present at the spot, however, he did not mention anything about identity of the deceased to the police though police made inquiry about the identity of the deceased.Rohitkumar also did not inform the police that Bablu Thapa was assaulted by both the accused.This delay on the part of Rohitkumar of informing the police that he had witnessed the incident raises grave doubt about the veracity of his evidence.The second eye witness is PW 3 Santosh.Santosh has stated that the incident occurred on 20.5.2012 at about 9.00 a.m.,.At that time, he was working in vadapav shop.There jfoanz vkacsjdj 11 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc was scuffle amongst three people.One caught hold of the other and inflicted a fist blow from the front and the third person caught hold of hair of the second person and cut his throat.The victim shouted for help and tried to run away whereupon the first person ran behind the victim, made him fall down and thereafter, he ran away.Santosh has identified accused No. 2 - Lalbihari as the person who inflicted fist blow and accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa as the one who cut throat of the deceased.Santosh had also identified the accused persons in identification parade.Santosh has stated that police also reached the spot and took the injured to J.J. Hospital.It is pertinent to note that the incident occurred in the morning of 20.5.2012, however, the statement of Santosh was recorded on 23.5.2012 which is not only clear from the evidence of Santosh but it is also clear from the evidence of Investigating Officer PW 14 PI Kale.PW 2 Santosh stated that after the assault when the accused ran away, crowd jfoanz vkacsjdj 12 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc gathered at the spot.Police also reached the spot and took the injured to J.J. Hospital, however, at that time, Santosh did not inform the police about witnessing the incident.What is most interesting to note is that Santosh has acted as a panch to the inquest panchnama which took place at J.J. Hospital.Though Santosh had opportunity to interact with the police especially during the inquest panchnama, he kept quiet about witnessing the incident and did not inform the police that he was an eye witness to the incident.Santosh has admitted that police had inquired with him but yet Santosh did not disclose anything to the police.Thereafter on 23.5.2012, he went to the Police Station at about 10.00 a.m. and disclosed about being an eye witness to the incident.Santosh has also admitted that he did not disclose to his other colleagues in the shop that he had witnessed the incident.This fact of Santosh belatedly informing the police that he had witnessed the incident again raises serious doubt about reliability of his evidence.Looking to the conduct of Santosh and the delay on his part to inform the police that jfoanz vkacsjdj 13 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::9. cri apeals 345 & 227 - 14 (j) .doc he had witnessed the incident, we do not find it safe to rely upon his testimony.Same is the case with the other eye witness i.e PW 1 Rohitkumar.The prosecution has tried to rely on the circumstance of recovery of weapon and clothes at the instance of accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa, however, the panch witness i.e PW 9 Riyaz Ansari has admitted that API Patankar introduced him to accused No. 1 - Rupesh Thapa.This panch witness has admitted that he knew API Patankar quite well.Looking to this fact that the relations between the panch witness and API Patankar were quite close, we do not think it safe to rely on the testimony of PW 9 panch witness Riyaz Ansari.On going through the record, we do not find that there is cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to both the accused and proceed to pass the following order:-::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::Bombay in Sessions Case No. 620 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2013 is set aside.Both the appellants are acquitted of the said offences.(iii) Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellants are lodged and to the appellants-original accused.We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to both the appointed Advocates at Rs. 5000/- each.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:24:31 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On due consideration, it is observed that the said application will be considered at the time of final hearing of the case.Also heard on IA.No.133/2014 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellant.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 498- A/34 of IPC, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 and has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years, R.I. for 2 years and R.I. for life respectively.According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the appellant is a woman and has up till now served the jail sentence of about 9 years.He submits that the prosecution has suppressed the first dying declaration recorded by Dr. Shiv Kumar Gupta at Ashirwad Hospital Jabalpur.He further submits that at the most the case would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC, as according to Dr. Satish Bhaya (PW2) who conducted the postmortem, deceased Vinita @ Anjana died due to septicemia.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has objected the application.He has also filed written objections.We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.Having gone through the evidence available on record and the impugned judgment, we are inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On appellant's furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- [Fifty Thousand] with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Jabalpur for her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14.10.2015 and on such other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, her jail sentence shall remain suspended and she be released on bail.as per rules.

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

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

Present revision petition has been filed by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 26.10.2015 whereby the learned Trial Court directed to supply the copy of the call details to the accused against receipt.I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have examined the file.The respondent-Shiv Dass @ Sandeep is facing trial under Sections 376/386/354/354D/506 IPC registered at Police Station Naraina.Vide order dated 20.08.2015, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused to direct the service provider to preserve call details of phone No.9717510193 for a period from 01.06.2013 Crl.P.405/2016 Page 1 of 2 to 25.02.2015 along with phone number 8376888662 and produce it before the court for the effective defence evidence.Accordingly, the concerned mobile operators were directed to make available the said call details records and to preserve it during the pendency of the trial.The said order remained unchallenged.Copy of the same was placed on record.The authenticity and correctness of the call details have not been ascertained yet; it is to be ascertained during trial.The present petition filed without any cogent ground is dismissed in limini.All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.Copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 30, 2016 sa Crl.P.405/2016 Page 2 of 2

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge- 7, Nagpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 10/2009, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only), in default of payment, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six months.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::State ofKarnataka, reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1485 (SC).The appealwas dismissed on merits.The accused had challenged the judgment passed by thisCourt on 08/06/2016 before Hon'ble Supreme Court.Hon'bleSupreme Court has remanded the matter to this Court for decidingthe appeal afresh after giving opportunity to the accused.We have heard Shri O.K. Masurke, learned Advocate forthe appellant and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the respondent/State and perused the record.The prosecution story is as under:-She had one son and daughter from him.Thereafter, he deserted Anusaya in the year 2005 and in the year 2007, Anusaya married the accused.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 5th May, 2008 at around 6.00 am., the accused asked the deceased to prepare a cup of tea.The accused then also uttered that she was sharing bed with her brother.When deceased Anusaya told accused not to abuse in such a manner, the accused::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 3 abused the deceased in filthy language and quarreled with her.He picked up a plastic bottle containing kerosene and poured the same on the person of Anusaya, lit a match stick and set her on fire.The deceased - Anusaya shouted loudly.On hearing her screams, the neighbours came there and extinguished the fire.After sometime, her mother namely Saraswatibai, her father namely Ganpatrao and others came there and took Anusaya to the Medical College Hospital, Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::Punamchand Bahadure, PSI took entry in the station diary below Exh.32 about the information received by him from the Police Booth of the Medical College.At the request of the Investigating Officer- Trimbak Kamble (PW/1), Special Judicial Magistrate also recorded her dying declaration.On the next day at 9.30 am., Anusaya succumbed to the::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 4 burn injuries.As such, the case was altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Since the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid.Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitsthat the allegations against the accused does not make out offenceof murder and at the most, it would fall under Section 304 part I ofthe Indian Penal Code, as the alleged act is committed withoutpremeditation and in the heat of anger.He further submits that the::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 5appellant/accused has already undergone more than twelve yearsof imprisonment and prayed for allowing the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,opposing the appeal, submits that the prosecution has proved itscase beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction of theappellant is based on three dying declarations recorded on the dayof the incident, which are consistent and thus he supports theimpugned judgment and order and prayed for rejection of theappeal.We have considered the submissions put-forth on behalfof both the sides.At the outset, the whole case of the prosecutionrevolves around three dying declarations recorded in writing.Thefirst dying declaration (Exh.25) is recorded by - Sanjay NilkanthraoBhute, Police Naik (PW/6), who was on duty at the Medical PoliceBooth when the deceased Anusaya was admitted in the hospital.The second dying declaration (Exh.31) is recorded by PunamchandNathuji Bahadure, P.S.I. (PW/8).In both the dying declarations, thedeceased clearly stated that in the morning at around 6.00 am., herhusband was giving her abuses in filthy language and thereafter, hepoured kerosene from the plastic bottle on her person and set heron fire by a match stick.That the third dying declaration (Exh.9) is recorded byTrimbak Shivdas Kamble (PW/1).PW/1 testified that he hadreceived requisition from the Police Station, Sakkardhara that apatient Anusaya had sustained burn injuries and was admitted inthe Medical College Hospital, Nagpur in Ward No.4 and he wasrequested to record her dying declaration.He deposed that::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 6thereafter, he had gone to Ward No.4 in the Medical College,Nagpur, had given a letter to the House Officer, and asked himabout the mental condition of the patient.The House Officer hadgiven an opinion on the requisition made by him to the MedicalOfficer, that the patient was fit to give statement.He testified that he had then gone to thepatient and had told her relatives and police personnel to gooutside and then had given his identification to the patient.He hadasked some questions to her to find out whether she was fit to givestatement.He further testified that since she had answered thequestions properly, he had recorded her statement in question andanswer form.She had disclosed that on Monday at around 6.00 am.when she was preparing tea, a quarrel had taken place between herand her husband/accused, the accused had abused her and hadmade allegations that she was sharing bed with her brother.Theaccused had stated that the persons of that vicinity weremaintaining her and her husband used to beat her.Thereafter, theaccused had poured kerosene from the plastic cane on her personand had ignited a match stick and had set her on fire and had run,while burning she shouted loudly hearing which the neighbourscame there and extinguished fire.She stated that the police hadcome on the spot and had shifted her to the hospital and hadadmitted her.He also testified that after recording her statement,the contents were read over to Anusaya.She had admitted the sameto be true and correct.Thereafter, he had taken her right thumbimpression on it.He had also taken certificate certifying that shewas in a fit state of mind while recording her statement.As thedefence counsel could not place any material on record during his::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 7cross-examination, his evidence remained unshattered.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::Perusal of Exhibits 11 and 12 would reveal that PW/1 -Trimbak Kamble has followed the due procedure for recordingdying declaration and only after his satisfaction about the mentalfitness of the deceased, he had recorded her dying delcaration.Wedo not find any infirmity/doubt in the procedure followed by himfor recording the said dying declaration.This dying declaration isconsistent with earlier two dying declarations recorded by thepolice personnel.Notonly that, but the other two dying declarations recorded by SanjayNilkanthrao Bhute, Police Naik (PW/6) below Exh.25 and the onewhich is recorded by Punamchand Nathuji Bahadure, P.S.I. (PW/8)below Exh.34 on the basis of which the First Information Report::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 8below Exh.35 was registered, are also of similar nature.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::We find that in view of the three consistent dyingdeclarations which we find to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent,prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is theaccused herein who has committed the crime.Now the question is, does the act of the accused amountsto murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?Evidently, the deceased in her dying declaration belowExh.12 stated that at around 6.00 am.while she was preparing tea,a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband, theaccused had abused her saying that she was sharing bed with herbrother and thereafter, he had picked up a plastic cane containingkerosene and had poured the same on her person and had set heron fire.It is not the case of the prosecution that there was timegap between the quarrel and pouring of kerosene.As per thedeceased's dying declaration (Exh.12), while she was preparing tea,a quarrel had taken place between the couple.Accused had abusedthe victim in a filthy language saying that she was sharing bed withher brother and had poured kerosene on her person from the plasticbottle which was lying there and had ignited her.This act of theaccused does not appear to be premeditated.It appears that he washaving doubt on her character and in a heat of anger, due toquarrel, he had picked up the plastic bottle which was lying thereand had poured kerosene on her person and had set her ablaze.Thecumulative effect of the circumstances do not show his plan tocommit murder.The said act occurred at the spur of moment.So::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 ::: apeal 296.14.odt 9also, at the relevant time, as per the dying declaration, he wasunder the influence of liquor.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Codeprovides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committedwithout premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upona sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undueadvantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.For the reasons aforestated, we partly allow the appealand pass the following order:-::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:36:19 :::

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

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

JUDGMENT Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.This order of issuance of process came to be issued against the accused No. 1 Ram Sanehi Ganesh Datta through Sanjay Pandey under Section 506(ii) r/w 104 of the I.P.C. At the behest of the complainant, Chhaganlal J, Jain filed his complaint dated 3.1.1995 against both the accused in the learned Metropolitan Magisirate, 12th Court at Bandra.The contents of the complaint dated 3.1.1995 can be briefly narrated as follows :The complainant's case was that he was residing at and in actual lawful possession of upper portion of first floor of GNMC 1-1/2, NaikNagar, L.B.S. Marg, Near Sion Railway Station, Sion, Bombay - 400022 since 21.4.1982 and was residing there along with his family members.He was also carrying on shop of Adinath Metal Works since 1982, According to the complainant, accused No. 1 Shri Ram Sanehi G. Datta was having an evil eye on his residential cum commercial premises.He therefore, started harassing him and his family members.He was bringing pressure upon him and its family members compelling him to hand over possession of the said premises to accused No. 1 - Ram Sanehi Datta on the pretext that he was the owner thereof.As per the complainant's story, on 18.11.1994, accused No. 1 gave the complainant threats that If he did not vacate the said premises and hand over possession to accused No. 1, he would kill him.The complainant lodged N. C. complaint on the same dale at Dharavi Police Station.Another complaint was lodged by him on 24.4.1994 at the same Police Station.However, no effective steps were taken by the police.Sanjay Pandey, who is roped in as accused No. 2 by the complainant, asked the complainant as to how long he was staying there.Thereafter, as per the complainant's story, accused No. 2 threatened the complainant that he would see how he would not vacate the premises.When the complainant showed the Court orders, which were in his favour, the said Sanjay Pandey said that he did not care for any orders and asked him to take deposit and vacate the premises.Accused No. 2, according to the complainant, also spoke to him in an insulting way in the presence of complainant's wife.Accused No. 2 also told the complainant to go back to his native place.The complainant has further stated in his complaint that accused No. 1 also threatened him that in case he did not vacate the premises, he would teach him a lesson for lifetime.I have heard both the Advocates.Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-(i) The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent received a sum of Rs.65,000/- as hand loan from the petitioner.The second respondent issued cheque to the petitioner for discharge of his liability and the same was returned with an endorsement as 'funds insufficient'.There was an animosity between the petitioner and the third respondent, due to which, the third respondent wantonly refused the cheque.(ii) Therefore, the petitioner had filed a private complaint against the respondents 2, 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and 465, 467, 420 of IPC.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur in Cr.M.P.No.2354 of 2006, had forwarded the same under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to the Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station and they have registered the case in Crime No.116 of 2006, for the offence under Sections 465, 467 and 420 IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/12 CRL.R.C.(MD).No.437 of 2014(iii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.This Court by order, dated 31.10.2006, directed the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi to nominate any police officials other than the Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station to take action in accordance with law.Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi.(i) that the second respondent had availed a loan of Rs.65,000/- from the petitioner.When the said bearer cheque was presented to the City Union Bank's Extension Counter, at Sahupuram, the same was not entertained and returned with the reason that 'withdrawal slip' is not a bearer cheque and to accompany with passbook.This return has been done with dishonest intention, despite there was sufficient funds in the Account No.5224 of the second respondent.The said Sangam had a bank account in the City Union Bank.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated in Cr.M.P.No.193 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur.On completion of investigation, a closure report was filed by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi on 31.05.2007 closing the case as 'mistake of fact'.Against which, the petitioner filed a protest petition in Cr.M.P.No.193 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.(iv) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur by order dated 21.07.2014, had dismissed the protest petition accepting the closure report filed by the first respondent.Against which, the present criminal revision has been filed.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions:(ii) that subsequently, the petitioner had presented the said cheque once again on 21.05.2005 through RPAD and the same was returned on 30.05.2005 as 'insufficient funds'.Thereby the third respondent had created fraudulent and forged document that entries for the earlier presentation of the cheque and the return of the cheque was not for valid reason, returned for the reason and endorsement/wrongly to be false.Thereby, caused wrongful loss to the petitioner and had committed offence of forgery and cheating.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/12 CRL.R.C.(MD).No.437 of 2014(iii) that the 4th respondent, being the Chairman of the Bank colluded with the third respondent.There was an animosity between the petitioner and the third respondent, the petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint against the third respondent before the Ombudsman, which is pending.The petitioner was working as General Secretary of DCW Aluvalargal and Thozhilalargal Munnettra Sangam for the past several years.Hence, there was animosity prevailing between the third respondent and the petitioner.Thus the third respondent had wantonly refused to accept the bearer cheque initially and when it was presented through the bank made an endorsement that to be presented along with passbook.Therefore, The lower Court proceeded on a wrong premises 'withdrawal slip' is not a cheque' and it would not come under the Negotiable Instruments(v) The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied upon the following judgments.

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The same are to be found recorded in the post mortem report Ex.Three external injuries have been noted as under:-(1) Multiple bruises over left arm outer aspect size of 6x3 cm and 2 cm x 1cm.(2) Multiple bruises over palmer surface of both hands .(3) Three abrasions over left dorsum of the hand 4x0.5cm.Internal injury noted is subscalp hematoma over occipital region with fracture of the occipital bone.Subarachnoid hemorrhage over occipital and base of the frontal lobe was also detected.Her testimony would evidence that the appellants used to reside in the neighbourhood and had abused her daughter when they were in the company of a third co-accused named A who is a juvenile and for whom we are not concerned in the appeal.The three were under influence of alcohol and had caught the wrist of Anita's daughter.Her husband, the deceased came out and resisted.The three accused left.Accused and A were having danda.They started beating her husband and fled.Chander Pal, Chote and Shyam came from the neighbourhood and intervened to save her husband.The accused gave beating to these three persons and fled.Her husband was taken to the Government hospital where he was declared brought dead.From the testimony of Anita, which learned counsel for the parties concede fairly brings out the fact of what happened on the unfortunate day, it is apparent that the accused resided in the neighbourhood and was having some issue with the family of the deceased evidenced by the fact that on the day of the incident, they had abused the daughter of the deceased and Anita.As per Anita, the three accused were armed with dandas and hockey stick.If the three had an intention which was definite to kill the deceased, the hammering on the person of the deceased with the hockey stick and dandas would have been severe.The three have opportunity to do so.The post mortem report would bring out that the three launched a random assault on the deceased which the deceased successfully managed to avoid, in that the three were unable to cause any serious injury to the deceased.The multiple abrasions on the left arm outer aspect, multiple bruises on both hands and the abrasion over a left dorsum of the hand evidences that the deceased successfully managed to block the blows directed.There being no fracture of the metacarpal bones indicates the blows directed not being very serious.Vide impugned judgment dated September 06,2013 the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for having murdered the deceased Harpal Singh.The two have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC for having caused simple hurt to Chotte, Chander Pal and Shyam.Vide order on sentence dated September 13, 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine in sum of `5,000/-; in default Crl.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 1 of 5 of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three years.For the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine in sum of `1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The appellants have also been directed to pay compensation in sum of `25,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased Harpal and `5,000/- for the injury caused to Chander Pal, Chotte and Shyam.In default of payment of compensation, the appellants have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 1 of 5We begin our destination by noting the injuries found on the person of deceased Harpal.Cause of death was Craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force diverted upon head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.We have noted as aforesaid to focus our attention on whether the acts attributed to the appellants, if proved, would make out a case for sustaining conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or would make Crl.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 2 of 5 out a case to alter conviction to the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 2 of 5A perusal of the evidence lead before the trial court shows that there were as many as five eye witnesses to the incident who were examined.Three were the injured eye witnesses in respect of whose injuries; as noted hereinabove the appellants were tried for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.The other two were the wife and the daughter of the deceased.9. Having pursued the testimony of all the eye witnesses, whose credibility has not been demolished by the learned counsel for the appellants, we note the eye witness account of PW-12 Smt. Anita, the wife of Harpal.After one hour the three accused along with two other persons whose name Anita did not recollect returned.Rasool was armed with a hockey.When Crl.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 3 of 5 challenged by the deceased, the three left but returned to seek revenge.The blow with the hockey stick being the weapon of the offence, was obviously not very powerful for having so the dura mater or the pia mater would have oozed out of the skullThe impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court has not noted the aforesaid aspect concerning the post mortem report.Highlighting that the incident took place at 11.18 P.M., it was dark, the possibility of one blow, which was not intended to be directed towards the head struck the occipital region.All other blows seem to be directed towards a non-vital part of the body which the deceased successfully blocked.Having considered the circumstances, the two appeals are disposed of, setting aside the appellants' conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.The appellants are convicted for the offences punishable Crl.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 4 of 5 under Section 304 Part (II)/323/34 IPC and as regards the sentence we find that the appellants have already undergone sentence for more than five years, which in our opinion should be sufficient.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 4 of 5We accordingly direct that the appellants shall undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JULY 14, 2014 mg Crl.A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 5 of 5A.Nos.80/2014 & 81/2014 Page 5 of 5

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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 appellant has been held guilty and convicted foroffence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 2 Appeal519-06.odt causing the death of one Meghraj Nakade by dashing him withhis mini truck, which he was driving on 09.05.1994 on the roadleading to Gadchiroli at Armori.The allegation is that theappellant along with accused No.2 Trilok came from behind in amini truck being driven by the appellant and intentionally gavea dash from the back side to the aforesaid Meghraj Nakade, asa result of which he fell down.Thereafter, the appellantallegedly stopped the mini truck at a short distance andreversed the same to run over the said Meghraj Nakade, due towhich the said victim died of serious injuries.It was allegedthat the appellant has committed the aforesaid act becausethere was a hot exchange of words between him and thedeceased on the previous day i.e. 08.05.1994, due to a disputeregarding non-payment of amount by the appellant to thedeceased for purchase of 150 quintals of paddy.It was statedthat the deceased was in need of the money because themarriage of his daughter was fixed for 16.05.1994 and that theappellant was not making the payment due to which theaforesaid dispute had arisen.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::As per the prosecution there were three eyewitnessesto the aforesaid incident i.e. PW2 Keshao Kumbhare, PW11Vishwanath and PW12 Bakaram.PW2 Keshao Kumbhare was::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 3 Appeal519-06.odt taking morning walk on 09.05.1994 at about 5.30 a.m. whenhe heard a sound of the said mini truck giving a dash to thedeceased and that upon the said mini truck coming to a haltnear the shop of one Salim welder, the appellant got downfrom the side of the driver seat and that another personalighted from the other side.PW2 saw the deceased lying facedown with serious bleeding injuries on the road.According tothe prosecution, PW11 Vishwanath and PW12 Bakaram werethe other two eyewitnesses who had gone to the nearby fieldfor easing themselves when the aforesaid incident took place.These two witnesses have claimed that they saw the mini truckdriven by the appellant giving dash to the deceased andreversing and running over the deceased.In their evidence, ithas come on record that PW11 Vishwanath was at a distance ofabout 80 to 90 ft. and that PW12 Bakaram was at a distance ofabout 125 ft.from the place of the incident.These witnessesalso claimed that the appellant and accused No.2 Trilok gotdown from the mini truck and upon coming near the deceased,who had fallen face down on the road, stated " Mar Gaya Sala".It is relevant to mention here that PW2 Keshao, the othereyewitness, did not state about the appellant having reversedthe mini truck to run over the deceased or that he and theaccused no.2 got down from the mini truck to utter the::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 4 Appeal519-06.odt aforesaid words.PW2 Keshao also did not state anything aboutthe presence of PW11 and PW12, the other two eyewitnessesto the incident.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::3. PW3 Omprakash Nakade, younger brother of thedeceased submitted the complaint leading to registration offirst information report (FIR).The FIR was registered underSection 304-A of the IPC against the appellant for havingcaused the death of the victim by rash and negligent act.Theinvestigation was initially undertaken by PW8 Chagan Wakade,who recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested theappellant.The investigation was later handed over to theCriminal Investigation Department (CID) and the papersrelating to the investigation were handed over on 23.06.1994by PW8 Chagan Wakade to PW15 Gajanan Shinde, who took upthe investigation on behalf of the CID.Upon further investigation by PW15 Gajanan Shinde,accused No.2 Trilok was also arrested and on 07.07.1994 thesaid PW15 sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, CIDCrime, Nagpur Range for guidance.On 08.07.1994 theSuperintendent of Police, CID Crime, sent an order to PW15 to::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 5 Appeal519-06.odt add the offence under Section 302 of the IPC against theaccused.Accordingly, on 12.12.1994 charge sheet wassubmitted before the Court against both the accused foroffence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::In the trial before the Sessions Court, the prosecutionexamined 17 witnesses, including the aforesaid threeeyewitnesses to the incident.The case of the prosecution wasthat there was altercation and hot exchange of words betweenthe appellant and the deceased on 08.05.1994 due to thedispute regarding outstanding payment for purchase of paddyand that this led to the appellant intentionally hitting thedeceased in the morning on 09.05.1994 when the deceasedwas taking morning walk, by deliberately driving the mini truckfrom the tar road to the kachha road where the deceased waswalking, so as to kill him.The Sessions Court found that the evidence of thethree eyewitnesses proved the manner in which the incidenthad happened and that the intensity with which the deceasedwas hit by the mini truck, demonstrated that the appellantintentionally drove the mini truck into the deceased to ensurehis death.But, the Sessions Court found that there was not::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 6 Appeal519-06.odt enough evidence against the accused no.2 Trilok andaccordingly, he was acquitted.The Sessions Court convictedonly the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencedhim to suffer imprisonment for life.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appointed onbehalf of the appellant, submitted that there were glaringcontradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses and that thepresence of the appellant at the place of incident was notestablished by the prosecution.On this basis, the learned counsel appearing forthe appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and orderof the Sessions Court was not sustainable and that it deservedto be set aside.On the other hand, Mr. V.A. Thakre, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Statesubmitted that the evidence on record, particularly theversions of the eyewitnesses, proved the manner in which theincident occurred and that the appellant intentionally gave adash to the deceased with his mini truck, thereby committing::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 7 Appeal519-06.odt offence under Section 302 of the IPC.He prayed that theappeal be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::We have considered the arguments of the counsel forthe parties and we have perused the record of the case.Inorder to examine as to the manner in which the incident tookplace on 09.05.1994, it is essential that the evidence of thethree eyewitnesses i.e. PW2, PW11 and PW12 is examined indetail.The evidence of PW2 Kesdhao shows that he was on hismorning walk when he saw the mini truck driven by theappellant giving a dash to the deceased.This witness statesthat the mini truck stopped at some distance and that theappellant came out of the truck from the driver seat.Hefurther states that another person alighted from the other sideof the truck but he could not see who that other person was.Thereafter PW2 gives details of the manner in which the bodyof the deceased was lying, face down with profuse bleeding onthe road.PW11 Vishwanath has stated in his evidence that hewas easing himself in nearby field at a distance of about 80 to90 ft. when he saw the incident in question.He adds that theappellant stopped the mini truck at a short distance and::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 8 Appeal519-06.odt reversed so as to run over the deceased.He further statedthat the appellant along with accused No.2 Trilok got downfrom the mini truck and upon coming near the body of thedeceased uttered the words "Mar Gaya Sala".A similaraccount of the incident is given by PW12 Bakaram who claimsthat he was also easing in the said field at a distance of about125 ft.from the place of incident.These two eyewitnesses i.e.PW11 and PW12 have added a marked improvement over whathas been stated by the other eyewitness PW2 Keshao.It is alsorelevant that PW2 Keshao has not stated anything about thepresence of PW11 and PW12 near the spot of the incident.Thus,while the statement of PW2 Kesdhao was recorded promptly bythe Police, the statements of PW11 and PW12 were recordedafter four and five days of the incident by the Police.Theversion of PW2 Keshao on the one hand and the versions ofPW11 Vishwanath and PW12 Bakaram on the other hand showcontradictions and material differences.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::In this situation, the medical evidence becomesrelevant because if the versions of PW11 Vishwanath and PW12::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 9 Appeal519-06.odt Bakaram were a correct description of the incident, therewould be injuries of tyre marks, as these witnesses hadclaimed that the appellant had reversed the mini truck and runover the deceased.The evidence of PW17 Dr. Vasant Pillare,the Doctor who conducted the post mortem, shows extensiveexternal and internal injuries, including severe injuries to vitalparts of the body of the deceased.But, in cross-examinationthe said witness stated as follows:-::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::"It is true that all such injuries can be caused if a person falls down facing towards down side due to impact of the vehicle from the backside.From the fact that there was no crush injury and tyre marks on the dead body, in my opinion there is no possibility of deceased Meghraj being run over by the vehicle."Thus, it is clear that there were no injuries on the body of thedeceased showing that he was run over by the mini truck.This renders doubtful the versions of PW11 Vishwanath andPW12 Bakaram.Apart from this, it appears doubtful that thesaid witnesses would have actually seen the appellant andaccused no.2 alighting from the mini truck and uttering theaforesaid words, from a distance of 90 ft. and 125 ft.On theother hand, the medical evidence appears to corroborate the::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 ::: 10 Appeal519-06.odt version of PW2 Keshao, who has stated that the mini truckdriven by the appellant gave a dash to the deceased frombehind.There is no mention by the said witness regarding theappellant having reversed the truck and run over the body ofthe deceased.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW5Prakash, PW9 Shalikram and PW10 Govinda for proving thetheory that there was altercation between the appellant andthe deceased on the day previous to the date of the incident onthe question of non-payment of amount by the appellant to thedeceased for purchase of paddy, which led to the appellantintentionally giving a dash to the deceased with his mini truckin the morning on 09.05.1994, thereby committing an offenceunder Section 302 of the IPC.A perusal of the evidence ofthese three witnesses shows that there was a certain hotexchange of words on the previous day between the appellantand the deceased, but the statement of PW10 Govinda wasrecorded by the Police on 01.07.1994, which was after a longdelay.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::Even if evidence of PW5 Prakash and PW9 Shalikram(the younger brother of the deceased) in respect of theaforesaid alleged altercation between the appellant and thedeceased, is believed, all that it shows is that there was suchan incident of hot exchange of words that took place betweenthem.If such an incident hadoccurred in a short span of time from the said allegedaltercation or hot exchange of words, it could have beengathered that the appellant had intentionally committed theaforesaid act.If the evidence of PW2 Keshao along with theevidence of PW17 Dr.Vasant Pillare is appreciated in thiscontext, it appears that the said incident and the death of thevictim was accidental rather than homicidal in nature.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::Therefore, theevidence on record establishes the presence of the appellantat the spot of the incident as driving the mini truck whichdashed the deceased from behind.The nature of injuries donot support the theory of the prosecution that the appellantreversed the mini truck over the body of the deceased tointentionally cause his death.The material on record pointstowards rash and negligent act on the part of the appellant incausing the death of the victim Megharaj Nakade.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::13 Appeal519-06.odtThus, the Sessions Court was not justified in holdingthat the appellant intentionally caused the death of the victim.The Sessions Court erred in relying upon the evidence ofalleged eyewitnesses PW11 Vishwanath and PW12 Bakaram.The medical evidence on record is also not appreciated incorrect perspective by the Sessions Court.On a properappreciation of the evidence on record, it is clear that theappellant could be held guilty only under Section 304-A of theIPC for causing the death by rash and negligent act and thatthe FIR initially registered under the said provision was correct.Accordingly, we hold that the conviction andsentence imposed upon the appellant by the Sessions Court bythe impugned judgment and order is unsustainable and we setaside the same.Instead, the appellant is held guilty for havingcommitted offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and wesentence him to suffer imprisonment for a period of 2 (two)years.Thereafter, hewas again arrested on 12.09.1994 when the offence underSection 302 of the IPC was added.Thus, during the period of investigation, trial andpendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the appellanthas already undergone incarceration for a period of about 2 ½years.In these circumstances, while partly allowing thisappeal in the above terms, we hold that the appellant hasalready served more than the quantum of sentence imposedby us and that therefore, he need not be taken into custody forsuffering the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed byus.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, theimpugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court is setaside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304-A of theIPC.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::15 Appeal519-06.odtThe fees of the learned counsel appointed for theappellant are quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only).::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 02:03:53 :::

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

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

C.R.M. 5177 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23/07/2018 in connection with Dhantala P.S. No. 193 of 2018 dated 05/06/2018 under Sections gd 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Pradip Majumdar & Ors.....petitioners.Ms. Minoti Gomes ...for the petitioners.Ms. Sonali Das ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dhantala P.S. Case No. 193 of 2018 dated 05/06/2018 under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by 2

['Section 498A 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.

The respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the offence under Section 279, 304(A) (2counts) of IPC.After completing the investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Poonamallee.After taking cognizance of the charge sheet on file, the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Poonamallee, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.After taking case on file in S.C.No.261 of 2016 and the same was made over to the learend III Additional Sessions Judge, the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, after trial found guilt of the appellant and convicted him for the offence under Section 279, 304(A) (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for each count and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months.The sentences for both counts shall run concurrently.2 The case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2014 at 00.45 hours, when the deceased Kalicharan aged 35 years Grade I Police constable 35983 of Nazarathpet Police Station and Chelladurai aged 25 years constable of noght patrol police Youth Brigade were on night rounds at Vandalur to Nemelicherry New 400 feet road in a police patrol a motorcycle TVS Appachi bearing Registration No.TN01 G 5382 with red and blue lights turned on, at that time, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 appellant who was driving Tempo Traveller bearing registration No. TN11 E 9896 from south to north in a rash and zigzag manner and losting his control over the vehicle dashed against the backside of the said police patrol motorcycle, which was moving in the same direction due to the said accident, the two constables had fallen down on the road with motorcycle and were dragged to 10 feet distance, one kalaicharan sustained severe head injury and fracture in the right leg thigh and died on the spot and one Chelladurai sustained severe head injuries and died on the way to the hospital.3 In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked on the side of the prosecution.4 After completing the prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses put forth before the appellant for which, he denied as false.On the side of the defence no oral and documentary evidence was produced.5 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident would not have taken place as projected by the prosecution.P.W.1 is the complainant who is said to be as an eye witness in this case.But, during the crosshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 examination, he has clearly denied that he has not given the complaint in writing and the same was written by the police, and he admitted the signature alone.The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant is an illiterate and he does not know to read and write.Further he has stated that only tempo driver over take him.But, he has not clearly spoken about the driver of the tempo van bearing registration No. TN11 E 9896 who drove the tempo in a rash and negligent manner P.W.2 and P.W.3 could not have been as eye witnesses because, they have stated that after hearing the sound only they have seen the accident.Even, P.W.7 who is an engineering in WIPRO Company, has stated that due to the sudden break applied by the driver only the persons fallen outside from the two wheeler.Therefore, the prosecution has not proved its case through its evidence beyond all reasonable doubts.Hence, it is submitted that the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the appellant.The learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in a right manner.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant warrants interference.6 The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the witness of P.W.1, 2, and 3 have clearly stated that the eye witnesses P.W.7, one who travelled in the offending vehicle bearing registration No. TN11 E 9896 is present at the time of the accident.There is no merits in the appeal and which is liable to be dismissed.7 The case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2014 at 00.45 hours, when the deceased Kalicharan aged 35 years Grade I Police constable 35983 of Nazarathpet Police Station and Chelladurai aged 25 years constable of noght patrol police Youth Brigade were on night rounds at Vandalur to Nemelicherry New 400 feet road in a police patrol a motorcycle TVS Appachi bearing Registration No.But their evidence revealed that after hearing the noise from the occurrence place they came to the spot and have seen the accident they may not be an eyewitnesses to the accident.9 On careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7, it is crystal clear that, if the accused had driven the vehicle in a moderate speed, the accident could not have happened.However, on going through the evidence of motor vehicle Inspector and the report, it is revealed that the deceased were travelled in a two wheeler and the tempo driven by the appellant in a high speed dashed behind the two wheeler.However, the accident is not an intentional and though the victims were died due to the accident.But it is only incidental and it is only due to the rash and negligent and not guilty mind of killing the person.Therefore, under these circumstances the sentence awarded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, in S.C.No.261 of 2016 is modified to one year Rigorous Imprisonment instead of Two years Rigorous Imprisonment.11 Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.27.04.2018 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sbnhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN.J sbn ToThe learned III Additional Session Judge, Poonamallee.2.The Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Traffic Investigation, Tiruvallur District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.A.168 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.4468 of 2019

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

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

Complainant is the Manager of the firm Govindji Jevat & Co. Accused No. 1 is the Manager of M/s. Deluxe Roadlines.This firm carries on transport business.Accused Nos. 2 & 3 are the Directors of M/s. Rukminin Mills Ltd., situated at Silaiman (Madurai District of Tamil Nadu).Accused No. 4 is the Office Assistant of the said Mills whereas accused No. 5 is the General Manager.Complaint's case is that Rukmini Mills Ltd. agreed to purchase 50 bales of MCU-5 New Cotton at the rate of Rs. 4,700/- per candy of 784 lbs.F.O.R. Silaiman.JUDGMENT V.S. Deshpande, J.The complainant lodged this complaint for offences under section 407 read with section 120-B or in the alternative section 407 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.90% of the price was to be paid by the purchasers on arrival of the goods at the destination.The 90% amount was to be paid in the Bank by honouring the hundi drawn by the sellers and the balance was to be paid within 80 days after passing weighment.The letter contemplated delivery of the consignment to or to the order of the consignee bank whose name was also mentioned in the lorry receipt issued by the transporters Delux Roadlines.Para 11 of the complaint itself indicates that the complainant on inquiries learnt that accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 2 to 5 hatched a conspiracy and pursuant to the said conspiracy accused No. 1 issued another transport receipt bearing No. 27077 dated 9-1-1976 showing the complainant's company as a consignor and self Silaiman as a consignee and the lorry driver was directed to deliver the goods to accused Nos. 2 to 5 without consignee copy.It is then averred that accused Nos. 2 to 5 admitted the receipt of the goods without making any payment and without obtaining an order, endorsement or letter of authority from the consignee Bank.They further requested Shri Rohit Khona of the complainant for weighment and passing of the goods and told him that they were sorry for such conduct and will pay the amount immediately.It is then alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 5 assured the complainant that they will not consume or convert the goods to their own use without paying the price.In view of these assurance, a fresh invoice bearing No. 1 dated 29th/30th January, 1976 for a sum of Rs. 1,08,443.08 was issued to the said Mills.It is then alleged that inspite of this assurance the accused dishonestly converted the said goods to their own use in violation of the said contract without paying the price of the goods.It appears that the learned Magistrate rather than taking cognizance of the complaint, directed the police to held an inquiry under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Exhaustive inquiry was accordingly made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pydhonie Police Station after contacting the agents of the complainant in Guntur and Madurai as also the Proprietor of the Transport Company in Bombay and the complainant himself.According to this report, the dispute in between the complainant and the accused was of a civil nature though the statements made by accused No. 1 were found to be suspicious.The Inspector also reported, that offence, even if any, cannot on the averments made in the complaint, and facts investigated be said to have been committed within the State of Bombay.The complaint gives an impression as if the lorry receipt bearing No. 27077 dated 9-1-1976 was prepared by accused No. 1 by committing some offence.In fact truck number mentioned in lorry receipt No. 4220 does not happen to be the same truck number in which the goods have actually been despatched from Guntur to Silaiman.Lorry receipt No. 27077 does make reference to the correct lorry number.On the other hand, subsequent letter issued by the complainant's agents at Guntur at Exhibit 'G' contemplates payment by the accused only to the extent of freight charges of the truck.Both the terms are simply irreconcilable.Implication is that terms of letter dated 31-12-1975 never come into existence at all.

['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There, I saw that a large crowd had collected while the accused was present inside the room holding the scissors in his hand.He was simply refusing to open the door as he wanted the police to be called.This was primarily due to the fact that he was scared that he might be beaten up.He announced that he had committed the murder of Asmat Ali.After the police had arrived, he still refused to open the door.He wanted the police to show him their arms before they came inside.After showing him their arms, the police entered the room.All those present at the spot saw that the dead body was lying on the floor.The blood-stained rajaai, gadda, chaddar, shirt and tehmat apart from the scissors were also taken into possession.The dead body of the deceased was taken to the AIIMS mortuary for examination.JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J.This is an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 27th September, 2004 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 12/2001 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.The case commenced on an FIR No. 574/2000 registered in the Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are as follows : The accused/appellant (Md. Akhtar) and the deceased (Hasmat Ali) used to sleep in the same room in the premises of the industrial unit owned by Sudhir Kumar (PW 1) where they worked.At about 3.15 in the morning on the 9th of July, 2000 the accused is alleged to have stabbed the deceased repeatedly with a pair of scissors culminating in his death.In the meanwhile, alerted by the commotion, a large crowd of fellow workers of the accused and the deceased gathered outside the room.Since, the accused was scared of getting beaten up, he refused to open the door until the police arrived.The accused was questioned after the police arrived on the scene and identified themselves and he opened the door and the dead body and the blood-stained scissors were recovered from the spot.The appellant/accused was represented through an amices Curiae namely Mr. Rajeev Nasim in the trial court.The amices Curiae during the course of the hearing stopped appearing in the trial midway and thereafter another amices Curiae was appointed namely Mr. R.C. Tiwari.The trial court found the offence under Section 302 IPC to have been made out and accordingly directed the conviction of the accused for Life Imprisonment and to fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months.Mr. Raina appearing on behalf of the Legal Aid as amices Curiae has challenged the impugned judgment on four principal pleas:(a)The trial court has written the judgment more in the nature of an order dealing with a civil revision petition convicting the petitioner without discussing any witnesses properly nor has addressed circumstances which enured to the benefit of the appellant.The learned amices Curiae further submitted that there were following glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case:(a) Weapon of offence namely scissors was sent for identifying the finger prints to the bureau and finger prints were not found on the scissors.(b) While several objects which were having blood stains were sent to the CFSL, but the weapon used for the murder, i.e., scissors was not sent to CFSL.(c) The accused had also raised the plea of insanity in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This fact was not adverted to by the trial court.We have gone through the judgment of the trial court.In the present case during the trial, court has not discussed and analyzed the statements of the witnesses in a proper and exhaustive manner and convicted the accused by a terse order styled as a judgment where the testimony of the witnesses has been noticed in four paragraphs only.We are, therefore, of the view that such judgments ought not to be written in a murder trial.Such a practice could lead to a gross miscarriage of justice particularly since in a given case if detailed perusal of the evidence indicates acquittal and a cursory perusal leads to conviction.I can also state that there had been no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased and also that the accused had been working in the factory for about a month before the incident took place.However, I cannot say anything about the mental condition of the accused.The testimony of PW 1 has not been shaken in the cross examination.The testimony was also corroborated in material particulars by the other workers of the factory namely PW 6 Mohd. Jiyauddin and PW 10 Abdul Subhan.PWs 6 and PW 10 are Mohd. Jiauddin and Abdul Subhan respectively.They testified in Court that they were sleeping on the top floor of the factory and the accused and Hasmat Ali were sleeping in a room on the ground floor.They came down after having heard cries.However, they found that the door of the room of the accused was closed from inside.They also heard shouts coming from the inside of the same room.When they tried to ask the accused what the problem was, he refused to open the door.The accused told them that he had killed Hashmat Ali.When the workers of the factory peeped inside the room they saw that the accused was holding the scissors in his hand.At this, they called the owner of the factory, Sudhir Kumar who reached the spot within 10-15 minutes.The accused flatly refused to open the door until the police arrived.The door was opened only after the police did arrive at the spot.Both these witnesses, PW 6 and PW 10 also asserted that they reached the spot immediately after the incident took place.They also asserted that they heard the shouts of the deceased that attracted them to the spot.The prosecution case is also supported by the evidence of the following other witnesses:(i) PW 5, Bunde Khan (brother of the deceased) deposed to having identified the dead body of the accused.His statement was recorded there and then.(ii) PW 22, Sub-Inspector Gurdev Singh is the Investigating Officer who proceeded to the spot of the incident.He deposed to having seen the dead body of the accused.He had also found a pair of scissors lying near the door where the body was lying.The Investigating Officer (PW-11, Sub-Inspector Madan Lal) also deposed to having prepared the site plan there.Photographs were also taken of the area where the incident had taken place according to the testimony of PW -12, Constable Yogender.(iii) According to PW -13, Sh.A.K. Srivastava who was the Senior Scientific Officer of the FSL, the seven sealed parcels were received by him.Blood was detected on all exhibits apart from the scissors that had not been sent to him for examination.This also corroborates the prosecution case as the quilt, pillow and bed sheet and underwear were deposed to have blood on them.Dr. Sudhir Gupta (Asst.Professor, AIIMS)-PW 18 who examined the body also deposed that death had been caused due to excessive bleeding as the accused had been stabbed with a sharp-edged weapon.However, Dr. Sanjiv Lalwani, PW 20, said in his testimony that there had been an injury on the right hand of the accused.The presence of the accused with the body along with the blood stained scissors from a room locked from inside where only the accused and the deceased were sleeping has thus been clearly established justifying his conviction under Section 302 IPC.The plea of insanity cannot also be entertained as the conduct of the appellant informing his landlord Sudhir Kumar that he would not open the door as he was afraid that co-workers could have beaten him up in case he opened the door.Furthermore, no evidence in defense of treatment under AIIMS for a psychiatric disorder has been led on behalf of the appellant.In so far as the second plea relating to the lack of finger prints on the scissors is concerned, Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has submitted that in an offence involving 11-12 wounds, it is possible that the physical action of stabbing may have obliterated the finger prints, specially when the murder weapon used was a metallic instrument, i.e., scissors in the present case.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief history of the case is that police Naikin Rampur filed challan against the present appellant, his father Ramswaroop (since acquitted) and his brother Deoraj (whose case has been sent to Juvenile Court, he being minor on the date of incident), with the allegation that in furtherance of their common intention, they committed murder of Ramesh Kumar resident of village Amdad, P.S. Naikin on 23-10-1984 at about 6.00 p.m. in village Amdad, P.S. Naikin.It is alleged that the landed property Hazaria Bund was owned by the ancestors of deceased and the accused.On the date of incident the deceased Ramesh Kumar began ploughing in one corner of said Hazaria Bund, and cultivation on the other part of the Hazaria Bund was being done by accused persons.The two labourers i.e. Sukarta and Dashrath conducted the ploughing on behalf of deceased Ramesh Kumar while accused Ramraj himself and some other persons were conducting ploughing on the other part of the said Hazaria Bund.In the evening after unyoking the bullocks the labourers and Ramesh Kumar retired and were going to their respective houses.Meanwhile Ramraj, his father Ramswaroop and brother Deoraj armed with lathis, came on the spot and enquired why the deceased had cultivated the land in their possession.Deceased claimed his share in the Hazaria Bund.Thereafter, all of them assaulted deceased Ramesh Kumar, caused various injuries on head and other parts of the body of Ramesh Kumar who fell down.On hearing the alarm some persons came there.Accused persons then left the place.Ramesh Kumar was taken to hospital.Report of the incident was lodged by Sitaram son of Shiv Prasad Shukla, at about 7.30 p.m. (one and half hours after the incident).JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 9-9-1985 of the Sessions Judge, Sidhi, passed in S.T. No. 18 of 1985 (arising out of the Committal Order dt. 5-1-1985 of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sidhi passed in Criminal Case No. 11/85), whereby the accused has been convicted under Section 304, Part II of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.Ramesh Kumar was examined by Assistant Surgeon Dr. S. P. Mishra (PW-10) who submitted report Ex.Condition of Ramesh Kumar was serious and he was sent to Medical College, Rewa.The matter was reported to the police Rewa and the information of the same was sent to police Station Rampur Naikin.Autopsy on the body of Ramesh Kumar was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 14) who found following injuries :(i) Surgical stitch wound over left occipital region 3" linear fracture 2" long parallel to, each other present over left parietal to temporal region.(ii) Comminuted fracture bone broken into 7 pieces and pierced to brain (middle cranal fossa)(iii) laceration at brain middle cranial fossa(iv) sub-dural hametoma 6 cm x 6 cm left occipital region(v) Laceration of brain 2" x 2" x 2" deep (middle cranial fossa).(vi) Fissured fracture over skull stratching from left ear to right ear about 23 cm long.(vii) Extra dural hametoma big size present over back of the head.(viii) Brain congested.The surgical stitches described by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW 14) further stands corroborated from the statement of PW 10 Dr. S. P. Mishra who found vide Ex. P-14, lacerated wound of size 3" x 1/1" x 1/4" on the left occipital region, lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on left occipital region and other injuries were almost the same.On the basis of the report of Dr. S. P. Mishra, earlier the case was registered under Section 307/34 of Penal Code.Later it was converted into one under Section 302/34, I.P.C. Investigation in the matter was conducted by PW 9 J. P. Chhari.He inspected the spot, got prepared the map (Ex. P 3), bloodstained clothes of deceased were seized from Sitaram (Ex. P-4), accused Ramraj and Ramswaroop were taken into custody.One lathi was seized vide Ex. P-8, from Ramraj, one axe (Ex. P-9) was seized from Ramswaroop.After investigation challan was filed against the accused persons.The accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded that Ramesh Kumar illegally took possession of the land and on protest being made by Ramraj, caused injuries to him.After trial, learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced this accused appellant under Section 304, Part II of Penal Code, as above, for exceeding right of private defence; hence this appeal.In the memorandum of appeal and during the course of argument following points of fact were raised by counsel for the appellants:--(ii) Witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, one hostile and inform witness cannot be corroborated by other infirm and hostile witness;(iii) Alleged melee took place in the field;(iv) Injuries found on the person of accused Ramraj have not been explained and, therefore, he is entitled for benefit of right to private defence.As against it learned counsel for the State submitted that the deceased was assaulted after he retired from the field and the assault was made not to protect the possession but to retaliate the action of the deceased.Even if it is presumed that injuries were caused by the deceased, that must be taken to have been caused during the assault on him by the accused persons.Prosecution examined PW 1 Sitaram, PW2 Dashrath, PW 3 Ramsumiran, PW4 Sukurta, PW 5 Pratima Devi, PW 6 Dhan-wan, PW 7 Bhura, PW 8 Ravinandan Singh, PW 9 J. P. Chhari, PW 10 Dr. Section P. Mishra, PW 11 Shyamsunder Sharma, PW 12 Kashi Prasad, PW 13 Ram Prasad Sharma, PW 14 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, and PW 15 Kamta Prasad Tiwari.PW 1 Sitaram has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that he was related to the deceased and the accused both.Accused Ramraj is related to him as uncle while Ramesh Kumar was related to him as cousin.He stated in para 3 of his statement that cultivation over the land was being done for the whole day and in the evening after the ploughs were unyoked and bullocks were being brought home, accused persons came there armed with lathi and asked why the deceased had cultivated the land of their possession.On deceased's asserting his share and claim over the land, he was attacked by the accused persons.He has further stated that Ramraj and Deoraj both of them attacked the deceased Ramesh Kumar.Accused Ramraj caused injuries on the head.PW 1 Sitaram has also stated about the lodging of first information report (Ex. P-1) in police station Rampur Naikin.In the first information report he has stated that Ramraj and Deoraj assaulted the deceased at the instance and direction of Ramswaroop, but during cross-examination he denied the suggestion and, therefore, he was declared hostile.Excepting the abetment of offence by Ramswaroop, on all other facts this witness has supported the prosecution and the first information report.This witness cannot be treated to be wholly reliable.He will be deemed to be partly reliable.PW 2 Dashrath has corroborated the first part of the story that a part of Hazaria Bund was being ploughed by him and Sukerta at the instance of deceased Ramesh Kumar and after unyoking the bulls from plough he left the field and thereafter he heard the alarm raised by deceased.He has further stated that he saw accused Ramraj and Deoraj assaulting the deceased.He has not supported the presence of Ramswaroop and, therefore, he has also been declared hostile.PW 4 Sukarta has also stated that in the evening after they had finished the cultivation work and were returning home along with the bullocks as soon as the deceased reached the bund along with the bulls, accused Ramraj and Deoraj came on the spot armed with lathi and started assaulting the deceased.Thereafter other persons of the village came there and by that time the accused left the place.This witness has also not supported the fact of presence of Ramswaroop and therefore, he has also been declared hostile.PW 3 Ramsumiran has corroborated the version of Sukarta to the extent that Sukarta immediately disclosed to him that accused Ramraj and his younger brother Deoraj had assaulted the deceased Ramesh Kumar.According to this witness deceased Ramesh is brother's son of Ramswaroop who is father of the accused.There was a partition of movable property, but the immovable property was not partitioned by metes and bounds.He has further stated that in the disputed field Hazaria Bund one portion was being ploughed by accused persons and the other portion was ploughed by deceased Ramesh Kumar, and that the incident had taken place in the evening.He has further stated about the presence of injury on the body of the deceased, taking of him to the hospital.This witness is related to both the parties and has rightly been believed by the learned Sessions Judge.The fact of death, injuries, recovery of lathi have not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the said fact has been amply proved by medical evidence, and seizure witnesses.Therefore, those facts are not being discussed in detail.All the eye-witnesses i.e. Sitaram, Dashrath, Sukarta have been declared hostile only on the ground that they have not supported the presence of Ramswaroop at the place of incident.PW 1 Sitaram has lodged the FIR Ex P-1 and in that FIR he has implicated Ramswaroop as well.However, during his statement on oath in the Court he did not name Ramswaroop, as such he was declared hostile to that extent only.The accused persons were cultivating the same Hazaria Bund in the other corner.But in this case the accused along with his brother Deoraj (whose case has been referred to Juvenile Court) attacked the deceased in retaliation and, therefore, accused had no right of private defence as against the deceased, to protect himself.

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

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 120B, 193, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitions are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.The allegations as against the petitioners are that they created forged documents such as Commissioner of Oath certificate & Notary certificate to grab the property of the defacto complainant.He further submitted that the defacto complaint lodged complaint in Crime No. 1 of 2012, with the same set of allegations and the allegations made in the present complaint are only subsequent information relating to the same incident.Therefore, the subsequent FIR is not maintainable and without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 120B, 193, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.To support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgement reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048 in the case of T.T.Antony Vs.State of Kerala and others as follows :-An information given under sub-sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as 3 First Information Report (F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the Code.It is a very important document.And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences.In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report - F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in such information/statement can properly be treated 4 as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives a fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt.It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.19.The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence.On completion of investigationhttp://www.judis.nic.in and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form 5 opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to havehttp://www.judis.nic.in been committed in the course of the same 6 transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C."Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant filed counter and submitted that the petitioners and other accused have already involved a crime of cheating and fabrication of documents and therefore the defacto complainant lodged complaint in Crime No.1 of 2012 and the same is pending.He further submitted that to escape from the above case, the petitioners and other accused have further committed various offences by manipulating the Court documents and played fraud upon the Courts.Therefore the present complaint has been lodged and there are specific overtact as against the each of the petitioners.He further submitted that it is not subsequent information relating to the first FIR and the present complaint has been registered on different set of allegations.He also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 9 SCC 440 in the case of Om Prakash Singh Vs.State of Bihar and others as follows :-Having heard the learned Advocates from both the sides, we find that the High Court is at fault in allowing the petition filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without duly appreciatinghttp://www.judis.nic.in the facts and circumstances of the case and without 7 effectively considering the allegations made in the complaint and materials found in the charge sheet.The High Court is mainly influenced by the factum that the earlier order of taking cognizance was quashed while deciding the present matter.In our considered opinion, it is an error to conceive that the present proceedings based on the subsequent complaint are liable to be quashed merely because the earlier criminal proceedings were quashed.The High Court rather advanced erroneously on the basis of presumptions and conjectures, without considering the merits of the matter.Though, the Appellant and his wife agreed and got their machine upgraded to "Miura-200" by paying Rs. 4 lakhs extra, it is found by the technical expert appointed by the manufacturer that the "Miura-200"supplied by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was containing duplicate parts.In other words, the original parts were replaced by the duplicate parts at the time of supply of machine to the Appellant, and subsequently the machine was not working properly resulting in inaccurate results.It is needless to repeat that the FIR dated 24.03.2008 was based on the allegations of non-functioning of the machine in addition to delay and carelessness of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in getting the machine repaired.At that time, the Appellant and his wife were not aware about replacement of the original parts with the duplicate ones.In the matterhttp://www.judis.nic.in on hand, the Complainant/Appellant came to know 9 certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report from "Key Pharma Limited, Delhi", and, therefore, there is no bar for the Appellant to lodge second complaint.The police after due investigation filed the charge-sheet.Since the case has to be tried, we desist ourselves to comment any further on the merits of the matter.The investigation may go on to unearth and grab the offence committed by the petitioners.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.The second respondent/ defacto complainant has already lodged a complaint in Crime No. 1 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(i) of IPC, as again the petitioners and other accused and the same is pending.The allegations in the present complaint is that to escape form the previous case viz., in Crime No.1 of 2012, the petitioners and other accused had created fabricated documents as given by the Malaysian Court and fake Commissioner of Oath certificate and Notary certificate.The first case registered as Crime No.1 of 2012 on different allegations, where as the present complaint has been registered on different set of facts andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 circumstances.However, considering the crime is of the year 2018, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.08.05.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal District,The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No. 1271 of 2019 and Crl.MP.Nos.833 & 6019 of 2019 08.05.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed on behalf of the petitioner Hemraj Singh in Crime No.332/2017 registered by P.S.- Rampur Baghelan, District- Satna under Sections 323, 327, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, at about 11:30 p.m. On 11-05-2017, petitioner Hemraj Singh demanded money from the victim for liquor.He also hurled filthy abuses at him.When the victim refused to give money, the petitioner beat him up.Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Hemraj Singh is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE mohsin

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

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

Co-accused Nikhil and deceased Vinod were entered into an agreement to get register the property in the name of Nikhil and when he said for registry of the property as per the agreement, Vinod has committed the suicide.The applicant is ready to co-operate with investigation and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court.On these grounds prayer is made to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 08/08/2019 03:27:11

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A.(MD)No.137 of 2013 Judgment dated 13.06.2011 in S.C.No.309 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai.2.The prosecution case is that on 22.02.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., in front of the Indian Bank at TVS Nager, Madurai, the appellant threatened P.W.1 to part with a sum of Rs.100/-.Since P.W.1-Sathasivam refused to, he showed M.O.3-Knife and relieved P.W.1's gold chain worth about four sovereign.P.W.1 raised an alarm and the appellant was caught on the spot.He was then taken to C2 Subramaniapuram Police Station in an auto and Ex.P1-complaint was filed.Based on the same, Crime No.169 of 2008 was registered for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 307 of IPC and 506(ii) of IPC.Investigation was undertaken and final report came to be laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai.Charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) of IPC.The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.M.O.1 to M.O.3 were also marked.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in2/10 Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2013 learned trial Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the evidence on record.6.It is relevant to note here that the entire prosecution case rests only on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 is only a mahazer witness.P.W.4 who was said to be an eye witness, turned hostile.P.W.5 turned hostile.P.W.6 turned hostile.P.W.7 also turned hostile.P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer.P.W.1 refused to give any money.Thereupon, the appellant is said to have threatened P.W.1 with knife and took away his gold chain and a sum of Rs.100/-.P.W.1 admittedly did not suffer any injury.The appellant also does not appear to have made any attempt to run away from the spot.7.It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant, after committing the robbery, ran away and tried to escape from the spot and that he was chased by the people and the members of the public and caught.Nothing of the sort appears to have happened.The appellant, after getting the gold chain and Rs.100/- from P.W.1, appears to have been standing in the very same place.All these appear highly artificial.More than anything else, P.W.1, in his testimony, stated that he had not seen the appellant.But in the very same breadth, P.W.1 also stated that it was the appellant who threatened him and took away his gold chain and the money.All the eye witnesses turned hostile and the only corroborating witness is P.W.2 who ishttp://www.judis.nic.in4/10 Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2013 none other than the brother of the victim.P.W.1 did not suffer any injury.The appellant did not appear to have made any attempt to run away from the spot.I find it very difficult to believe the prosecution case that the appellant had committed the crime in question.The only demand made by the appellant was that P.W.1 should give a sum of Rs.100/- which was lying in P.W.1's pocket.But then, the appellant had not been complying with the bail condition.Therefore, in order to avoid such situation from occurring in future, the following directions are issued:-1.The trial Courts ought to oversee, if the convicted accused are regularly complying with the bail conditions imposed on them by this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in7/10 Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 20132.If accused do not appear or fail to comply with the conditions, the trial Court must promptly send a communication both to the Registry of this Court as well as the Jurisdictional Police Station about the non-compliance of the condition.3.On receipt of such communication from the trial Court, the jurisdictional Police will take prompt steps to apply for cancellation of bail and take effective follow-up action.2.The Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track No.1, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in9/10 Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2013 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.rmi Crl.A(MD)No.137 of 2013 30.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in10/10

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

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

It was alsoalleged that, the appellants had assaulted, abused and threatenedhim.Police started inquiry and statements of witnesses wererecorded.However, in the wake of the statements of the witnesses,even the informant was called and CCTV footage of the S. T. Stand,where the alleged spot was, was also collected by the investigatingofficer.It has been contended that, he is one of thepersons who assesses about the illegal excavation of sand from riverPainganga bed at the hands of the appellants.He had raised thatissue before the revenue authorities time and again, and therevenue officers had directed several times to the subordinateofficers to look into the matter and hold detailed inquiry.Thesubordinate revenue officers did not brother to carry out that inquirywhen in fact the appellants are illegally executing the sand from thesaid river which has fallen under Eco Sensitive Zone.At that time also abuses were given in the name of the casteto the informant.1. Heard both sides.Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::3 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1Theseappeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act.The appellants / original applicants were apprehending theirarrest in the said crime and, therefore, they had filed the saidapplication contending that the informant i.e. present respondentNo.2 who is resident of Datta Nagar, Mahur Tq.Mahur Dist.Nandedhas filed the said First Information Report in order to harass them.He was indulged in making complaints in respect of allotment of ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 4 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1sand spot to the revenue authorities for ulterior purpose with anassertion that the sand has been sold at a exorbitant rate.Theinformant had made unfounded and frivolous complaints to achieveulterior objects and initially approached the police on 03-12-2019with an allegation regarding unauthorized excavation.However,at the behest of police, a settlement was arrived at and it wasagreed that 18 brass of sand would be supplied to the informant bythe appellants and the informant would pay amount of Rs.2,000/-per brass.When the appellants had approached theSpecial Judge under the Atrocities Act for pre-arrest bail; the SpecialJudge did not consider the facts of the case and earlier record.Theirbail application has been casually rejected holding that, prima faciecase has been made out and, therefore, the application itself isbarred under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. They have, therefore,prayed for allowing the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply and denied all theallegations against him.The police authorities did not bother to takecognizance.Thereafter, when he went to police authority on 08-01-2020 and was returning back, the incident had taken place.He wasbrutally beaten in the police station itself at about 03.45 p.m., as aresult of which he had sustained head injury.He was shifted toRural Hospital, Mahur and then to Vasantrao Naik GovernmentMedical College and Hospital, Yavatmal.After getting the treatmentin Yavatmal, the statement of the informant was recorded by PSIBhalchandra Tidke.However, since the incident had taken placewithin the jurisdiction of Mahur Police Station, it was thentransferred to concerned police station for further investigation.Infact the First Information Report in respect of Crime No.04 of 2020is a counterblast to the First Information Report lodged by him.Theincident had taken place as narrated by him in his First InformationReport and he has been abused in the name of caste by the presentappellants.Therefore, there is total bar to the application underSection 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellantsthat, the documents on record would show that, though theinformant had lodged the report or given complaint application tothe revenue authorities regarding illegal excavation of sand, noaction has been taken by any authority.Rather on 02-05-2017 theGrampanchayat Padsa has passed a resolution against the informantstating that, he is lodging false complaints against the villagers.Hehimself is indulged in stalking girls and they used to go to school.Yet he himself had given a complaint regarding housing scam but allof them know that it is false and, therefore, it was decided that theoffence registered against the informant should be taken back.Withsuch character the informant has posed himself that he is a naturelover and is very much concerned about the illegal excavation of thesand.He had then lodged a written complaint with Mahur PoliceStation on 03-12-2019 regarding some incident that had allegedlytaken place at 9.45 p.m. on 02-12-2019 near the public urinal withinS.T. Stand.The police had undertaken inquiry, statements ofwitnesses were recorded and most of them have stated that, nosuch incident had taken place.If he had taken back those allegationsthen there was nothing against the appellants.In view of his saidapplication, the complaint application dated 03-12-2019 came to bedisposed of and station diary entry was taken accordingly.Furtherthere appears that on the same day there was an agreement cumapplication by the present appellants to the police inspector.On thesame day that all the appellants would give 18 brass sand within twoto three days to the complainant/ informant and he would payRs.2000/- per brass to the appellants.No doubt there appears to beno signature of the informant on the same, yet in thecommunication given by PSI Tidke to PI Mahur, there is a referencethat there is settlement/ compromise between the applicant andnon-applicant, yet it appears that, thereafter on 08-01-2020 theFirst Information Report came to be lodged.Therefore, the outcomeof the First Information Report is not based on any sound principle,it is tented as the informant intended to avoid payment of theamount which he had agreed to be given to the appellants per brass.He has then made allegations against police inspector of MahurPolice Station also without any reason.The entire story itself isunbelievable.When the First information Report is lodged withmalafide intention, then definitely the learned Special Judge ought tohave stated that, there is no prima facie case and the protection ought ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 9 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1to have been given to the present appellants.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::In fact, theincident had taken place just outside the office of Deputy ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 10 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1Superintendent of Police and he was dashed by tractor with anintention to eliminate, yet the police are not protecting his life.Adetailed statement has also been recorded on 09-01-2020 stating asto how the police officer also behaved with the informant.His FirstInformation Report was not immediately taken and this has allhappened because he is member of Scheduled Caste.The firstInformation Report is definitely making out offence under theAtrocities Act and, therefore, the learned Trial Judge was right inrejecting the application.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::At the outset, a fact is required to be taken into considerationthat the First Information Report is lodged against total sevenpersons.Out of that, accused No.5 to 7 i.e. the appellants inCriminal Appeal No.114 of 2020 are 'Mannerwarlu' by caste.That means, the offenceunder these can be lodged against those persons only who are notbeing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes.The learned Trial Judgehas failed to consider this important aspect and it appears that,mechanically the application has been rejected.The very purpose of such provision ofpre-arrest bail would then get frustrated if such technical as well ascryptic approach is adopted.Even on the date the arguments wereadvanced before this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorhas not stated that, there is any addition of section involving offence ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 12 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1against body.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::It is further to be noted that, out of appellants in CriminalAppeal No.120 of 2020 except appellant No.4 Mohmmad MujibMohmmad Suleman Faruqui, others are stated to be 'Banjara' bycaste, which is 'Nomadic Tribe'.If we considered the contents of theFirst Information Report, it appears that, all seven accused personsare stated to have abused the informant in chorus which isunrealistic.Abuses or utterances cannot be in chorus as two men orwomen do not think alike at the same time.In the First information Report it isstated that, all the accused have uttered 'Mahardya', 'Dhedgya'.Even on thisground this Court comes to the conclusion that, no prima facie casehas been made out.The First Information Report further contends that, when theinformant was coming out of office of Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, he was dashed from back side by a green coloured tractor.He pushed the tractor and went aside.He says that, this is done inorder to kill him.At the first place the facts those are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 13 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1considered are that, the tractor is stated to have come from backside, and at what distance the tractor was when he first noticed,then it is hard to believe that if a tractor has been brought in orderto kill a person then how it could have been pushed by the informantas the tractor is a heavy vehicle for a person to push when it ismoving.Further in the First Information Report itself, he has madeallegations against Police Inspector, Mahur Police Station.We arealso then required to consider the earlier happenings between himand the appellants.Though he had made complaint against thepresent appellants, it appears that, by giving an application in hisown handwriting he had taken it back and on the same day he hadentered into compromise.The police officer to whom all thesedocuments were submitted, has then acted upon the same, whichpresupposes that he would have verified the contents of thoseapplications.The facts are therefore required to be read betweenthe lines.The said complaint which was made by the informantearlier appears to be with some ulterior motive and when there issettlement between him and the appellants, he has taken back thatapplication.He got something in return for the same.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::The medical document which is now produced along with the ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 14 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1affidavit-in-reply i.e. the referral card given by Rural Hospital, Mahurshows that, the history was given as assault by someone on 08-01-2020 at 5.30 p.m. First Information Report says that, theoccurrence was between 13.30 hours to 16.00 hours on 08-01-2020.The referral card further states that, there was Blunt Trauma toHead Swollen at right and left parietal region.Though it appearsthat the informant was discharged long back, neither he nor thepolice have collected the medical record and it was handed over topolice.Therefore, when no such document is coming forward evenat this stage, at the cost of repetition it will have to be observedthat, there was no material before the learned Special Judge toobserve that appellants committed serious offence by giving dash bytractor with intent to kill him.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::Even if we brush aside the First Information Report which hasbeen lodged by accused Pratik Kopulwar as counterblast yet what wecannot forget is, the statement of the witnesses those have beenrecorded by police in the present case those witnesses are statingagainst the informant.Some of the witnesses are police officers /constables on duty and rather they are giving a different picture thatthe quarrel was picked up by the informant himself and he hadassaulted the present appellants, the informant had taken thereceipt of the sand forcibly from Pratik Kopulwar.Further witness ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 15 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1Sumit Pandit, Ajay Mujmule have stated that many people who hadgathered at the spot, were recording the incident in their mobile.Witness Pratik Kamble himself had torn his T-Shirt and the informantas well as Pratik Kamble had abused appellant Pratik Kopulwar.These statements have been recorded under Section 164 of Code ofCriminal Procedure.It appears that, the witness Shrinivas Phad haddone the video shooting of the incident and he had submitted themobile to police.The data has been taken on compact disk and thehash value of the same has been taken.That means, whatever thewitnesses are saying appears to be supported by the electronicevidence also.In view of Prithviraj Chavan v.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions."There is no bar in entertaining pre-arrest bail applications.It ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 ::: 16 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1can be observed that, there is substance at this stage in thesubmission on behalf of the appellants that the First InformationReport is filed with malafide intention and, therefore, the orderpassed by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the applicationdeserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal.Hence, followingorder.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::Sessions Judge-2, Nanded on 21-01-2020 is hereby set aside.(3) The application stands allowed.In the event of arrest of the appellants Pratik Rameshwar Kopulwar, Mangesh @ Lakhan Uttam Rikkamwar, Santosh Rameshwar Rikkamwar, Arjun Mohan Rathod, Lakhan Uttam Jadhav, Rameshwar Kondbaji Musale, Mohmmad Mujib Mohmmad Suleman Faruqui, in Crime No.03 of 2020, registered with Mahur Police Station, Dist.Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they be released on P. R. and S. B. of Rs.15,000/- each (fifteen thousand).::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGEvjg/-.::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::

['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.4.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition No. 1260 of 2012, by which the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Judge, Gram Nyayalaya, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, in Case No. 269 of 2011, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondents-accused for pleading guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) and has further given them the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act 1958’), in the case arising out of FIR No. 115 of 2009 lodged at Police Station Wazirpur under Section 365 IPC.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the investigation whereunder FIR No. 115 of 2009 under Section 365 IPC was lodged on the complaint filed by one Kamlesh Meena, who is brother-in-law of the appellant, alleging that the appellant had been kidnapped by the private respondents alongwith other accused when he was returning from the school duty as a teacher.B. Police investigated the matter, located the appellant from village Jeevli on 4.7.2009 and recorded the statements of various persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C, and the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet dated 4.8.2010 against the accused – namely private respondents only for offences punishable under Sections 323, 343 read with Section 34 IPC.C. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial commenced.But on the date so fixed, the trial could not proceed.D. On 15.7.2011, both the accused-respondents appeared before the learned trial court and filed an application pleading guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 343 IPC.The learned Magistrate further held that the order passed in criminal case herein shall not have any adverse affect on the government service of the accused persons.E. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 before the High Court on various grounds including that the court below had committed an error in not taking into consideration the statement of the appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein serious allegations had been made against the accused persons and others particularly that the appellant was kidnapped and illegally detained from 29.6.2009 to 4.7.2009; terrorising and threatening him that his hand and legs would be chopped of; abusing the complainant persistently.The case was disposed off hastily in one day without notice to the appellant.More so, the court below had no right to make the observation that the order of conviction would not adversely affect the services of the respondents-accused.F. The High Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 23.4.2012 on the ground that the appellant has not challenged the order taking cognizance nor any objection was raised when charges were read over to the accused and the respondents-accused had been convicted on their pleading guilty regarding the aforesaid offences.The High Court held that there was no obligation in law to hear the appellant or any other witness at this stage and the trial court was right in passing the impugned order.Hence, this appeal.The trial stood concluded without framing the charges, without issuing notice to the appellant.On the other hand, Ms. Nilofar Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, has opposed the appeal contending that the judgment and order impugned is passed in consonance with law and does not require any interference.In fact, appellant is the father of son-in-law of respondent no.2-accused Kirodi Lal Meena.Respondent’s daughter Hemlata had been ill-treated by the appellant and his family.Appellant named 7 persons and serious allegations of criminal intimidation, threats, terrorising and causing physical harm had been levelled.The police after concluding the investigation filed a charge sheet only against the two accused and, that too, only for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 343 IPC.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On February 24, 2002, ASI Om Prakash PW-2, on duty at P.S.Rajouri Garden was handed over DD No.22, Ex.PW-2/A , wherein the Duty Officer had recorded that through wireless message he had received information that `500/- and a mobile phone was snatched from a person proceeding from Rajouri Garden to Punjabi Bagh.He conducted investigation and recorded action taken as per DD No.27, Ex.PW-2/B, that under the flyover at Raja Garden crossing he had met one Rajat Mittal who confirmed to him of being robbed of `500/- and a mobile phone by a person posing as a policeman on a motorcycle; number whereof he could not remember.That Rajat Mittal refused to give anything in writing and pursue the matter any further.On February 27, 2002, ASI Mohd.Mushtaq PW-1, recorded FIR No.129/2002 Ex.PW-1/A, for offence punishable under Section 384 IPC on W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 1 of 11 the statement made by one Baljeet Singh who had come to the Police Station and had brought along with him the petitioner, as per which statement the petitioner had tried to extort `1000/- from Baljeet Singh; threatening to implicate him for an offence and that Baljeet Singh had refused to succumb to the petitioner's pressure and had brought him to the Police Station.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 1 of 11The fact of the petitioner being brought to the petitioner by Baljeet Singh stands recorded in the FIR, Ex.PW-1/A.Tihar Jail.During the investigation of the above said case it was also found that a DD No.22 dated 24.02.2002 regarding snatching of a mobile phone and `500/- near ESI Hospital was lodged at PP Raghubir Nagar, PS Rajouri Garden for further necessary action.ASI Om Prakash along with Const.Jasbir Singh, No.2169/W reached at the spot, where one Sh.Rajat Mittal s/o Sh.When he reached on Raja Garden fly-over one motorcyclist came from his backside.The rider who was in the Police Uniform and pretended himself from Traffic Police flagged to stop his car and told that he had jumped a red light, so he would be challaned.He got the complainant down from the car.When the complainant tried to make a telephonic call at his residence, the above said policeman snatched his mobile phone and also took `500/- from him as W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 2 of 11 challan money and directed him to come under the fly-over, where an ACP is standing there to challan him.When he went under the fly-over, none of them was found present there.The ASI insisted him to give his statement in writing for which he denied and gave his phone number only to inform him in case his above said mobile phone and money were recovered from the accused concerned.The complainant categorically refused to get the case registered by merely informed the police.However, when the second case came to notice, the earlier complainant Rajat Mittal was called in the police station and was asked to identify the accused.He categorically stated that Const.On repeated assurances only he agreed to come to PS Rajouri Garden along with his uncle and identified the accused.Again he categorically stated that he wanted no police action and would not give anything in writing.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 2 of 11The above act on the part of Const.PW-2/A and DD No.27, Ex.PW-2/B, contents whereof have been noted by us in paragraph 1 above.HC(W) Satya PW-3 deposed that on March 06, W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 3 of 11 2002, while posted at HAG Br.West District she had received Memorandum Ex.PW-3/A, which document makes a mention of the petitioner being arrested in FIR No.129/2002 i.e. Ex.PW-1/A. Inspector M.L.Sharma PW-4 deposed that on February 28, 2002, while posted as the SHO of P.S.Rajouri Garden he had sent the report Ex.Inspector Ganga Singh PW-6, deposed that he tried to investigate the matter further with respect to DD No.22 and DD No.27 and that he visited the house of Rajat Mittal whose mother told him that her son was under stress because he was being harassed and that they were not interested in pursuing the matter any further pertaining to the incident which took place on February 24, 2002 at Raja Garden flyover i.e. the one in which Rajat Mittal was robbed of `500/- and his mobile phone by a person posing as a police officer.He deposed that on April 05, 2002 he sent the report Ex.PW-6/A to the superior officers, and we note that the report mentions that neither Rajat Mittal nor his mother were prepared to make a formal statement to the police out of fear.HC Surinder Kumar PW-7 deposed that pertaining to FIR No.129/2002 he had sent a report Ex.ASI Radhacharan PW-9, proved attendance register Ex.PW-9/A evidencing petitioner being posted at the North District PG Cell.ACP Rishi Pal PW-10 deposed that he had submitted the report W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 4 of 11 Ex.PW-10/A, which records that after Baljeet had brought the petitioner at P.S.Rajouri Garden and had got registered FIR No.129/2002 he i.e. ACP Rishi Pal had summoned Rajat Mittal to his office and had shown petitioner to him and that Rajat Mittal told him that the petitioner was the person who had extorted `500/- and a mobile phone from him on February 24, 2002 but refused to make any formal statement out of fear.Hasbeer Singh PW-11 deposed that on February 24, 2002 he had accompanied ASI Om Prakash PW-2 to investigate after DD No.22, Ex.PW-2/A was recorded at the Police Station.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 3 of 11W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 8 of 11As regards the incident of February 27, 2002; the FIR No.129/2002, Ex.On August 06, 2002 a Summary of Allegations was served upon the petitioner under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, which reads as under:-"A case FIR No. 129/2002 u/s 384 IPC PS Rajouri Garden was registered against Const.Jagdish Chander, No. 1463/N28861412 on the complaint of Sh.Baljit Singh s/o Sh.Harcharan Singh r/o Vill.As required by the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, the department led evidence and examined eleven witnesses.ASI Mohd.Mushtaq PW-1, proved the FIR Ex.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 4 of 11This then is a brief summary of the ocular and the documentary evidence proved during the Summary of Allegations proceedings.As required by the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, after considering the evidence recorded during Summary of Allegations the Competent Authority framed a charge, which we find mirrors the Summary of Allegations.As required by the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 the petitioner was granted to opportunity to lead defence evidence.He led none.The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated April 05, 2002, holding that the allegations against the petitioner were established.A word about the report.After noting the Summary of Allegations and the evidence led, under the caption discussion of evidence, the Inquiry Officer relied very heavily upon FIR Ex.PW-1/A which notes that Baljeet Singh had brought the petitioner to the Police Station accusing him of having tried to extort money from him.The Inquiry Officer has treated as W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 5 of 11 proved the incident dated February 24, 2002, as if Rajat Mittal had deposed to the contents of the two Daily Diary entries Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 5 of 11Attacking the report of the Inquiry Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Rajat Mittal did not lodge any complaint in writing and did not appear as a witness.He never identified the petitioner.The FIR records that Baljeet had come to the Police Station and had brought along with him the petitioner and had stated before ASI Mohd.Mushtaq that the petitioner had tried to extort `1000/- from him under threat of implicating him for having committed an offence.Inspector M.L.Sharma PW-4 has deposed to having sent the report Ex.PW-4/A on February 28, 2002 pertaining to petitioner being arrested in FIR No.129/2002 and HC(W) Satya PW-3 has deposed to having received the Memorandum Ex.Thus, there is sufficient and credible evidence contained in contemporaneous record as also through the mouth of ASI Mohd.Mushtaq that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No.129/2002; being brought to the Police Station by Baljeet who made a statement before ASI Mohd.Mushtaq that Baljeet had brought the petitioner to the Police Station because petitioner was attempting to extort `1000/- from him.Tested on the anvil of the principles of admissible and creditworthy evidence at a domestic inquiry as enunciated in Rattan Singh's case (supra) it has to be held that as regards the incident of February 27, 2002 the indictment stands proved.Neither counsel could throw any light on why Baljeet Singh was not examined as a witness during inquiry for the reason the record throws no light thereon.Whether Baljeet Singh was not traceable or he had refused to appear at the inquiry? We are clueless.As regards the incident of February 24, 2002, the only evidence would be the testimony of ASI Om Prakash PW-2 and the two DD entries No.22 W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 9 of 11 and 27, Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.The said evidence would at best establish that a person named Rajat Mittal was accosted by a person in police uniform who extorted `500/- and a mobile phone from Rajat Mittal.Thus, at best the incident of extortion in which Rajat Mittal was the victim stands proved.The evidence pertaining to petitioner's being the one who extorted `500/- and a mobile phone from Rajat Mittal would be the testimony of ACP Rishi Pal PW-10 and his report Ex.PW-10/A.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 9 of 11The question which arises for consideration would be: Whether Ex.We think No.The reason being that ACP Rishi Pal had not taken the precaution of recording Daily Diary entries pertaining to Rajat Mittal's presence in his office at P.S.Rajouri Garden.There is no written record, signed by Rajat Mittal, that he identified the petitioner at the Police Station.It may be true that the police was handicapped because Rajat Mittal refused to make any statement in writing regarding petitioner's identification as the police officer who extorted `500/- and a mobile phone from him.It may be that the police was severely handicapped due to Rajat Mittal not co-operating; may be out of fear.But pertaining to an incident which took place on February 24, 2002, deposition by a witness that three days later Rajat Mittal told him something about the incident or something relevant to the incident would be hearsay evidence lacking reasonable nexus with the incident and thus credibility being seriously in doubt.W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 10 of 11We truncate the indictment pertaining to the incident of February 24, 2002 in which Rajat Mittal was the victim and a person in police uniform had extorted `500/- and a mobile phone from him for the reason the evidence simply establishes the incident but not the identity of the police officer who was the wrongdoer.But, the indictment pertaining to February 27, 2002, would be sufficient to dismiss a police officer for the reason if a police officer is found extorting money from public after putting fear in the mind of the victim of false implication for having committed an offence, such police officers has to be visited with a penalty where he loses his dress and hence the authority to lord over others wearing the dress.Not for the reasons given by the Tribunal, but for the reasons noted hereinabove we dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 skb W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 11 of 11W.P.(C) No.5887/2005 Page 11 of 11

['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The written report is more detailed thanthe telephonic information.Two families are involved in the incident.9. Rishipal (the Appellant) is the other accused.Two from his family namely hissister-in-law and nephew were killed.The allegations in the written report are as follows:At about 12:00-13:00 hours, the Accused killed six persons by sharp edged weapon.The Accused are moving in sugarcane fields and are threatening to kill anyone, who dares to give evidence or help the police.The entire village is terrorised;No one was willing to lodge the FIR.Considering it to be the Informant's duty, he had given telephonic information and now is giving in writing,.The crime was committed because of illicit relationship between D- 5 and D-The police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet.The Accused were arrested on 28.10.2005 at 11:45 hours with two countrymade pistols and 315 bore empty cartridges (Arrest and recovery memo Ex Ka-22).A knife and sword was recovered at their instance (recovery memo-Ex Ka-23).This 4revision was decided on 1.12.2006 as being not maintainable.However, the trialcourt Judge was directed to get his age determined by the juvenile board and thenproceed in the trial against the Appellant.Thereafter,the trial was held only against the Appellant.A large number of case materials are in the case.(Ex Ka-1);Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth dated 26.10.2005 (at place of dead body of D-2) (Ex Ka-2);Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain earth dated 26.10.2005 (at place of dead body of D-3) (Ex Ka-3);Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain earth dated 26.10.2005 (at place of dead body of D-1) (Ex Ka-4);Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain earth dated 26.10.2005 (at place of dead body of D-5) (Ex Ka-5);Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain earth dated 26.10.2005 (at place of dead body of D-6) (Ex Ka-6);Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain earth dated 26.10.2005 (at place of dead body of D-4) (Ex Ka-7);In that event, irrespective of motive, theconviction has to be maintained.2nd POINT: EYEWITNESSES WERE PRESENTShe was marriedto Bharatvir.Sunil Kumar (PW-2) is younger brother of Bharatvir.PW-2 andBharatvir were agriculturist.Sunil Kumar (PW-2) explained that he had brought his sister-in-law Smt.Mukesh (PW-4) to the village on a motorcycle.His presence floats or sinks with that her.Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) deposed that:She was married 19 years ago, and had three children;The presence of Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) and Sunil Kumar (PW-2) has not onlybeen deposed by the Informant (PW-1) but also by Amit Kumar (PW-3).There is no material contradiction in their statements.We have noreason to disbelieve them.In our opinion:Smt. Mukesh and Sunil Kumar were present on the spot at the time of the incident.They are eyewitnesses of the murders; Amit Kumar was present at the spot when D-1 was killed.There is nothing to show that the Appellant was apsychopath and did it for fun.The incident happened at noon.Six murders were committed.Yet, no one cameforward to depose.While discussing sub-heading 'No Unrelated or IndependentWitness --Not Fatal' under third point, we have observed the reasons as to why noone came forward.The IO deposed that no one was coming forward even to getthe statement recorded.The Appellant is in jail.He will be detained to serve out his sentence.Date: 10.8.2010SKSHON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Yatindra Singh)Witness protection programme is an important aspect of criminal justice system:without it, no reforms are possible.If witnesses are afraid to come forward thenirrespective of any measures justice cannot be administered.In thisincident, six persons namely Manju (Deceased-1 or D-1), Mahendra (D-2),Shashipal (D-3), Ravi (D-4), Smt. Mukesh (D-5) and Vikram (D-6) were killed byknife and sword in the same order.All six of them are collectively referred as theDeceased.The wife of Satyendra Singh (the Informant) was the Pradhan of the village.Heis not related to any of the parties.He telephonically informed the police about theincident at about 14:15 hours.It was registered as case crime no.537 of 2005,under section 452, 392 IPC, Police Station Chhaprauli, Baghpat .On the basis of telephonic information, the police came on the spot.TheInformant gave a written report to them.In the telephonic information as well as inthe written report, Rishipal (the Appellant) and Ravindra Singh (the Juvenile) (bothare referred as the Accused) were named.One pedigree is as follows:______________________________ I I Tarachand Prakash I I _______I___________ Ravindra I I (Juvenile) Mahendra Shashipal (Case sent to Juvenile Board) (D-2) (D-3) ________ I__________ ____________________ I I I I I st1 Wife = Vikram = Manju Smt. Mukesh = Bharatvir Sunil Kumar Yashpal I (D-6) I (D-1) (PW-4) (PW-2) I ___I___________ Amit Kumar I I (PW-3) Son DaughterRavindra (the Juvenile) son of Prakash is one of the accused.Four of hisrelatives from the branch of his uncle Tarachand were killedThe other pedigree is as follows:Dilip ________I________ I I Rishipal Sompal = Smt. Mukesh (Appellant) I (D-5) _ I_________ I I Sachin Ravi (D-4)They killed Smt. Manju (D-1) first in her house.Then they went and killed Mahendra (D-2) and Shishpal (D-3) in their house; Thereafter, the Accused killed Ravi (D-4) in the house of Jaipal Gosai.Smt. Mukesh (D-5) wife of Sompal, (mother of D-4), ran away to save herself.The Accused killed her on the passage at the western side of Madarsa near the pond;Thereafter, the Accused went to fields of Baljor that was taken on 'Batai' by Vikram (D-6) and killed him;Many villagers saw the incident.When they tried to catch them, the Accuse threatened to kill them;On the basis of recoveries, case crime no. 541 of 2005 and 542 of 2005 StateVs Ravindra and Rishipal under section 25 read with section 4 of the Arms Act,police station Chhaprauli, district Baghpat was registered.The police also submitted charge sheet in the case under Arms Act. It wasconnected with the case under IPC and was committed to the sessions' court.Both trials were connected.The Juvenile filed a criminal revision no. 6464 of 2006 before this Court.Among others, the prosecution filed the following documents:Copy of the FIR registered on the basis of the telephonic message dated 26.10.2005 (Ex Ka-18);Detailed written report dated 26.10.2005 received by the plice on the spot.Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshaha dated 24.4.2006; Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshaha dated 25.3.2006; Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshaha dated 25.3.2006; Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshaha dated 27.3.2006; Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshaha dated 25.3.2006; Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshaha dated 27.3.2006;Postmortem examination report of D-2 dated 27.10.2005 (Ex Ka-12); Postmortem examination report of D-3 dated 27.10.2005 (Ex Ka-13); Postmortem examination report of D-4 dated 27.10.2005 (Ex Ka-14); Postmortem examination report of D-5 dated 27.10.2005 (Ex Ka-15); Postmortem examination report pf D-1 dated 27.10.2005 (Ex Ka-16); Postmortem examination report of D-6 dated 27.10.2005 (Ex Ka-17); Spot Map with the Index of the dead bodies of Manju (D-1), Mahendra (D-2), Sheeshpal (D-3), Ravi (D-4) and Smt. Mukesh (D-5) (Ex Ka-20); Spot map with the Index of the dead body of Vikram (D-6) (Ex Ka-21); Memo of Arrest and recovery two country made pistol and 315 bore empty cartridges (Ex Ka-22);Recovery Memo of knife and sword (Ex ka-23); Spot Map with the index of knife and sword (Ex Ka-24).The prosecution examined the following witnesses:Satyendra Singh (PW-1): Informant;Sunil Kumar (PW-2): Eyewitness, brother-in-law of PW-3; `Amit Kumar (PW-3): Eyewitness, son of D-6, Smt. Mukesh (PW-4): Eyewitness, sister of D-6 and daughter of D-2; Dr. Pramod Kishor Sharma (PW-5): Doctor, conducted the postmortems of the Deceased;.Karan Singh (PW-6): Head constable, lodged the FIR; Mahipal Singh (PW-7): Investigation Officer (IO); Ram Bilas Verma (PW-8): Sub Inspector, prepared the Inquest of D-1 and D- 4 to D-6;The court examined Jaipal Singh as court witness-1 (CW-1).He was examinedregarding the age of the Juvenile.His evidence is not relevant for decision of theAppeal.He deniedhis involvement in the incident and stated that he was implicated due to the enmity.The Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Court No.1, Baghpat (the ASJ) by hisjudgement dated 4.3.2008 convicted the Appellant in ST No. 14 of 2006, butacquitted him in ST No. 16 of 2006 under section 25 read with section 4 of the 6Arms Act. The following sentence was awarded:Death penalty and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of six months' additional rigorous imprisonment under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.Ten years' rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 2000 with default stipulation of two months' additional rigorous imprisonment under section 449 IPC.The Appellant has filed the appeal against his conviction.POINTS FOR DETERMINATIONWe have heard Sri NI Zafri, counsel for the Appellant and Sri DR Chaudhary,GA and Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh and Sri Anand Tiwari, AGAs for the State 1.The following points arise for determination in the case;(i) What was the motive for the crime?(ii) Whether the eye witnesses were present;(iv) In case the Appellant is guilty, then what punishment should be awarded;1st POINT: MOTIVE NOT CLEARThis was also deposed by the Informant (PW-1)in his statement.However, the real reason for the incident may be something else.In this case, two families are involved.The pedigrees of the families arementioned under the heading 'THE FACTS'.Amit Kumar (PW-3) has deposed thatthe two families are related.However, he was not able to depose, how they wererelated.Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) is real sister of D-6 and Bua of (PW-3).She is elderof the two.She deposed that the families are not related.In this case, two persons are said to have committed crime.1 We are thankful to the counsel appearing in the case for correcting a part of the judgement under the heading 'THE FACTS' 'POINTS FOR DETERMINATION' and the Appendixes.Yet, mistakes if any, are ours.Sompal neither committed anycrime nor was a party to it.In fact, his son D-4 has also been killed.It also does not stand to reason why the Accused would kill, D-1, real wife of D-6;The witnesses in this case have deposed that Sachin is another son of D-5 andSompal.He had gone alongwith D-6 to the fields at the time of the incident.Thenext day, Sompal husband of D-5 and Sachin were also present at the time ofcremation.In any case, if any person could have grudge due to the illicit relationship thenit was the D-1 and Sompal, husband of D-5 and not his brother (the Appellant).Themotive appears to be something more than the one mentioned in the FIR ordeposed by the Informant in the FIR.The counsel for the State suggested that the motive could be to eliminate theentire family so that they could occupy and use the agricultural fields.The prosecution examined nine witnesses.Out of these nine, three {SunilKumar (PW-2), Amit Kumar (PW-3) and Smt. Mukesh wife of Bharatvir (PW-4)} areeyewitnesses.Out of these three, PW-2 and PW-4 are said to be eyewitness of allthe six murders.As already indicated,his evidence not relevant for deciding the appeal before us.The Informant (PW-1) is not an eyewitness but his testimony may be relevant;So far as the presence of other witnesses are concerned; or The conduct of the Appellant is concerned.Regarding Presence of PW-2 and PW-4Sunil Kumar (PW-2) is younger brother of the husband of Smt. Mukesh (PW-4).According to prosecution case, PW-4 had come over to her 'mayaka' (parent'shouse) to meet her family members.PW-2 had brought PW-4 on a motorcycle.The counsel for the Appellant submitted that presence of Sunil Kumar (PW-2)and Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) is doubtful for the following reasons:In case PW-4 was not present then PW-2 would not be present;(ii) The husband of PW-4 was ill and was admitted in the hospital in Delhi.There was no question of her coming to meet her parents;(iii) The incident indicates that the purpose was to eliminate the entire family.Had PW-4 also present, then she would have been killed.The fact that she was neither killed nor injured indicates that she was not present on the spot;(iv) The oral testimony is inconsistent with the injuries;(v) Six persons have been killed and they were killed at five different places.It is unnatural that they (PW-2 and PW-4) would go to all places to see the murders being committed instead of attending to the injured immediately.ist & iind SubmissionThey have an elder brother Yashpal, who was in Army.She used to come to her parent's house two and three times in a year; She sometimes used to go to her parent's house with her children and sometime her husband accompanied her.Her husband was admitted in the hospital in Delhi for the last six months and had changed hospital three times;She was not the only one who was looking after her husband.He was being looked after by the entire family.She used to go in hospital every fourth day; Her relations from the parent's side also used to go to the hospital.They had come 15 days before the date of the incident.It is correct that the husband of Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) was ill and was admittedin the hospital in Delhi.In such a situation, people divide days and time to be in thehospital.A person cannot be in the hospital every day, every minute, every second:everyone needs a break.Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) deposed that she used to go to see her husband everyfourth day.Going to parent's house always brings happiness and change: it bringsoptimism and moral support.This could be the reason for going to the parent'shouse.This is not unnatural.Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) deposed that they had car and a motorcycle; sometimesshe used to come alone by bus, but on that date she had come on the motorcyclewith her brother-in-law.The husband of Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) was admitted in hospital.She would notwant to waste time by coming and going by bus.This may be the reason forcoming on the motorcycle.Her presence cannot be doubted on the ground that herhusband was admitted in the hospital.Had he been admitted a day or two beforethen the matter would have been different.He was admitted for last six months.Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) and Sunil Kumar (PW-2) deposed that they were in thehouse of D-1 at the time D-1 was killed.It is also clear from their deposition thatthey were seen by the Accused.Yet they were not injured.This has beenexplained by them as follows:PW-4 deposed that the Accused told her that she was a woman and should 10 keep quiet.She was not their enemy (i.e. enemy of the Accused).PW-2 deposed that the Accused told him (PW-2) that he was a guest and he should keep quiet.These witnesses have also explained the reason as to why theywere neither killed nor injured.However, it is difficult to understand or guess themind of the Accused or their thinking at that time.The prosecution case is and the eyewitnesses also deposed that the Appellantinjured the Deceased with knife and the Juvenile injured them with the sword.The Appellant was weilding knife;It cannot be said that he participated in the crime.The ante mortem Injures of the Deceased are mentioned in Appendix 1 to 6.They are incised wounds and can be caused by sharp edged weapons.Dr. PK Sharma (PW-5) conducted the postmortems.He deposed that:The injuries could be caused by the sword;These injuries could also be caused by a knife, if it was used with force;In such ghastly incident, it is not possible to notice with what force knife wasused.The method of killing indicates that at the time of the incident, murder wasonly in the mind of the Accused: they would surely be using the weapons withforce.Apart from above, if there was a knife injury and thereafter injury was causedby sword then it would not be possible to determine the injuries caused by theknife.This would not mean that there were no knife injuries or injuries are 11inconsistent with the oral testimony.Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) have deposed that:They had reached the village at about 11:00am and initially PW-4 had gone to meet her father (D-2) and met D-3 as well.Thereafter they had gone to meet D-1;PW-3 went upstairs alongwith Amit Kumar (PW-3) and PW-4 sat alongwith D-1 on the cot.The Appellant (wielding knife) and the Juvenile (wielding sword) came to the house.They had fire arms as well.They killed D-1; Then the Accused went to the Gher where D-2 and D-3 were sitting and killed them;Then D-4 was killed at the house of Jaipal.D-5 was chased and killed near the pond;The Accused said about killing D-6 as well.Then they went towards field of Baljor that was taken by D-6 on Batai.D-6 tried to run but the Accused got hold of him and killed him.The murders did not take place at one place but at five different places.The Informant mentioned in the written report the entire incident was seen bythe villagers.He deposed as well.No one was able to stop them as they were threateningthe villagers with firearms that they would be killed.If there were many villagers on the spot following the Accused and Smt.Mukesh (PW-4) and Sunil Kumar (PW-4) also joined them then it can not be saidthat their conduct was unnatural.Often one follows the crowd blindly : thinking 12stops in such a situation.Regarding Presence of PW-3The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the presence of Amit Kumar (PW-3) is doubtful for the following reasons:(i) At the time of incident, PW-3 was student of High School.The incident happened on Wednesday and he would be in the school rather than in the house;(ii) The purpose of the incident seems to be to eliminate the entire family.Had PW-3 being there present on the spot then he would have also been killed;(iii) The statement of PW-2 under section 161 CrPC was taken thereafter on 12.11.2005, seventeen days after the incident;(iv) PW-2 deposed that he saw police after the incident, yet he did not tell them that he saw the incident;(iv) The IO (PW-7) has stated that he tried to find out Amit Kumar but he was not found;(v) PW-2 did not remember the length and thickness of the knife or sword.He also did not remember colour of clothes worn by the Appellant;(vii) PW-2 deposed that the Appellant gave knife blow to D-1 at the neck however no injuries were found in the neck.Amit Kumar (PW-3) is the son of first wife of D-6, D-6 had two children from hissecond wife (D-1).PW-2 deposed that:He was student of High School at the time of the incident.His school was closed on that day because of Diwali.His younger brother and sister were studying in a primary school, which was different from his school.On the fateful day, their school was open and they had gone to their school; PW-3 alongwith Sunil Kumar (PW-2) had gone upstairs; The Accused had come armed with knife, sword and fire arms and killed his mother (D-1);At the time of the incident, he had hid himself behind the wall; After the incident, he ran away and hid in the sugarcane fields.Amit Kumar (PW-3) was cross examined but, no suggestion was given to him 13that his school was not closed.We have no reason to doubt his testimony that hisschool was closed.In case his school was closed then, his presence in the houseis natural.Amit Kumar (PW-3) was 'student of High School at the time of the incident.Hedeposed that normally he used to come back from school by 13:00 hours.TheAccused had all reasons to kill him but might not have seen him in the housethinking that he would be in School.Amit Kumar (PW-2) has given reason that why the Accused could not haveseen him.He deposed that he was hiding behind the wall.The Accused could alsobe under the impression that he would be in the school.iiird and ivth SubmissionAmit Kumar (PW-3) also deposed that:He was terrorised and he ran away and hid himself in the sugarcane field; He came back after sunset.In case the IO did not meet Amit Kumar (PW-3) in the evening or PW-3 saw thepolice but did not inform him then it does not mean that he was not present in thevillage on the fateful day.At that time his age is mentioned 15 years.He would be about 13 years at the time of the incident;Such a young boy would be devastated and emotionally torn due to such a ghastly incident, where everyone from his family including his parents and grand parents were killed.PW-3 also deposed that he was shocked and perturbed by the incident.He wouldnot know what to do what to say about giving statement.At that time, Amit Kumar (PW-3) was shifted to his maternal uncle's house.This was natural: no one was left in his family.His statement under section 161CrPC was recorded on 12.11.2005 after about sixteen days of the incident at hismaternal uncles' village.The fact that Amit Kumar (PW-3) was shifted to his maternal uncle's house or 14his statement was recorded there or could not be recorded earlier does not createany doubt.The situation was such.vth and vith SubmissionWe have already indicated that Amit Kumar (PW-2) was a young boy at thetime of the incident.The evidence was being recorded after about two years.If hedid not remember the colour of the clothes that the Appellant was wearing or thesize of knife or the sword then it does not mater.Even a mature person may find itdifficult to remember.There are injuries on the head.There is little distance between the neck andhead.Anyone could be easily mistaken whether the injuries are being caused tothe head or the neck.Nothing turns about the same.PW-2 to PW-4 Were PresentThe wife of Informant (PW-1) is Pradhan of the village.He is undoubtedly anindependent person.He neither has enmity with the Accused nor any specialfriendship with the victim side.There is no such suggestion of any kind to him.Hedeposed that:Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) were present at the time of incident;He has also deposed that Two children of D-6 had gone to school and he had no knowledge about the third one.There is nothing to disbelieve his statement regarding presence of PW-3 and PW-3rd POINT: APPELLANT IS GUILTY No Unrelated or Independent Witness--Not FatalThe counsel for the Appellant submitted that:In the FIR, it was mentioned that incident was seen by many villagers, but neither any independent eyewitness were named in the FIR nor were produced;This creates doubt in the prosecution case.The fact that names of witnesses were not disclosed was explained in the FIR.The FIR states that the Accused had threatened the villagers that in case they giveevidence or help to the police then they would be killed.This is the reason thatnames of the eyewitnesses were not mentioned.The IO (PW-7) deposed that:He reached the spot between 14:45 hours to 15:00 hours after receiving the telephonic message;He could not take deposition of any person at that time as neither anyone was coming on his calling nor anyone was willing to give statement due to terror.The order sheet of the trial court dated 22.11.2006 indicates that theapplication was filed by Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) and Sunil Kumar (PW-2).Therelatives of the Accused have come and are terrorising the witnesses.They askedfor the protection from the court which was granted on the same date.The Informant (PW-1) indicated the different places where murders werecommitted and how the Accused went about doing it.A reading of his statementand FIR indicates that he was present and saw everything yet he denied seeingthe incident.Even he did not dare to depose openly.If the husband of Pradhan ofvillage was afraid to depose then how can ordinary villagers is expected to depose.Considering the circumstances of the case, the fact that no villager or unrelatedwitness has come forward to depose, does not create any doubt in the prosecutioncase.Conduct of the AppellantThe Informant admitted that he had not seen the incident but deposed aboutthe conduct of the Accused as follows:Immediately after the incident, the Accused had terrorised the entire village with firearms.They had also threatened the Informant to kill him; After the incident they had come to the village and were searching for children of D-6;The Informant had asked the Accused not to do it.On this they had again threatened to kill him.This is the conduct of the accused after the incident.We have held that eyewitnesses were present on the spot at the time of theincident.Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) deposed that Appellantwas involved in all the murders.He used knife.We have believed the presence of the eyewitness on the spot.We have noreason to disbelieve them regarding fact of complicity of the Appellant in the crime.In the incident, six persons were killed.This not only included the sister-in-lawand one of the nephews of the Appellant but also four persons of family of AmitKumar (PW-3).(iv) (Rt) Hand Index Finger is Amputated at Proximal Phalynex level.By through & through Incised wound size of Amputated at a surface, 1-1/2 cms x 1-1/2 cms x through & through clean cut surface incision.(v) Incised wound obliquely at (Rt) Hand Palmer surface obliquely tailing downward size 12 cms x 5 cms x Bone deep.All four (4) 2nd to 5th meta Corporal are Incised by cut with soft tissue in mid of CA palmer side.(vi) Incised wound - 6 cms x 1 cm x Bone deep, Obliquely tailing down word at Back of outer surface wrist & Radial area, Radius & carpal are Incised by cut.Appendix-2The injuries of Mahendra (D-2) are as follows:(i) Incised wound - 16 cm x 7 cm x Muscle deep on (Lt) Fore arm in upper 2/3" area on Back & outer of fore arm obliquely and Tailing down words.(ii) Incised wound - 10x2 cm x Bone deep on palmer surface of (Rt) hand Matacarpal of Thumb & of Index & Middle Finger are fractured by cutting extending from the thumb (metal carpal) to downward obliquely.(iii) Incised wound on (Rt) shoulder back 5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep on upper half of scapular area.(iv) Incised wound 18 cm x 2-1/2 cm x bone deep on (lt) face extending from Temporal area to downward upto mandible obliquely.Following Bones are fractured by cut in Tempro mandibular joint.Maxilla & mandible on (Lt) side tailing downward.(v) Incised wound 18 cm x 3 cm x bone deep, extending from mid of pinna (Rt) Ear (which is incised in two pieces) to back side upto occipital area.Temporal and occipital Bones are divided in two separate pieces.Tailing Backward transversely base of skull fractured.(vi) Incised wound 20 cm x 2-1/2 cm x cranial cavity deep, tailing Backward in AP.Transverse direction # frontal parietal & occipital are incised with Brain matter.It is also incised & open to air.Appendix-3The injuries of Shish Pal (D-3) are as follows:(i) Incised Wounds at (Lt) pareital area of skull at top size 12 cm x 1-1/2 cms x Brain matter deep obliquely & Tailing Backwards.(ii) Multiple Incised Wounds at (Lt) Head Laterally & at Back side.All tailing Back words and Inter Irrigular with other on Back ward direction by two Incised Wound Pinna in Incised at two places transversely parallel average Size - 24 cm x 2 cm x Cranial cavity & Brain deep, Brain matter in exposed to air following Bones are Fractured by Cut (LL) frontal parietal (Lt) Temporal & occipatal on (Lt) side, All 3 wounds are in AP Oblique Direction.(iii) Incised Wound on Palmer surface of (Rt) hand at Proximal Phalanx of (Rt) hand Thumb, Index & Mid Finger in oblique direction phalanx of Index & Middle finger are Incised with Cut, & Fractured tailing obliquely down word, Size 14 cm x 3/4 cmx Bone deep.(iv) Incised Wound - 8 cm x 3/4 cm x Bone deep on lower end of (Lt) Forearm at wrist Back, transversely and tailing outer side.Radius Bane is incised at lower end by cut.Appendix-4The injuries of Ravi (D-4) are as follows:(i) Incised wound Multiple at Palmer side Average size 14 cms x 6 cms x Bone deep, Meta carpels.All are incised by cut with soft tissue tailing downward, on outer side obliquely with little finger which is handing with soft tissue.(ii) Incised wound 9 cms x 3 cms x Bone deep on Rt.side shoulder outer surface tailing Backward, Head of Humerus is Incised by cut with soft tissue.(iii) Incised Wound 12 cms x 3 cms x Bone deep and through and through on back of Hand.Lt. side on Palmer surface obliquely and tailing downword and outer side all (5) Metacarples are incised and by cut & almost lower half of Hand is handing By soft tissue on thumb side.(iv) Incised wound 22 cms x 10 cms x Bone and Opposite (Lt) side soft tissue deep in Neck at wound is at (Rt) side extending from Mandible lower surface to Backward side and at cervical vertebrae C3-C4 level vertebra column also incised through and through lat.Neck upper Head Lower Body is only intacted? by soft tissue Lt. side of Neck entire vital parts B/L great vessels trachea Oesophagus thyroid gland etc are incised.Tailing backwards transversely.(v) Incised wound 24 cms x 6 cms x cranial cavity Brain deep Brain matter incised tailing backward in AP & transversely direction Brain Matter is exposed to air, following Bones are fractured in Incised Wound frontal, Pinna of Ear (Rt) side Parito temporal bones of (Rt) side.Appendix-5The injuries of Smt. Mukesh (D-5) are as follows:Incised wound 6 cms x 1/4 cm x Abdominal cavity deep omentum is open to air.Transversely and tailing Lt. side 1/5 cms above umbilicus in middle area.Incised wound 9 cms x 3/4 cms x Bone deep on mandible of (Lt) side face tailingoutwardly transversely in APA direction.Mandible is showing incised Bone by cutat (Lt) sic.Incised wound transversely and obliaquely in PACA direction almost obliquelytailing outwardly size 22 cms x 5 cms x Brain cavity deep, Brain Matters incised &open to air extending from occipital area of Head at (Lt) side upto face.Crossingtemporal (Lt.) side, Maxilla, (Lt) Pinna of (Lt) Ear, divided in two pieces, abovementioned all Bone are incised by cut.4 Incised wound almost obliquely extending from (Lt) Pareefat area of Headabove ear (2 cms above from ear) to auterorly crossing frontal area (Lt) Eye & uptonose (Lt) side in mid area.These all Bones are incised by cut.Size 24 cms x 2 cmsx Brain cavity deep Brain Matter (Lt) side incised & exposed to Air & tailingAnteriorly.Appendix-6the injuries of Vikram Singh (D-6) are as follows:(i) Incised wound - 6 cms x 3/4 cms x muscle deep, transversely tailing (Rt) side, at Midline area, 1-1/2 cms above umbilicus at abdomen.(ii) Multiple Incised wound which Inter Mangled? to each other on (Rt) side & at Back of Head & at (Lt) side of Head.Tailing anteriorly Almost Transverse obliquely, size average 24 cms x 2-1/2 cms x Brain cavity & matter deep, enter occipital Bone, Both parietal Bones, Both Temporal Bone are fractured in multiple pieces, with Brain Matter, & could not be identifiable separately & ensure Brain matter is exposed air in pieces(iii) Incised wound - 12 cms x 1 cm x Bone deep at Mandible surface from chin to upward up to front of ear at (Lt.) side.Mandible is Incised (Cut, obliquely Tailing anterior & down ward.(iv) Multiple Incised wound - (four) in number at Front of neck & on (Lt) side laterally, tailing Anteriorly? & obliquely at 1-1/2 cms away to each other parallely Average size 9 cms x 3/4 cm x Cervical vertebra deep, Trachea oesophagus & soft tissue are Incised & cut.Extending from Lt. Lateral side of nect to mid line.(v) Incised wound at Back (Lt) wrist & on ulnar side size 7 cms x 1-1/2 cms x Bone deep, ulna Bone is Incised & cut in lower 3rd area & extending from ulna to wrist at back tailing down ward obliquely.(vi) Incised wound on back & at part of palmer side of Hand (Rt) side at Knuckle area of little finger size 2-1/2 cm x 3/4 cm x Bone deep proximal phalanx Incised & cut obliquely & tailing down ward obliquely.Appeal No. 1748 of 2008 Court No. 44We have heard Sri NI Zafri, counsel for the Appellant and Sri DR Chaudhary,GA and Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh and Sri Anand Tiwari, AGAs for the State.Our Conclusions are:(i) Smt. Mukesh and Sunil Kumar were present in the village and saw the incident;(ii) Amit Kumar was present at the spot, when Manju (D-1) was killed;(iii) The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against Rishipal, (the Appellant).He is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, 499 IPC.He is sentenced to,:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 52,000/- with default stipulation of three years' simple imprisonment rather than rigorous imprisonment;Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000.- with two months' default stipulation of two months simple imprisonment rather than rigorous imprisonment under section 449 IPC.(iv) The fine so realised will be equally distributed among the children ofVirkam (D-1) {e.i. {Amit Kumar (PW-3) and his step brother and sister}.In view of our conclusions, the reference No 4 of 2008 is rejected.Theconviction of the Appellant in ST No 14 of 2006 is upheld but sentences ismodified.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) Criminal Bail Application No.2821 of 2018, is allowed;::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 15:48:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 15:48:04 :::(vii) Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 15:48:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 15:48:04 :::

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

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

But prior to that today at abut 2 6 O' Clock in the morning the appellant accompanied with his father Pyar Singh and some other person namely Surpal, Bisan, Gamarsingh, Naharsingh, Dolu, Bansingh Tersingh and Bhimsingh lashed with different implements in which the appellant was having axe in his hand, came to his hut and in furtherance of their common object, damaged the roof tiles of the hut and Bhavsingh asked him to send the Ganglibai with him.Due to fear, he alongwith his daughter Ganglibai came out from the hut and ran away towards his field.They were followed by Bhavsingh with axe.(7.2.2012) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.The appellant/ accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24th September, 1996 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, in S. T. No.258/1992 convicting him under Section 304 of IPC for RI ten years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of depositing such fine one year further Simple Imprisonment has been awarded.The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 12/02/1992 at about 7 O' clock in the morning one Dagadiya, son of Chandariya, the complainant, lodged First Information Report at police out post Ahirkheda of Police Station Bhikangaon contending that he being resident of Tehsil Dongargaon, before 10 months solemnized the marriage of his daughter Ganglibai with the appellant.Subsequent to it, on account of some matrimonial dispute before two months, she was left at his home by the appellant.Thereafter to resolve such dispute a Panchayat was scheduled on Wednesday.By this time Raisingh and Subhan also came there to rescue them on which Subhan was subjected to blow of stick by acquitted accused Bisan, while the Rai Singh was subjected to blow of back side of the axe on his head by the appellant Bhavsingh.Resultantly he sustained head injury and fell down.The incident was reported to the Police O.P. Ahirkheda, on which, after registering the Crime No.99/1992 against the appellant and co-accused for the offence of Section 147, 148, 149, 427 and 323 of IPC, the victim Raisingh was sent to the hospital, where on medical examination, his MLC report was prepared.According to which in the alleged head injury the fracture was suspected and later during the course of the treatment, he succumbed to such injury, on which, by registering an inquest intimation in the aforesaid crime, section 302 of IPC was also invoked.On holding the investigation the offence of Section 147, 148, 149, 467, 323 and 302 of IPC was primafacie established against the appellant and other co-accused on which they were charge sheeted for the same.After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of charge sheet the charges, of Section 148 and 302 of IPC against the appellant while of Section 148 and 302/149 of IPC against other co- accused, along with an additional charge of Section 323 of the IPC against the co-accused Bisan were framed, on which, they abjured the guilt on which on which the trial was held.On appreciation of the evidence all the co-accused persons have been acquitted from the aforesaid charge, while appellant was convicted under Section 304 of IPC [without mentioning any part of the Section either first part or second part] , with the punishment as stated above, on which, the appellant has come to this Court.Shri C.B Patne, learned appearing counsel of the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial Court along with exhibited papers of the charge sheet argued that the alleged incident was happened on a spur of moment in the heat of passion because appellant Bhavsingh went to the hut of his in-laws' to bring his wife Ganglibai, but his father- in-law Dogadiya was not inclined to send her with him.Therefore it could not be assumed that appellant went to the place of the incident either with intention to cause death of Raisingh or to cause any injury to him having the knowledge that by such injury he may die.He further said that as per available evidence deceased Raisingh was beaten by so many persons present on the spot but subsequently by fabricating the false story, he has been implicated in the matter.In continuation he said that in any case it was a matter of single blow of the back side of the axe on the head of the deceased, due to the alleged injury in normal course 4 the person does not die, and in such premises, the alleged injury could not be treated to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature and in such premises this was not the case of more than section 325 of the IPC even on revealing the fracture in the alleged injury.In such premises, firstly, he prayed for modification of the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 IPC to Section 325 of IPC.In continuation, he argued that even without such modification this is not a case of more than section 304 part II of the IPC as the appellant did not visit the house of his in-laws with intention to cause death of any person or caused the alleged injury by the back side of an axe to deceased Rai Singh having knowledge of that by such act he would have died.Therefore, considering the over all scenario, the conduct of Ganlibai (PW 6), the wife of the appellant due to whom the incident was happened, by adopting the lenient view, appellant be extended the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act. In any case on affirming his conviction near about after 20 years from the date of incident, instead to send him again to jail for facing the remaining jail sentence, the same be reduced upto the the period for which he has already undergone in judicial custody in pendency of the trial between 19.2.92 to 27.3.92 one month and 10 days and also suffered the awarded jail sentence since 24.9.96 the date of the judgment of the trial court till passing the order on 17.10.96 for suspension of his remaining jail sentence by this court i.e 24 days by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court and prayed to allow this appeal accordingly.On the other hand in response to the aforesaid argument by justifying the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant learned Penal Lawyer Shri R. S. Parmar said the approach of the trial Court being based on proper appreciation of the available evidence and in accordance with law, do not require any interference at this stage either for extending the acquittal to the appellant or to modify his conviction as prayed by the appellant or even to reduce his awarded jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court.It is apparent fact on record that Gangli Bai, the daughter of complainant Dagadiya (PW-1) was married with the appellant just before 10 months from the date of the alleged incident.Subsequent to that on happening some dispute, before two months from the date of the incident, appellant left her to her parental home.Thereafter to resolve such dispute a Panchayat of community was scheduled and same was to be carried out after some days.But prior to that as alleged the appellant accompanied with the acquitted co-accused lashed with some implements came to the residence of Dagadiya and asked him to send Ganglibai with them as the Ganglibai was not interested to go with them, on which, the complainant Dagadiya accompanied with Gangli Bai, to save her from the appellant and co-accused tried to ran away from his hut, by that time deceased Raisingh and one Suban came to rescue them and to resolve the dispute, then a blow of the backside of the Axe was given by the present appellant on the head of deceased Raisingh.6 Resultantly he sustained single injury on his head.Such story of the prosecution has been duly proved by complainant Dagadiya (PW-1) in his deposition and the same is supported by his daughter Ganglibai and alleged eye witnesses Dhulsingh (PW-7) and Tetiya (PW-8).Mere perusal of the depositions of the above mentioned witnesses give circumstances to draw the positive inference that alleged incident was happened in a sudden quarrel in which on a spur of movement under heat of passion, the alleged single injury on the head of Raisingh was caused by means of back side of an axe by the present appellant and not by any other.Coming to consider the prayer of the appellant's counsel whether in the available factual matrix the impugned offence of Section 304 of I.P.C. as held by the trial Court could be treated to be an offence of Section 304-II of I.P.C. or could be converted into the offence made punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. The initial MLC report of Raisingh (Ex.P.3) prepared by Dr. Naginchandra Jain (PW-3) has been proved by such doctor himself.He categorically stated that on examination of Raisingh, he found the injury on his parietal region with suspected fracture, the X-ray was also advised in this regard, but prior carry out the X-ray during treatment Raisingh died.On carrying out the autopsy of Raisingh (Ex.P/2), as per post-mortem report (Ex.P/2), the aforesaid injury with fracture was found.As per deposition of the doctor Jamnadas Gupta (PW-2), who carried out and prepared the post- mortem reports, the cause of death of Raisingh was stated to be coma due to anti-mortem alleged head injury with fracture.Accordingly, it has been proved that Raisingh died because of aforesaid alleged injury caused by the appellant and the same was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Dist Session Judge, Jhajjar and acquitted him due to lack of evidence.As per the complaint lodged by Ramji Lal, respondent Mehar Singh and others armed with iron chains, lathis, danda, stones, etc. stopped a bus, rebuked the conductor of the bus as to how he dared to take the fare from one of their associates.Those who intervened were beaten up.They received injuries.In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the letter/order dated 16.11.2011 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the offer to him of provisional appointment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI)/Exe in CISF was withdrawn.The petitioner's case is that being eligible and having qualified the examination conducted by the SSC in the year 2010 for the post of _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 1 of 12 ASI/Exe in CISF, he was issued a letter on 28.09.2011, which provisionally appointed him to the post of ASI/Executive in CISF and he was directed to report to the Deputy Inspector General/Principal, CISF, RTC, Arakkonam, Post Suraksha Campus, Distt.The petitioner was also directed to produce necessary documents.In compliance of the requirements of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner appeared on 12.11.2011 and submitted all the relevant documents along with his Character Certificate and a copy of the court order/judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Jhajjar in Sessions Case No. 156/19.04.1999/14.12.2002 whereby he was acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).However, vide the impugned order/letter dated 16.11.2011, the petitioner's provisional offer of appointment was withdrawn since the petitioner had answered "Yes" in Column No.04 of the Questionnaire Form which pertained to whether any FIR had been lodged against him in the past and also because the petitioner had not forwarded the details in advance.WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 1 of 12The petitioner has assailed the said letter/order on the ground that having been acquitted of the charges framed against him in the said criminal case, there was no cause/occasion for withdrawal of his appointment; that there was no independent material before the Appointing Authority apart from the FIR and the judgment to _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 2 of 12 ascertain the antecedents of the petitioner which otherwise stood sincerely redeemed because of his acquittal in the said criminal case.It is further submitted that no show cause notice was issued to him before cancellation of his provisional offer of appointment.It is also submitted that the criminal case was prosecuted on the allegation that the petitioner had married the sister of the complainant therein; that after marriage, the petitioner demanded a scooter and some cash and caused harassment to his wife and stated that unless his demand is fulfilled, he would not allow her to live in her matrimonial house comfortably; that a Panchayat took place and the complainant assured the petitioner that he would arrange for a scooter by Diwali; that the petitioner and his family members kept peace for sometime but once again started taunting and harassing the complainant's sister; that finally, on 03.10.1998, the complainant came to know that his sister had been murdered by the petitioner and his family members; that however, after trial, the Court held that "all the witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased examined by the Public Prosecutor failed to support the prosecution case, so the Public Prosecutor closed his evidence as the remaining witnesses being of formal in nature were unable to improve the prosecution case.As no evidence could come on record against the accused connecting them with the crime, so their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.As no evidence could come on record for connecting them with the crime, so the accused are hereby acquitted." Accordingly, all the _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 3 of 12 accused persons including the petitioner were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 2 of 12WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 3 of 12It was open for the screening committee and for that matter the petitioner to have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on some other valid ground based on some other enquiries made by them but they could not have cancelled the candidature of the respondents solely on the ground that the petitioners name found mentioned in the FIR which culminated in an acquittal by the criminal court."The miscreants broke the side windowpanes of the bus by throwing stones.The complainant was also injured.This incident is undoubtedly an incident affecting public order.The assault on the conductor was preplanned and premeditated.The FIR was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 427 IPC.The order dated 30-1-2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri shows that so far as offences under Sections 323, 341 and 427 IPC are concerned, the accused entered into a compromise with the complainant.Hence, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent Mehar Singh and others of the said offences._______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 9 of 12 The learned Magistrate, therefore, acquitted all the accused of the said offence.This acquittal can never be described as an acquittal on merits after a full-fledged trial.Respondent Mehar Singh cannot secure entry in the police force by portraying this acquittal as an honourable acquittal.Respondent Mehar Singh has not been exonerated after evaluation of the evidence."WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 9 of 12The Court found that there was nothing on record which could suggest or manifest any element of fear or reprisal on the part of the witnesses when they appeared before the Trial _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 10 of 12 Court.Accordingly, the withdrawal of the provisional offer of appointment in that case was set aside.WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 10 of 12In the present case, there was no evidence led showing the complicity of the petitioner in the offences for which he was prosecuted.He was acquitted because there was no evidence at all.Furthermore, all the witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased who were examined by the Public Prosecutor failed to support the case of the prosecution.In these circumstances, no aspersion could be cast on the character of the petitioner apropos his alleged involvement in the aforesaid criminal case.In the case of Mehar Singh (supra), the accused had entered into a compromise with the complainant; hence, he was acquitted of the offences charged against.The case of Mehar Singh (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case because the present petitioner's acquittal was not on account of a compromise with the complainant but after a full-fledged trial, where there was no evidence/witness to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the crime.The present case is akin to the case of Devender Kumar _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 11 of 12 Yadav (supra); hence, the petitioner's acquittal could be termed as honourable.WP (C) No.1032 of 2014 Page 11 of 12No order as to costs.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Dipankar Datta,J.) 4Sri Pritish BiswasThe State of West Bengal & Ors.Mr. Amalesh Roy Ms. Mousumi Bhowal......For the Petitioner.Mr. Shyamal Sanyal Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee......For the State.Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal ....For the School.The petitioner is an assistant teacher of Sitakundu Vidyayatan (H.S.) [hereafter the school].He was detained in custody in excess of 48 hours in connection with investigation of Sonarpur Police Station F.I.R. No.152 of 2014 dated 9th February, 2014 under Sections 302/304B498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Since the petitioner was in custody in excess of 48 hours, he was deemed to have been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 28(8b) of the Management of Recognised Non- Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereafter the rules).It is not in dispute that the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the relevant provision in the rules.This writ petition has been presented by the petitioner voicing a grievance that since he has been accused of an offence not relatable to official discharge of duties and has also been released on bail, the school ought to allow him to resume duty.2 Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the school submits that since the parents of the students are against the petitioner's resumption of duty, any direction to permit the petitioner to resume duty might amount to disturbance of law and order situation in the locality.It is also submitted by him, referring to certain certificates issued by the Professor-in- charge, Fakir Chand College that the petitioner has produced forged documents and this is one further reason why relief to him should be declined.Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), South 24-Parganas (hereafter the district inspector) submits that since the matter relating to resumption of duty on revocation of the order of suspension is essentially one between the school and the petitioner, the district inspector has no say.Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the managing committee of the school ought to consider as to whether on revocation of the order of suspension, the petitioner should be allowed to resume duty or not.It is ordered accordingly.While so considering, the managing committee of the school may bear in mind the fact that the petitioner has not been accused of dereliction of duty in regard to official discharge of duty and further that he is being paid subsistence allowance out of the grants-in-aid, without extracting any work from him.Besides, the question of the parents feeling aggrieved should the order of suspension be revoked, is really a non-issue; it is not for the parents to dictate who shall be allowed to teach and who shall not be allowed to teach.Once a teacher is appointed and his appointment is approved by the district inspector, he has a right to continue in service until such right is abrogated in accordance with law.Also, the petitioner has not incurred suspension on the ground of production of forged documents.If that is considered an issue, the petitioner may be proceeded against departmentally and placed under suspension under Rule 28 (9)(viia) of the rules.Memo no. S/Adm/17 dated 19th January, 2007 may also provide sufficient light to arrive at a just decision.In the event the managing committee has sufficient reason to decline the prayer of the petitioner to resume duty, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to him.Let consideration be effected in compliance with this order as early as possible but not later than four weeks from its receipt.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

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

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

16/11/2017 The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.4.2005, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; and, vide separate order of the same day, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2- The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Sarita Bai (since deceased), made to Upendra (PW-15) the Station House Officer, at about 7.00 PM in respect of an incident which took place at 6.30 PM, on the same day.The statement is that she was coming back alongwith her friend Geeta Bai after attending the call of nature, at that time, the appellant came from the High School ground side with a knife in his hand and gave 2-3 blows in her abdomen, due to which blood 2 Criminal appeal No. 2068 / 2005 started oozing out.Her friend Geeta Bai raised alarm, then the appellant ran away.Geeta Bai brought her to her house, from where she has come to the Police Station to lodge the report along with her relations.The appellant was arrested on 16.11.2004 and on the basis of his disclosure statement - Ex.P/9, the knife was taken in possession vide memo - Ex.The injured was initially examined by Dr. V.P. Samad - PW/12, who was posted at District Hospital, Balaghat as Medical Officer.He is the one who admitted the injured in the Hospital and finding three injuries on her person, and referred her to the Surgical Specialist.As per the post-mortem report, there were four stitched wounds on the body.He also recorded the statement of the injured on 17.11.2004 in District Hospital, Balaghat; so also the statement of Geeta Bai - PW/1 friend of the injured and of other witnesses.On receipt of information about death of Sarita Bai, the First Information Report was converted to one under offence 302 of the IPC.He also completed the investigation and made the accused stand trial.3- During trial, the prosecution examined Geeta Bai - friend of deceased Sarita Bai as PW/1; and, PW/2 Bharat Kumar and PW/4 Shakti Kumar - brothers of the deceased.On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him, as mentioned above.Criminal appeal No. 2068 / 2005 4- Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the knife was taken in possession, but it was not sent for Forensic Science examination to find out that such knife was used as a weapon of offence, which took the life of Sarita Bai.5- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal.The same was lodged within half an hour of the occurrence, after Geeta Bai - her friend, took her to her house and then she went to the Police Station.Such statement, the basis of First Information Report, is in the nature of a dying-declaration and, therefore, is admissible as such.The Doctor has reported that injury Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) are incised wounds, each of 1 cm x 1 cm.He deposed that the injuries could be caused by the knife recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused.Her statement is clear and categorical that she has seen the accused hitting Sarita Bai with knife. 4Criminal appeal No. 2068 / 2005 Mere fact that she could not depose about the size of the knife is not a ground on the basis of which her testimony can be rejected.Her testimony is natural when she has deposed that she and Sarita Bai had gone to attend the call of nature and on way back, the accused hit the deceased with knife.8- Mere fact that there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory is immaterial, as the knife was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement and that knife is proved to have been used by the accused appellant in the commission of crime, which is evident from the statement of the deceased and Geeta Bai - PW/1 corroborated by medical evidence that such injuries could be caused by the knife recovered from the appellant.9- The argument that the appellant neither had the knowledge nor the intention to take life of the deceased is not made out.It is not a case of a single blow, but repeated blows on the vital part of the body.11- Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

['Section 302 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 petitioners herein are five.They were found guilty of the offences in the following manner:-2.The same was confirmed in Crl.A.No.115 of 2009 dated 07.05.2010 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai.This is under challenge in this revision petition.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that he would not question the finding of guilt imposed on the petitioners and that he would be satisfied, if indulgence is shown in the matter of imposition of punishment.He pointed out several mitigating circumstances.4.I am of the view that the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted.In this view of the matter, even while sustaining the conviction passed by the Courts below, the sentence imposed on them is set aside, because the petitioners have come forward to pay compensation to the victim.Therefore, the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of C.C.No.138 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.The said amount can be withdrawn by the defacto complainant, namely, Perumayee as her compensation.If the petitioners fail to deposit the compensation amount, within the period stipulated above, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court will stand restored.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.5.With the above modifications, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.The learned trial Magistrate shall take consequential steps to enforce this order.17.06.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rmk To1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.2.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai.R.C(MD).No.452 of 2010http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already moved an application for amendment in view of the fact that section 376D, IPC has been enhanced.The matter was listed on 18/5/2020 and the Office was directed to place the application on record, but the same has not been done.On 4/1/2020, at about 5 P.M, applicant and co-accused Arvind Jatav caught hold of her hand and outraged her modesty.On her shrieks, her mother Sunita Bai came there, seeing whom, both of them fled away.Later on, as stated by the parties, allegations of offence under section 376D of the IPC have also been levelled against the applicant and co-accused.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.At the time of lodging FIR, no allegation of rape was levelled against the applicant.No external injury has been found on her body.It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant namely Banti Jatav, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant shall install Aarogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.The applicant will comply with all the terms and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.If the applicant commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court.Learned Panel Lawyer 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.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.The application stands disposed of for now.The applicant is directed to incorporate the amendment, as allowed above, within three days from the date of regular functioning of the Court, failing which the matter shall be listed before this Court for further orders.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTA VA 2020.05.23 09:20:07 +05'30'

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per prosecution story, on 9-6-2001 at about 8 o'clock in the morning prosecutrix along with her mother Kesharbai had gone on a hilly track of Village Dhansinghpur for cutting woods.Prosecutrix was coming back with the woods.She was ahead of her mother.She has only complained about white discharge.JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.In the way one blackman pushed Kesharbai.She alongwith bundle of woods fell down.He pressed her neck and said "if you will cry, I will kill you".When prosecutrix tried to save her mother, that man gave one axe blow on the head of her mother.She started bleeding and became unconscious.Thereafter that man caught hold the prosecutrix, pressed her mouth, took her near the Tendu tree, put her on the earth and committed rape twice.Thereafter, prosecutrix came near her mother and tried to cry.That man came near the prosecutrix and said "he will kill her" and gave one axe blow on the head of the prosecutrix.She also started bleeding and thereafter he fled away from the spot.When complainant regained consciousness, she found that her mother was not there and had reached in the village.Prosecutrix also went in the village and narrated the story to Hukumsingh, Amarsingh, Dhansingh and Ramsingh and thereafter in the tractor of Nandlal prosecutrix and her mother both were taken to Police Station, Gyaraspur where report was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed.The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, against which the appellant has filed this appeal.In this appeal, I have heard Shri R.D. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.P.S. Bhadoriya, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent-State.Shri Agarwal pointed out various infirmities in the prosecution evidence and submitted that there is no evidence of identification of the appellant.Identification Parade was arranged after 1-1/2 months and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution.The accused was already shown to the prosecutrix and witnesses and the appellant has been implicated falsely on the basis of suspicion.There is no reliable evidence against him, therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted.In reply, learned Counsel for the State has supported the judgment.After considering the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the evidence on record.Primarily it is to be considered whether any legal evidence relating to the identification of the appellant is on record or not.As per the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), Hariram (P. W. 2), who is the father of the prosecutrix and husband of injured Kesharbai, and Kesharbai (P.W. 3), who is the mother of the prosecutrix, admittedly the appellant was not known to them from earlier.They had seen the appellant first time on that very day.In the cross-examination prosecutrix states that the face of that man was covered by clothe.Kesharbai (P.W. 3) stated that his face was painted as black.The prosecutrix has further admitted that when the appellant was arrested, she, her mother and father were called at the Police Station and appellant was shown to them.Even in the jail appellant was called and was shown to them and it was stated to them that he is the person who had assaulted them by police.Kesharbai (P.W. 3) has further admitted that the name of the appellant was told to her by police at Vidisha and at the time of identification parade there were total seven persons; the appellant was in Lungi and Baniyan and rest six others were wearing pant and shirt and their faces were covered.She has admitted that the appellant was arrested after 3-1/2 months.Hariram (P.W. 2) has deposed that he was having finger of suspicion on appellant, as he is residing in the forest and passing time of absconsion.He had seen the appellant in the forest and he is involved in such type of activities and he has shown his suspicion to the police and thereafter he was arrested.This witness has also not stated anything about the commission of rape with his daughter.They have also made exaggerated statements about giving of axe blows and there is also omission in the report Ex. P-1 about causing injuries on the back, cheek and wrist of the prosecutrix.At the time of cross-examination appellant was shown to them and he was not found as black as she has stated.In the cross-examination she has clarified about the colour that because he was sitting in sunlight and looking like black and at the time of incident colour of the appellant was dark black.Kesharbai (P.W. 3) has also not explained that on regaining consciousness why she left the place leaving her daughter alone in the forest.She was not having any personal knowledge about the commission of rape with her daughter.She gave statement as her daughter had told her after some days that the appellant had also outraged her modesty and had done bad work with her.Chhuttu (P.W. 5) and Hukumsingh (P.W. 6) have refused to identify the appellant.Jeewan Kachhi (P.W. 9) and Thansingh (P.W. 11) were also declared hostile.Kalyansingh (P.W. 12), who is the husband of the prosecutrix, has also refused to identify the appellant.As per the medical evidence of Dr. Kanta Madwaiya (P.W. 7), injured Kesharbai had received injuries by hard and blunt object and they were contused laceration injuries on the left parietal bone.She received injuries of contused laceration on the right parietal bone.There were no other injuries on the other parts of the body or on the private part.Labia majora and minora were normal.There was no discharge.Hymen was found torn.Vagina was normal.Alok Pare, Naib Tehsildar (P.W. 15) had performed Test Identification Parade.In the cross-examination he admits that both had identified him in the first attempt by touching him and showing his name.Mirja Asif Beg (P.W. 16) was the Incharge of Police Station, Tyonda.He has admitted in his cross-examination that none of the witnesses has told him that the appellant has committed any crime with the ladies.Only villagers had suspected about him and Ghasiram Baretha has told him about the appellant, whereas Ghasiram Baretha has not been examined in this case.After considering the evidence on record I find that there is no legal or proper evidence on record about the identification of the appellant by the witnesses.This admission of the prosecutrix that the appellant was shown to her at Police Station is sufficient to demolish the evidence of identification.Hariram and Kesharbai both have not stated anything about the commission of rape with her daughter.Kesharbai was informed lateron by her daughter.This evidence of the prosecutrix that he was a black man and his face was covered by clothe and the evidence of Kesharbai that his face was painted as black and the evidence of Hariram (P.W. 2) that he was having only suspicion against the appellant looking to his activities, show that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is not trustworthy about the identification of the appellant.The identification is further doubtful from the evidence of Kesharbai that at the time of identification appellant Daulatsingh was wearing Lungi and Baniyan and rest six other persons those who were mixed were wearing pant and shirt and their faces were covered.From this statement it is clear that the appellant was kept in a different dress at the time of identification.He was also shown to the witnesses by the police even in the jail before conducting the identification parade and they were told that he is the person, who has assaulted them.The evidence of Alok Pare, who has assaulted them.The evidence of Alok Pare, Naib Tehsildar (P.W. 15) further corroborates the conduct of the police that the appellant was already shown to the witnesses as he says that in the first attempt, both had identified him by touching him and showing his name.It was only possible when they were knowing the name of the person and he was shown to them.The evidence of Mirja Asif Beg (P.W. 16), who was the Incharge of Police Station Tyonda, is also material, who has admitted that the appellant was arrested on the basis of suspicion at the instance of Ghasiram Baretha and the prosecution has not examined Ghasiram Baretha in the case.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on the question of admission.The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner seeking direction that police authorities be directed to register the case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the culprits and further direction in relation to granting compensation to the petitioner has also been sought.Grievance of the petitioner as echoed in the petition is that FIR has been registered by the police authorities vide Crime No.114/2018 in respect of an incident occurred on 02-04- 2018 for which the police has registered the case under Section 308 of IPC whereas it ought to have been registered under Section 307 of IPC.Respondents have not investigated the matter so far and therefore, on the basis of omission and negligence shown by the respondents particularly police authorities, this petition has been preferred seeking direction for registration of offence under Section 307 of IPC and for payment of compensation.Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submission made by the petitioner and and submitted that petitioner has alternative remedy to file private complaint as per the mandate of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoria Vs.State of M.P. and Ors., 2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338 and judgment dated 8/8/2017 passed in W.A.No.658/2017 at Principal Seat, Jabalpur.Therefore, no interference can be made at this juncture.From the facts of the case, offence under Section 308 of IPC is made out, therefore, police THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.P.No.23845/2018 has registered the case.Considering the fact that the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the Magistrate concerned under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate concerned is competent enough to deal with the matter on a complaint made by the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse by approaching the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction by filing a private complaint.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORAL JUDGMENT.(Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Heard Ms. V.V. Tiwari, learned Counsel holding for Shri R.R. Rajkarne, Advocate for petitioner and Shri V.A. Thakare, learned A.P.P. for respondents.Short submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in absence of live link, detention order dated 10.09.2016 cannot be sustained.She also states that non-application of mind is apparent because the in-camera statements of Witnesses-B and C relied upon to order detention are fabricated and false.Those witnesses complain of incidence taking place in last week of April, 2016, while the petitioner was in custody from 18.03.2016 to 07.05.2016 in Crime No.55/2016. ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::09.01.2014 passed in the matter of present petitioner only (Criminal Writ Petition No. 627/2013) to urge need of live link.Though in paragraph no.9.4 statements find mention.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::Before adverting to these in-camera statements, the detaining authority has at the end of paragraph no.9 in bold letters recorded that the Detaining Authority has verified from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaripatka Division, Nagpur and that authority has confirmed whole facts in statements verified by him.Paragraph no.8.2 is in relation to Crime No.55/2016 under Sections 420, 447, 506-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Yashodhara Nagar.The Authority which has ordered detention and claims that has applied mind, has overlooked this aspect.Thus, facts militating with 2 in-camera statements of Witnesses-B and C apparent from the impugned order ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 ::: Judgment wp41.17 5have not been looked into by the detaining authority.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::Learned A.P.P. has made available a sealed envelope containing those in-camera statements for perusal of this Court.There at the top of each statement, Witness number as A or B or C or D has been mentioned.It is apparent that in-camera statement shown as of witness 'C' in paragraph no.9.3 in the impugned order, is in reality the in-camera statement of Witness-B in sealed envelope.Similarly, in-camera statement mentioned of Witness-B in paragraph 9.4 is infact the in-camera statement of Witness-C taken out from that sealed envelope.Thus, while mentioning witness numbers also there is mistake and a wrong person has been projected as Witness-B or Witness-C, as the case may be.This also therefore shows non-application of mind.Total material available on record has been looked into and it is apparent from the first sentence in paragraph no.10 of the impugned order of detention.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::In view of this material, we find no substance in the contention of learned A.P.P. that the order of detention can be sustained on the basis of other material on record.As we are satisfied that subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is unsustainable, we quash and set aside the said order of detention dated 10.09.2016 passed by the Detaining Authority and later order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the State Government approving it.Petitioner be released from custody forthwith, if he is not required in any ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 ::: Judgment wp41.17 7other matter by the State.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::Writ Petition is allowed.Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:22:33 :::

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.1/State.None for respondent No.2/complainant.This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Guna, rejecting the anticipatory bail application.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present appellants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).The appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

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

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the second respondent to reinvestigate the case by incorporating relevant offences under IPC by altering the FIR registered in Crime No.7 of 2019, pending on the file of the Kulathur Police Station.3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's son died in a road accident and based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the second respondent conducted investigation and closed the complaint.In the above circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent, Superintendent of Police for transfer of investigation.Since the same has not been considered, the present petition has been filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 34.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that now investigation has been reopened based on the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam, the case has been handed over to the Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram and the investigation is in progress.5.As already fresh investigation is ordered, no further order is required in this petition.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.2.The Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J mj Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6667 of 2019 13.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

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

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

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and setaside the dismissal order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. petition filed by thepetitioners in Cr.M.P.21 of 2016 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 dated 06.02.2016 bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul.The petitioners are accused in S.C.No.185 of 2010 for offencesunder Sections 307, 34 r/w 307 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Dindigul.During the course of final argument,the Trial Judge felt that the charges should be altered and therefore, thecharges were altered from one under Sections 120(b) r/w 307 IPC to Sections307 IPC r/w 34 and 307 IPC.After the charges were altered, the accused filedan application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to cross examine P.Ws.1 to 23, whichwas dismissed by the Trial Court.The accused filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13035 of2015 before this Court, challenging the dismissal of the petition filed underSection 311 Cr.P.C. this Court passed final orders in the said petition on14.09.2015, permitting the accused to cross examine the witnesses.Thereafter, the accused filed Cr.M.P.No.21 of 2016 under Section 91 Cr.The respondent police filed their counter and afterhearing both sides, the Trial Court by order dated 06.02.2016 dismissedCr.M.P.21 of 2016, challenging which, the accused are before this Court.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the TrialCourt proceeded on the erroneous impression that this petition is beyond thescope of the order passed by the High Court in Crl.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made bythe learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side).It is seen that the incident in the case had taken place in 2008 andpursuant to the registration of the case in Crime No.968 of 2008, the finalreport was filed in the year 2010 itself.The accused managed to drag on theproceedings since 2010 and ultimately, when the High Court had permitted theaccused to recall the prosecution witnesses, the accused have filed thepresent petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. without even giving reasons as tohow the documents called for are necessary and relevant for the just decisionof the case.It is trite that a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot befiled for fishing expedition.Thus, it is obvious that the accused havefiled the present petition only to further prolong the case.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits andthe same is dismissed accordingly.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There was one more accused i.e. the Accused no.4, who was also prosecuted along with the appellants.Sessions Judge, Pune found the appellants guilty of an offence punishable under section 489C of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced each of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer RI for one month each.The learned Addl.that they had committed offences punishable under section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).After holding a trial, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge found the appellants not guilty of an offence punishable under section 489B of the ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 ::: Tilak 2/7 (901)APEAL-1378-12 IPC, and as such acquitted them of the said offence.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge found the Accused no.4 not guilty of any offence, and as such, passed an order acquitting him.The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order, convicting and sentencing them, and have therefore, by the present Appeal, challenged the same.::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 :::2 I have heard Mr. Khamkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Deepak Thakre, the learned APP for the State.I have been taken through the entire evidence adduced during the trial.I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment with particular reference to the parts highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants.3 The prosecution case was to the effect that while Sunil Gaikwad - a Police Officer - who was, at the material time, attached to Samarth Nagar Police Station, along with his staff, patrolling in the night of 31st July 2011, came across three persons at about 9.00 p.m, at Shirsalseth Chowk of Rasta Peth.These three persons are said to be the appellants.The appellants, after noticing the police party, tried to abruptly depart from the place where they were, and this aroused suspicion about them.The members of the police party then accosted them, made certain inquiries with them, and then, after calling two panchas, took their personal search.10(ten) counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000 denomination each were recovered from the appellant no.1 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 ::: Tilak 3/7 (901)APEAL-1378-12 Manirul Mustafa.10(ten) counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000 denomination were recovered from the appellant no.2 - Ansar Bashir Husein also.5(five) counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000 denomination were found with the appellant no.3 - Kamaluddin Arsad Ali.::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 :::4 I have carefully gone through the evidence of API Sunil Gaikwad (PW 1) and the evidence of Dilip Jadhav, a Head Constable of Police who was with him at the time when the appellants were spotted.I find their evidence consistent with no infirmities.5 The evidence of these two witnesses is supported by the evidence of Madhavan Nambiar (PW 2) - a panch.I do not find any discrepancies in the evidence of these three witnesses.6 The third witness for the prosecution Sunil Welhal is an Officer serving in HDFC Bank Ltd, and his evidence indicates the notes in question to be counterfeit.This evidence is further supported by the report from the India Security Press, Nasik, opining the notes allegedly seized from the appellants to be counterfeit.There does not appear to be any serious challenge to this aspect of the matter, either during the trial, or during the hearing of the present Appeal.::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 :::attempt was made to show that the appellant no.3 had previously also circulated some counterfeit currency notes, but no such notes could be recovered by the police from this witness.As such, no reliance on his evidence to show any circulation, in the past, by the appellant no.3 of counterfeit currency notes can be placed.8 The seventh witness Bhagwant Ingale, Inspector of Police is the Investigating Officer, and he had filed the charge-sheet.Nothing which would discredit the prosecution version has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.9 In my opinion, the fact that the appellants were, at the material time, found in possession of counterfeit currency notes, was satisfactorily established before the trial court, and the finding arrived at by the trial court in that regard, appears to be proper and legal.10 Mr.The legal proposition, as put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, cannot ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 ::: Tilak 5/7 (901)APEAL-1378-12 be disputed.However, whether or not in a given case, the possessor of a counterfeit currency can be attributed with such knowledge would depend on the evidence in that particular case.An inference about the guilty knowledge can be drawn from the circumstances as would be appearing in the evidence.::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 :::11 In the instant case, all the appellants were together.Counterfeit currency notes were recovered from each of them.They had been residing in a hotel room together.They are from West Bengal, and there was no satisfactory explanation of their presence in Pune, and more particularly about the place of their residence i.e. a reasonably good hotel.The number of counterfeit currency notes found with the appellants, is not insignificant.Moreover, the evidence indicates that on noticing the police (atleast one of the members of the party was in uniform) the appellants tried to run away.This prima facie indicates that they wanted to avoid the police.Since the appellants were not in possession of any other objectionable articles, an inference can be drawn that they wanted to avoid the police because of the knowledge that the notes that were with them, were counterfeit.I am alive to the possibility of the story of appellants attempting to run away or escape being falsely and shrewdly introduced just to attribute the requisite guilty knowledge to the appellants, but there is nothing in the cross- examination of the relevant witnesses to suggest so.::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:00:51 :::punishable under section 489C was satisfactorily proved against all the appellants, and the conviction of the appellants on that count, as recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, suffers from no infirmities.14 However, after hearing Mr.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary is available.This is repeat bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.First bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2017 passed in M.Cr.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

h In view of the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting ig anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is ordered H that the Devi Prasad @ Nilesh Lodhi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) Digitally signed by MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE Date: 2017.11.17 15:27:42 +05'30' JUDGE sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The genesis of the case of the appellants lies in an incident that took place on 7th September, 2003 at village Chitrod in the District of Kutch, State of Gujarat.The complainant in the case was, during the relevant period, a Constable posted at Chitrod outpost of Police Station Bhimasar.constable appears to have accosted the quarrelling duo and asked them as to why they were disturbing peace and ordered them to accompany him to the police station.This appears to have infuriated Hussain Ibrahim Siddi who caught hold of the Constable from his collar and pushed him.In the meantime the son, wife and mother of Hussain Ibrahim Siddi also appear to have joined Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, exchanged hot words with constable and prevented him from taking Hussain Ibrahim Siddi to the Police Station.T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 325, 506(2), 333, 342 and 114 IPC has been affirmed and the -sentence reduced to imprisonment for a period of 1= years.When the special leave petition came up for admission, this Court by its order dated 1st August, 2011 issued notice to the respondents only on the question of sentence.It was on those allegations that Hussain Ibrahim and the appellants were tried together for the offences mentioned earlier.At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to support its case.The depositions of these witnesses were found reliable by the Trial Court resulting in the conviction of Hussain Ibrahim for the offence punishable under Section 325 and sentence of five years RI besides a fine of Rs.500/-.In default he was directed to undergo a further sentence of six months.He was also 3 convicted under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months.Hussain Ibrahim was in addition convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 333 and in default to undergo further imprisonment of six months.Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.100/- was awarded to him under Section 342 of the IPC and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.In so far as the appellants Hussain Siddi, Malubai wife of Ibrahim Siddi and Hawabai wife of Hussain Ibrahim are concerned, the Trial Court found them also to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 333 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.200/-.Malubai accused no.3 and appellant before us was also in addition convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 506(2) IPC apart from 4 a fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine she was sentenced to undergo six months further imprisonment.Aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad who has while upholding the conviction of the appellants reduced the sentence awarded to all of them to 1= years instead of three years.It is common ground that the appellants, two of whom happen to be females had not physically assaulted the constable.Even appellant no.1 is not alleged to have used any force against the constable in the incident in question.We order accordingly.The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.The appeal is allowed to the above extent.(CYRIAC JOSEPH) ...................................(T.S. THAKUR)New DelhiSeptember 28, 2011 6

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

as per rules.(VIRENDER SINGH)The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Sonkach,District Dewas in Criminal Case No.25/2017, whereby the learned court has registered a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the accused persons Rajendra Singh, Gowardhan Singh, Tofan Singh and Surajsingh for offence under Sections 302, 342, 201 read with 34 of the IPC and for the offences committed towards injured Vinod, Dulesingh and Bherusingh under Sections 342, 323 read with 34 of the IPC.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

State of M.P. And others and tobacco business in a thela at Bus Stand, Bhitarwar.He lodged a report against the respondent No. 3 Vinod Maheshwari stating that he sold him duplicate (spurious) "Haryana Bidi", saying it to be genuine.The complainant/respondent No. 2 was selling at the same price the same with bonafide and believing that it is genuine "Haryana Bidi".After having found that, the said "Haryana Bidi" was not genuine but spurious one, the complainant/ respondent No. 2 lodged report at Police Station Bhitarwar.Hence, the complainant/respondent No. 2The complainant/respondent No. 2 has produced documents Ex. P/1 to P/5, which show that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has purchased "Haryana Bidi" from the respondent No. 3 Vinod Maheshwari.This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to set aside the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008 whereby the order dated 01.11.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabra, in Criminal Case No.1148/2004 was confirmed and charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC were framed against the petitioner.The facts in the short giving rise to present petition are that, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and co-accused Vinod Maheshwari alleging that respondent No. 3 is running a Grocery Shop at village Bhitarwar.The complainant/ respondent No. 2 is running Pan, Bidi M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 2 Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 2lodged a Criminal Case before the JMFC, Dabra, District, Gwalior.The Court issued directions under Section 156 of Cr.P.C to SHO, Police Station, Bhitarwar.The learned JMFC, Dabra, after the preliminary evidence, took cognizance under Sections M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 3 Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 3The framing of charges was challenged before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, by respondent No. 3 Vinod Maheshwari and petitioner Gopal Dutt through Crime No. 11/2008 and 12/2008 respectively.The revisional Court vide order dated 28.08.2009 decided the same and held that Prima facie there is sufficient evidence to frame charges under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and dismissed the petition.Therefore, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.11.2008 passed by JMFC, Dabra, District, Gwalior, and order dated 24.08.2009 passed by first Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior.The petitioner assailed the order on the ground that earlier on 09.05.2000, a report was lodged by manager (Ramesh Chand Joshi) of petitioner against Rakesh Jat, Ballu Jat, Bhura, Mama Kirana store, M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 4 Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 4State of M.P. And others Shammi Khan, Ramesh Gadariya, Karmchand Vaishya, Janki Prasad, Balaji Kirana Store, Sugar Sing Rawat and others alleging therein that accused persons manufacture spurious Bidi and sold the Bidi in the name of "Haryana Bidi" and cheated the public.In the above case Hariom Chaudhary is one of the accused.Hariom Chaudhary has been examined as witness (PW-2), by the complainant/ respondent No. 2, who is the brother of Hariom Chaudhary.It is highly unnatural that an owner of the firm of a Company would manufacture his own spurious product.Therefore, the prosecution story in this regard is not plausible.This Criminal complaint case is the outburst of the report made by Ramesh Chand, who is the manager of the petitioner/accused Gopal Dutt.Prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.Hence, requested to set aside the order dated 01.11.2008 passed by JMFC and order dated 24.02.2009 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 5Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.State of M.P. And others Considered the submissions and perused the record.The statement of Ram Kumar in the Criminal compliant case supported by the PW-2 Hariom Chodhary and PW-3 Yatendra Singh.Annexure P/7 is the report lodged by Ramesh, the manager of the petitioner Gopal Dutt, who is proprietor of "Haryana Bidi".In the past report allegedly several persons were implicated for selling of spurious "Haryana Bidi".Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that spurious "Haryana Bidi" allegedly found to be sold by the other persons including Hariom, is not plausible.The petitioner would not like to sale spurious product in the same name of own "Haryana M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 6 Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 6So that it fame would bring defame to his product.True, that no body would like to produce spurious product on the name of genuine product.But at the out set, in this regard, we can not over look the documentary evidence and oral evidence which prima facie show that the complainant/ respondent No. 2 purchased "Haryana Bidi" from the respondent No. 3 Vinod Maheshwari, who is stockist of "Haryana Bidi", on the same rate as to that of genuine "Haryana Bidi".C. No. 7819/2009 7 Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 7Hence, complaint and preliminary evidence making out no case against accused was liable to be quashed.C. No. 7819/2009 8 Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi Vs.M.Cr.C. No. 7819/2009 8In the present circumstances it would not be proper for this Court to analyze the case of the complaint in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed.If it appears that on consideration of the allegation in the light of the statements made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offences are disclosed, hence there is no justification for interference by the High Court.

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

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

JUDGMENT Fazal Ali, J.The appellants have been convicted under Section 303 I.P.C. to death.As Section 303 has been struck down as void being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India it is no longer available for conviction of any offender.The facts of the case are fully narrated in the judgment of the High Court.It appears that on the date of occurrence i.e. 25th December, 1978 the deceased Brij Nath was coming back along with his son and others after listening to Bhagwat Katha.When they were passing through the jungle the two appellants accosted the deceased and assaulted him.The appellant Bhagwan Bax Singh shot with his gun on the chest of the deceased.The other appellant assaulted him on the head with a Banka.The appeal is, disposed of accordingly.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1.(a) P.W.1 is mother of the deceased by name Samshath Begum.P.W.2 and 3are sister and brother of the deceased respectively.The first accused is thehusband of the deceased Samshath Begum.2nd and 3rd accused are brother andmother of the 1st accused respectively.The law was set in motion by thecomplaint lodged by P.W.1 in Ex.P.3 in which she has stated that at the time ofmarriage they gave their daughter 10 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.30,000/-cash and other household articles such as cot, almirah and also a plot situatein Kavery Nagar, near Trichy Airport, that after the marriage, they came toknow that first accused was not affectionate towards his wife, that the accuseddemanded jewels and vehicle, that the matter was intimated to the superiorofficials of first accused, who advised to take a separate house, that at onepoint of time, the first accused drove his wife from his house and that P.W.1and when her daughter came to take medicine, he prevented them and locked thehouse and on 15.8.1998 they lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station,Trichy and in the enquiry, the police advised him to take separate house, thaton 31.12.1998 P.W.1 came to his daughter's house and asked first accused, thathe came after some time and abused her by stating who asked her to come to thehouse and to go to her native place by bus and he went to the house withouttaking food, that her daughter told P.W.1 that her husband told that even if hewere detained in jail for 7 years, he would not be bothered, that on 1.1.1999at 6.00 p.m. she received a phone call from first accused that Samshath Begumdied and she came to H.A.P.P. quarters and found her daughter dead and hencenecessary action may be initiated against first accused.1.(b) On receipt of the information the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.14proceeded to the H.A.P.P. Quarters where he saw the lady deed with burninjuries in Type-1 C-7 house which is in second floor.He again wentto the place of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.5, Rough SketchEx.He seized the plastic can of 5 litres capacity with kerosene, Whitecolour urea bag and a match box under cover of Mahazar Ex.He also gaverequisition to the Medical Officer, Trichy Government Hospital for conductingPost Mortem.P.W.16 R.D.O after getting the F.I.R., proceeded to the scene ofcrime and directed to send the corpse to the Government Hospital, Trichy forpost mortem.He examined the witnesses and he held inquest over the dead bodyof the deceased and prepared Ex.P.14 stating that the cause of the death may thedemand of dowry by the accused.1.(c) He would say in his chief examination that the relatives of thedeceased were again and again pressurising him to write in his report that shedied on account of harassment of demand of dowry by the accused and henceagainst his conscience he opined as such.He also says that the DistrictCollector also asked him to prepare the inquest as requested by the relatives ofthe deceased.However, he told that he might give opinion as justifiable.P.W.18 the District Collector has deposed that he did not advise P.W.16 to actas per the request of the relatives of the deceased.P.W.15 AdditionalProfessor, attached to the Medical College Hospital, Trichy, conducted PostMortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.p.11 Post MortemCertificate.She sent the internal organs for toxicological examination.P.13, Toxicological Report it is stated that six internal organs wereexamined, but poison was not detected in any of them.After perusing thetoxicological report the doctor gave final opinion in Ex.P.12 that the deceasedwould appear to have died due to the effects of Extensive Burns.1.(d) P.W.17, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, got the F.I.R. and wentto the scene of crime.After getting the report from the R.D.O he altered thecase into one under Section 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C and examined the witnessesand recorded their statements.Acting on a tip off, he arrested all the threeaccused in Trichy Airport and sent them for judicial custody.After completionof the investigation he filed charge sheet under Section 498(A) and 304(B)I.P.C. against all the three accused.2nd and 3rdaccused are his brother and mother.On 01.01.1999, she doused herself with kerosene, lit fire inthe house of the first accused and thereafter she succumbed to burn injuries inthe hospital.P.W.1 categorically narrates the events, stage by stage whichtook place aftermath the marriage with reference to the cruelty perpetrated uponher daughter under demand of dowry.She says in her chief examination that eventhough it was offered to give 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.30,000/- cashat the time of marriage apart from Seer Varisai articles, the relatives of theaccused received Rs.30,000/- on the date itself and the first accused told thatinstead of 30 sovereigns it was sufficient to give 5 sovereigns and in view ofthe balance of jewels a plot may be given to the deceased and hence, P.W.1 andher family members had executed a registered relinquishment deed with respectto a plot sprawling to an extent of 2400 sq.ft.situate near Trichy Airport,dated 28.04.1997, in favour of the deceased under Ex.For the bridegroomthey gave 10 sovereigns of gold jewels.She further adds that even after 7 days of marriage the deceased usedto tell her that she was not happy, that the accused had been harassing herstating that the jewels and cash provided were not enough, besides demanding amotor cycle and dining table.The third accused, the mother-in-law of thedeceased used to say that the "Seer" was not enough, that had she died she wouldmarry some other girl to the first accused and the first accused also told herto die after pouring kerosene and if she were dead he would marry some otherlady.She also told P.W.1 that her husband also used to bang her head againstthe wall and hence she sustained head ache and that she was not provided withfood.Since the deceased was in depression on account of above said cruelty,P.W.1 took her to Dr. Tajudeen (P.W.13) and she was treated there as inpatientfor three days.After panchayat she was taken to the house of the accused.Then she was conceived.However, the family members of the first accuseddisliked it and she was not allowed to take food.It was informed by thedeceased to P.W.1 over phone.P.W.1 met her and gave nutritious food, fruitsand biscuits.The first accused was working in E.M. Section as Fitter in HeavyAlloy Penetrator Project, (Ministry of Defence), Trichy, shortly known asH.A.P.P. There was an hospital in the factory and she was not taken to theinfirmary by her husband and he also did not include her name as dependent forthe purpose of treatment.The deceased was brought to her parents house after performingValaikappu.She sent a letter Ex.P.2 to the General Manager, H.A.P.P.requesting him to include her name as wife of first accused and his nominee inall the official records stating that her husband did not take her to hospitalattached to the factory who failed to include her name as his wife and nomineeand that he has developed intimacy with another girl and try to marry her andinclude her name in the official records.On 12.03.1998 a girl baby was born todeceased.The friction was continuing and after mediation she was taken to thehusband/1st accused house.Even afterwards she was not even given proper foodand the child was not provided with proper nutrition.She was in the house ofaccused only for 20 days with her child and as she informed P.W.1 that she wasill-treated, P.W.1 brought her to her house.The child health card and theidentity card for taking treatment in the hospital were in the house of thefirst accused.They went there.P.4 is the letter of undertaking given by first accusedto the inspector of police.9.Even during the period when the deceased was living with her husband, heused to say that she had separated his parents from him and he did not provideessential things to the house such as grocery etc., and she was also not givenproper food.In December, the deceased called P.W.1 over phone and he informedthat her husband had not treated her happily.P.W.1 asked her sons P.W.3 SahulHameed and Syed Mustaffa to go and meet the deceased.They met her and toldP.W.1 that the deceased was assaulted by her husband and her face was seenswelling.He also told that the first accused demanded colour TV and WashingMachine.10.The deceased also told P.W.1 that she was ill-treated by the husbanddemanding the said articles.P.W.1 incurred loan and purchased the televisionand washing machine in Trichy Vasanth and Co. and she with P.W.2 went toH.A.P.P. Quarters on 25.12.1998 and gave them to the deceased.25.On 28.12.1998 also, she had complained of head ache and loss of sleep.THE SECOND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, TRICHY.THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TRICHY.Crl.A.No.454 of 20103.Ameena Beevi ... Appellants/Accused VsThe Deputy Superintendent of PoliceNaval PattuP.S.Criminal Appeals filed under Section 378 and 374 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, and the Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and401 of Cr.The essential facts of the prosecution case are as follows:When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard tothe incriminating materials available against them, they denied complicity tothe offences.They neither examined any witness nor marked any document ontheir side.The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, convictedall the three accused under Section 498(A) I.P.C and sentenced the first accusedto undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-in default to undergo imprisonment for six months; A2 and A3 were sentenced tounder go R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in defaultto undergo imprisonment for three months, and A1 to A3 were acquitted of thecharges under Section 304(B) I.P.C. Aggrieved against the acquittal of theaccused under Section 304(B) IPC, the State has preferred Crl.A.No.647 of 2003and the complainant/P.W.1 has preferred revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.861 of 2004and against the conviction under Section 498(A) IPC, the accused 1 to 3 havepreferred appeal in Crl.3. Point for consideration:"Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accusedunder the charges framed beyond all reasonable doubt?"But both the second and third accused preventedthem from entering to the house in addition to abusing them with words ofdishonour.The deceased alone went into the house.The first and secondaccused drove them from the house.8.Two days later, the deceased lodged complaint Ex.The police called the parties and thedeceased was sent with first accused after the understanding that he shouldsearch separate house for his parents and live with his wife and child inH.A.P.P. Quarters.The deceasedrang up on the next day and told P.W.1 that her husband said that he demandedcolour TV but black and white TV was given and that instead of giving washingmachine with two switches, a washing machine with one switch alone was given andboth of them had to be retuned and the articles demanded should be brought.On31.12.1998 P.W.1 went to the quarters and met her daughter.She wept and statedthat her husband told her that he was prepared to go to jail even for 7 yearsafter silencing her and even if he last the job, it would just be a loss of hairto him.While she was speaking to the deceased, the first accused came to thehouse and asked P.W.1 not to come to the house by berating her.11.On the next day i.e. On 1.1.1999 at about 9.30 a.m. the deceased calledP.W.1 over phone stating that she could not remain there, that she was assaultedby the first accused and she told to take her to the house, for which P.W.1 toldthat since it was Ramzan time, she would come by 6 'o' clock in the evening.Butat 6.00 p.m. he received a phone call from her son-in-law's house asking them tocome to the quarters at once.P.W.1 went there and saw the deceased dead withburns.She has also added that the Television, Washing Machine and SeerVarisai articles were returned to her by the officials of H.A.P.P.Theyalso deposed about the cruelty upon the deceased and the events which took placeon and after 25.12.1998 specifically.Significant it is to note that the demandof T.V. and Washing Machine by the first accused and the receipt of articlesfrom P.Ws 1 and 2 and the events which happened on and after 25.08.1998,including the versions on the part of the first accused which drove her tocommit suicide, were not denied in their cross examinations.14.P.W.6 is an auto driver, who used to take the deceased and P.W.1 in hisauto.He says that on one occasion, the deceased had stated that her husbandassaulted her on her ear and when they went to the house of the first accused,he along with his brother stopped them at the entrance and picked up quarrel andthat on 25.12.1998 she took P.W.1 in his auto along with T.V. and WashingMachine and he came to know that after a few days the deceased died.15.P.W.7 is a retired railway employee.Hesays that on enquiry, the deceased told him that she was tortured in her father-in-law's house.16.P.W.11 the Inspector of Police in the All Women Police Station saysabout the lodging of complaint by deceased and the settlement between them.P.W.13 doctor would say that when she came to him for treatment, the deceasedtold him that she was tortured in her mother-in-law's house and was treated asinpatient, since she was very weak.He says that the family members of the deceased pressurisedhim to prepare a report to the effect that kerosene was poured upon the deceasedand was se afire and she was pushed into the house and killed.But he refused towrite like that and hence they refused to give statement, that they informedthe District Collector on the same day who sent for him and directed him todraft report as desired by the family members of the deceased, but P.W.16 wasdefinite that he only would write the real state of affairs and hence theDistrict Collector told him that it was his discretion, that his (P.W.16)conscience knew that there would not have been any dowry torture and only at therepeated request of the family members of the deceased, he came out withopinion in his report that dowry demand might be the cause for the death.Hewas treated as hostile witness and was examined by prosecution in cross.He isthe fact finding authority.But in view of the evidence given by him asaforementioned, the cause of death could not be ascertained.The then DistrictCollector P.W.18 would strongly deny the statement of P.W.16 that it is false tostate that he advised P.W.16 to render report in favour of the parents of thedeceased, that he did not speak to him on this affair and the P.W.16 did notreport him that he was pressurised and threatened by the parents of thedeceased.18.The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are corroborated by P.Ws.6,7 and 13.Merely because P.W.6 is an auto driver, his evidence could not be brushed aside.Even inthe absence of the oral testimonies of P.Ws.6, 7 and 13, the evidence of P.Ws.1to 3 would stand independently since they are reliable in the presence of othermaterials available in this case, such as the letter given by the deceased tothe General Manager of H.A.P.P. in Ex.P.2, Complaint given by her before thepolice in Ex.P.3 and also the undertaking written by the first accused on15.8.2012 in Ex.It is not stated that Ex.P.7 was obtained under threat.On the same date the deceased was also gave a letter to the police which isavailable along with Ex.Another circumstances to see the truth in theevidence of P.W.1 is her complaint statement in Ex.P.W.1 was informed, who came toH.A.P.P. Quarters immediately, the police also visited the scene of occurrenceand the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.14 recorded statement from her in Ex.In the report of R.D.O. the panchayatdars appear to have stated thatthe deceased was died subjected to the cruelty by the accused.19.The learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, hasanalysed the evidence and reached a conclusion that the charge under Section498(A) I.P.C has been proved by the prosecution and found the accused guiltyunder the charge, recorded their conviction and passed sentences.In this case, the attitude of P.W.17 could not befound fault with.There could be no compelling reasons for P.W.17 to bring thecase under Section 304(B) I.P.C. also.Even at the outset, he was having thematerials to alter the case under Section 304(B) I.P.C. In the absence ofmotive nor ill-feeling attributed to P.W.17, it is not proper to find fault withhim.21.As far as the proof available for Section 304(B) I.P.C. as regards theculpability of the accused is concerned, this Court finds that even though thesecond and third accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 498(A)I.P.C, their acts could not be brought within the purview of Section 304(B)I.P.C. There is no allegation against them that soon before the death, theyplayed role in driving the deceased to take this extreme step to commit suicide.Insofar as the first accused, the husband of the deceased is concerned, reliableevidence are available to infer that soon before her death, he demanded dowry inthe form of articles.He returned the TV and washing machine stating thatinstead of colour television and washing machine with 2 switches, he was given ablack and white T.V. and a washing machine with one switch, besides which healso mutilated the sentiments of the deceased by stating that he was ready to goto the prison for 7 years after doing away with her and the employment wasnothing for him.The first accusedasked the P.W.1 to take them back and bring new version of articles as statedabove.On 1.1.99 at about 9.30 a.m, the deceased spoke to P.W.1 over phonestating that she could not continue to live with her husband and in the eveningof the said day she committed suicide.The consecutive events stated suprawould indicate that soon before the death, there was a dowry demand, coupledwith cruelty on the part of the first accused which promoted the deceased tocommit suicide.Hence the first accused is guilty under Section 304(B)23.P.W.1 was quizzed in her cross examination that on account ofunbearable headache she committed suicide.When the first accused was examinedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. he filed a written statement and produced certainprescriptions which do not show the name of the deceased.Two prescriptions arein the name of Mana Begum and other prescriptions stand in the name of the 3rdaccused.24.In the outpatient book issued by H.A.P.P. Hospital for the deceased, itis seen that on 31.12.1998, the deceased took treatment for headache.She wasadvised to take plenty of oral fluid and added salts besides the tablesSlugeron, Calmpose 5 mg and Stometil.Vertigo was diagnosed on her.Thedictionary meaning of vertigo is, "a sensation of whirling and loss of balance,associated particularly with looking down from a great height, or caused bydisease affecting the inner ear or the vestibular nerve; giddiness."Hence, she was given prescription to take tablets Metopar, calmpose andNeurobian.But on the abovesaid two occasions alone she complained of vertigo and head ache.It showsthat she might not have been suffering with continuous intolerable headache soas to take a decision of ending her life.But P.W.1 has stated that even after the deceased and the first accusedcame separately, at the instigation of his family members, A1 harassed her.However it is open to the accused to adducesuch evidence for disproving the said compulsory presumption, as the burden isunmistakably on him to do so.2nd and 3rd accused are acquitted of the charge underSection 304 (B) IPC.The charge under Section 498(A) IPC against all the accusedhas been established.I answer this point accordingly.43.In the result, Crl.A.No.647 of 2003 is allowed in part confirming thejudgment of conviction and sentence of A1 to A3 for the offence under Section498(A) IPC, finding guilty of first accused under Section 304(B) IPC and findingA2 and A3 not guilty under Section 304(B) IPC and acquitting them of the chargeunder Section 304(B) IPC.A.No.454 of 2010 is dismissed confirming theconviction and sentence passed against A1 to A3 u/s 498(A) IPC.The first accused, as per the direction of this Court appeared today.Since he was found guilty under Section 304 (B) IPC, he was questioned as to thesentence to be imposed upon him.He pleaded that a lenient view may be taken.These Criminal Appeals and Criminal Revision case having been listed onthis day under caption 'being mentioned' on 07.03.2012 in pursuance of the orderof this Court dated 05.03.2012 and made herein in the presence of the aforesaidcounsels on the either side, the Court made the following order:Today, this case has been listed under the caption "For being spoken to".THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL SUB DIVISION, TRICHY.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAVALPATTU POLICE STATION, TRICHY.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

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

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

As per medical her age is 17+ years and now the victim is residing as legally wedded wife of applicant.Besides this the victim is in the family way with the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2019 and hence the applicant is entitled to released on bail.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the applicant Pradeep Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

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

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

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The impugned order was, in turn, passed in a revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of the trial court dated 22.11.2005 whereby the trial court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner and did not issue summons to the accused.By virtue of the impugned order, the trial court order dated 22.11.2005 was set aside.The revision petition was allowed and the trial court was directed to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section 406 IPC and to proceed in accordance with law.Reading the impugned order as well as the order passed by the trial court, it appears that both the courts have proceeded on the basis that there was a subsisting partnership between the petitioner and the respondent.Being aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed the aforementioned revision petition which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The same is hereby set aside and the Trial Court is directed to summon the respondent as an accused Under Section 406 IPC and to proceed in accordance with law.However, nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.For the foregoing reasons the Trial Court order dated 22.11.2005 is hereby set aside and the petition is accepted.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J.This is a plaintiffs second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Deoria reversing that of the First Additional Munsif, Deoria and dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs 500 from the defendant--respondent as damages for slander.The plaintiff appellant Rajindra Kishore Sahi is a practicing lawyer of Deoria and that the defendant respondent Durga Sahi is his pattidar.The relations between them have been bad, and a number of proceedings, civil and criminal, have been fought between them.In 1959 the dispute led to proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and there were two cross-cases.In one of them the plaintiff-appellant and his brother were the accused, (State v. Ravindra Kishore Sahi and others) and in the other the defendant respondent Durga Sahi and his party were the accused.The case against the plaintiff-appellant was heard on 6-2-1959 and Durga Sahi gave evidence as a prosecution witness.The plaintiff appellant, who appeared as counsel for himself and his brother, cross-examined Durga Sahi.During the cross-examination the appellant asked him whether he had ever been convicted of theft under Section 379 I.P.C., and Durga Sahi replied that he was not a thief and then volunteered the statement that the appellant himself was a thief A little later he explained that he did not mean that the appellant was a thief but that he harboured thieves, and patronised all the badmashes in the village.The exact words used by the respondent Durga Sahi were these:"Mannan Deo Prasad Sahi Ki 110 Men SalBhar ki saja huwi thi .... Chor aapkhud hain ... Rajemlra Kishore Sahiko chor kahta hun.Dehat ke tamam badmash aaprakhte hain."After the proceedings, the plaintiff appellant filed the present suit.He contended that the statement that he was a thief or harboured thieves and badmashes was false and defamatory, and had been made by the respondent Durga Sahi maliciously and with intent to defame the appellant.The respondent resisted the suit and denied all liability.He contended that the words imputed to him were never uttered by him; alternatively that they were absolutely privileged as he had made them while giving evidence in judicial proceedings before a court of law.The trial court believed the plaintiff-appellant and disbelieved the respondent, and held that the respondent did make the statements imputed to him.On appeal the learned Additional Civil Judge agreed with the trial court teat the respondent did make the statements alleged against him and that they were defamatory, but held that no action for defamation lay against the respondent as the statements were made by him as a witness, in judicial proceedings and were absolutely privileged.He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.The plaintiff has come here in second appeal.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant No.l Onkarsingh was residing in village Ambua together with his wife deceased Mery Rawat, in a Government Quarter.Onkarsingh was employed in the Government Hospital, Ambua as a Computer In-charge, and his wife deceased Mery was also working in the P.H.C. Ambua on the post of Lady Health Visitor .It is stated that appellant Onkar had illicit relations with appellant No. 2 Bayatibai, who was daughter of one Sajjansingh Chouhan, who was working as a driver in the Hospital at Ambua.It is stated that due to illicit relations with Bayatibai, appellant No. 2, the relations between the accused/appellant and deceased Mery Rawat became strained.On 2nd Oct., 1988 in the morning at about 6.00, some of the villagers saw burning flames and smoke coming out of the house of the appellant No.l Onkarsingh.The villagers and employees of the Health Department residing in the vicinity, rushed to the house of Onkarsingh.It is stated that doors were closed from inside of the house.When the doors were opened both the appellants were found present in side the house.On being asked, appellant Onkarsingh informed Dr. Gehlot (PW1) and other witnesses stated that his wife died due to burning.JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J.The appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th February, 1990, rendered by II Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in S.T. No. 267/88, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentencing them for life imprisonment and five years RI respectively and further ordering to run these sentences concurrently.The witnesses found that body of deceased Mery was burning in the inner side of the house Dr. Gehlot (PW 1) informed the Police, Ambua about the incident on the basis of which, Merg report Exh.P/9 was written at Police Station, Ambua.Police Ambua immediately reached the place of incident and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased.Photographs of the dead body were also taken.On receipt of post-mortem report, it was found that deceased Mery died of Asphyxia as a result of throttling.Doctor opined that death was homicidal in nature.On receipt of post-mortem-report, offence was registered against the appellants under Sections 302, 201 IPC.During the course of investigations, Police Ambua recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and on completion of investigations, challan was filed against the accused/appellants in the Court of JMFC, Alirajpur.Trial Judge framed the charges against accused/appellants Under Sections 302 in the alternative 302/34, 306 and 201 IPC.Onkarsingh was also charged Under Section 498A IPC.On the basis of evidence, produced on behalf of prosecution, the trial Judge found both the appellants guilty for the of fences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced them as above.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal.We have heard Mr. Amarsingh learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.K.Gupta learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that there is no eye witness of the incident.The facts and circumstances emerged from the evidence of the prosecution, indicate that the decased Mery died as a result of some accident or she has committed suicide and, therefore, the trial Judge has committed an error in holding the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC.It is also contended on behalf of appellant No. 2 Bayatibai that from the evidence available on record, no case under Sections 302, 201 IPC is made out against the appellant and, therefore, both the appellants deserve acquittal.It oppugnation, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/State, supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that circumstances proved against the accused persons clearly indicate that the accused /appellants are only responsible for causing murder of deceased Mery and thereafter with an intention to screen from legal punishment, they attempted to destroy the evidence to wit, burnt the body of deceased Mery.We have carefully perused the record and examined evidence of the prosecution.On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence on record which proves that the death of the deceased was not accidental or suicidal in nature but deceased Mery died of homicidal death as a result of throttling and then body of the deceased was burnt with an intention to destroy the evidence.(PW4) Dr. R.N. Mandwaria, who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has clearly stated in his statement that some redish bruises were found on either side of the neck of the dead body of deceased Mery.The bruises which were found on the neck of the dead body, were as under :(1) Three bruises on the right side of the neck each one admeasuring lcm x 1 cm in size.cm in size.It is further stated that bruises were ante-mortem in nature and their site and distribution was suggestive of throttling.Doctor also opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling.Doctor also stated that the death of deceased Mery was homicidal in nature and occurred about 12-24 hours prior to the time of autopsy.There is no reason on record to disbelieve the statememt of Dr. Mandwaria, who is a Government servant and an independent witness.His statement is corroborated by post-mortem report, Exh.In view of the above facts, in our opinion, the finding of the Trial Court on the point of homicidal death of the deceased is well founded and it cannot be dabolished.In the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant Onkar Singh and deceased Mery were residing together in the same house at Village Ambua as husband and wife.Dead body of the deceased Mery was found burning at about 6.00 in the morning on the date of incident, inside the house of appellant Onkar Singh.Appellant Onkar Singh has not given any convincing explanation with regard to homicidal death of his wife, deceased Mery.The above facts are sufficiently proved from the statement of Dr. Gajendra Singh Gehlot (PW1) Hakimuddin (PW2), Suman (PW3) and Shankarla) (PW6) examined on behalf of the prosecution.The Trial Court has rightly believed the statements of the above witnesses with regard to the above facts.In view of the aforesaid facts and in the circumstances of case, there are sufficient reasons to draw inference against the appellant Onkar Singh that he is the person responsible for causing homicidal death of his wife deceased Mery.In our considered opinion, the Trial Court has properly evaluated the evidence of the obscution with regard to the appellant No. 1 and found him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC.The findings recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant No. 1 Onkar Singh are well founded and based dn proper appreciation of the evidence and therefore, require no interference in this appeal.So far as the appellant No. 2 Bayatibai is concerned, though from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, her presence in the house of appellant/ accused, Onkar Singh, in the morning at about 6.00 on the date of incident is established, but only because of her presence in the morning at the place of incident is not sufficient to infer that she is also responsible for causing homicidal death of deceased Mery.There is no direct evidence on record which proves that she has shared any common intention in the commission of murder of deceased Mery and therefore, her conviction under Section 302 IPC is concerned, cannot be sustained in law as well as on facts of the case, but so far as her conviction under Section 201 IPC is concerned, there are sufficient grounds and reasons for holding the appellant No. 2, Bayatibai guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.From the statements of the prosecution witnesses it is found that in the morning at about 6.00 when witnesses reached the place of incident, at the relevant time, appellate No. 2, Bayatibai was also seen inside the house and the dead body of deceased Mery was burning in the inner Verandah of the house.In the above circumstances, natural conduct of appellant No. 2 Bayatibai would have been to inform this fact immediately to the neighbours or to the Police, when the Police Station is available in the same village, but appellant No. 2, Bayatibai, after witnessing such a serious incident, did not do anything and remained silent at the place of incident.This clearly shows that she also wanted to save the accused/appellant No. 1 from legal punishment for committing the murder of his wife, deceased Mery.This possibility cannot be ruled out that she had also participated in the act of burning of dead body of the deceased with an intention to screen the appellant No. 1 from legal punishment for committing homicidal death of his wife. -In our opinion, conviction and sentence passed against the appellant No. 2, Bayatibai under Section 201 IPC is well founded and requires no itereference.Bayatibai is partly allowed.Her conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC is set aside but conviction and sentence passed against appellant No. 2, Bayatibai under Section 201 IPC is upheld.Both the appellants are on bail.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

F-201, situated at Dindayal Nagar from one Nirmala w/o Ramkishan Sukhdev.Learned counsel for the parties at the outset has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 27-01-2017 passed in MCRC No. 374/2017 by which the proceedings in respect of Crime No. 269/2016 have been quashed by the learned Single Judge.In another case which was in respect of plot No. F-201 this court in MCRC No.374/2017 vide order dated 27-01-2017 has quashed the criminal proceedings.The order passed by the Coordinate Bench reads as under :-"This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of First Information Report concerning Crime No.269/16 registered at Police Station - Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, with regard to offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.It is found that after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner Dinesh Kumar Mathur and four other persons namely, Manoharlal, Ashok, Gopal and Krishna Singh and S.T.No.5017/16 is presently pending before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Ratlam in this regard.The First Information Report was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by one Manilal that he through one broker- Ashok Kumar Dahiya had purchased Plot No.After necessary office processing, the matter was finally placed by office with a recommendatory note before petitioner- Dinesh Kumar Mathur, who at the relevant point of time was Executive Engineer of Housing Board, Ratlam.The same was allowed by him resulting in modification of entries in favour of Nirmala Bai.Allegedly, the woman, who had submitted application for mutation was not real Nirmala Bai rather she impersonated herself as Nirmala Bai and after mutation, executed forged power of attorney in favour of the complainant and thus cheated him.The case of the prosecution is that broker Ashok Kumar Dahiya conspired with some lady and officials and employees of Housing Board, Ratlam including the petitioner to carry out mutation of entries with regard to the plot belonging to Ramkishan Sukhdev and that the application for mutation which was submitted by some lady, who impersonated herself as Nirmala Bai.The role attributed to the present petitioner is that he was part of the conspiracy and that he, while permitting mutation of the record in the Housing Board, did not properly verify that the applicant lady was real Nirmala Bai.The charge-sheet has been filed with regard to the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.To constitute an offence under Section 419 and 420 of IPC, it is required to establish that 'cheating' within the meaning of Section 415 of IPC was made.In the entire charge-sheet, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he in the capacity of Executive Engineer of the Housing Board, while discharging his duties with regard to mutation had deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly and induced such person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.Making a false document.(See : Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors.State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751).Therefore, from the charge-sheet even after accepting all the allegations made therein, the offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120- B of IPC are not at all made out.Ch, Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC Page 604, has clearly held that if even after accepting all the allegations and the material with the charge-sheet, necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offence(s) are not available, then it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings/charge- sheet else it will result in lead to unnecessary harassment to the accused.In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case for quashment of FIR in Crime No.269/16 P.S.Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mathur.Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for quashment of the proceedings.However, the fact remains that in identical circumstances in respect of identical set of facts a coordinate Bench of this court has quashed F.I.R., which was also against the officer of the M.P. Housing Board.Resultantly, the present petition also stands allowed.F.I.R. in Crime No. 147/2016 registered at Police Station-Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam on 25-03-2016 is hereby quashed.(S. C. SHARMA) -4- JUDGE Tej

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Against this order, an appeal was preferred under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code').

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr.Kamal Shaikh.Kamal informed him that he is business of sending Indian women abroad for employment.In June 2018, women from complainant's village.Maina told him that, her daughter Laxmi aged 24 years needs job.The complainant met Laxmi.She told him that 3 to 4 times she had gone abroad for work as housemaid.If she gets similar work, she is willing to accept it.The complainant told this to Kamal.He said that his friend Salim who conducts hotel at Bahrain would be coming to India.(b) In July 2018, Kamal called Laxmi with documents.The complainant, Laxmi, her sister Arti went to Arabia Hotel at Nagpada.They met Kamal, Salim and Tinku.They took information from Laxmi and Salim stated that Laxmi would be employed in his hotel as Bahrain.He agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/-.Kamal was told to collect her passport and apply for VISA.Tinku collected passport, photograph and other documents from Laxmi.In second week of October, 2018, mother of Laxmi called the complainant and informed him that without engaging Laxmi in kitchen work, she is compelled to indulge in prostitution by Salim and manager Anthony and Naseer.The complainant thereafter met Kamal and told him to call back Laxmi in India.He demanded money and threatened that she would be killed.On 22nd October, 2018, Salim decided to send Laxmi to India on instructions of Kamal.She went to Rajasthan.She told the complainant on phone that she was compelled to indulge in prostitution.She was threatened.Passport was taken by Salim.She was struck in Bahrain.10 to 12 ladies are also held up at Bahrain.3 During the course of investigation search of the residential premises of the applicant was conducted and information was collected by police.Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No. 68 of 2018 investigated by Anti Extortion Cell, DCB CID, Mumbai, (originally registered at C.R.No. 479 of 2018 with Nagpada Police Station), for the ofences punishable under Sections 387, 420 and 370(1) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traficking (Prevention) Act ("PITA Act", for short).::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::Rs.20,000/-, were paid to Laxmi on instructions from Kamal.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::Applicant learnt that Lookout notice was issued against him and charge - sheet has been fled against the co-accused.The applicant preferred an application for::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 ::: rpa 4/7 901-aba1589-19.doc anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which has been rejected.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::4 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not involved in any ofence.The role of ofences is attributed to other accused.Applicant was the employee of Sahara Hotel.He was appointed as Restaurant Manager at Kingdom of Bahrain.The applicant relies upon the appointment letter and the pay slip.It is submitted that the statement of the victim recorded during the course of investigation do not attribute any overt-act to applicant of having subjected her to the prostitution activities.The only averement against the applicant alleged in her statement is that the applicant used to trouble her.Applicant voluntarily came to India and had applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court.Applicant has roots in Mumbai.His family is residing at Mumbai.In the said afidavit, he has furnished the details about his residential address and details of his family members.His children are staying at Mumbai.The afidavit is taken on record.Applicant/s have no criminal antecedents.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::narrated the harassment caused to the victim.The complainant has stated that the co-accused as well as the applicant had induced the victim to indulge in prostitution activities.It is submitted that the statements of other witnesses are recorded, however, in fairness it is submitted that those witnesses have nto attributed any overtact to the applicant alleging that he was responsible for harassment to them.Applicant is employed in Sahara Hospital as Restaurant Manager.Three co- accused were arrested and they are in custody.The victim has not alleged that the applicant was instrumental in inducing/forcing her into prosecution.The complainant had narrated the incidents allegedly told to him by victim.However, victim has not alleged that applicant had forced her into prostitution.Other victims have not attributed any role to the applicant.Although the applicant was employed abroad, after realizing that Lookout notice has been issued against him, he come to India and applied for anticipatory bail.He has furnished details by fling afidavit about the place of residence at Mumbai and his family members.Learned APP, however, contended that the applicant should be::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 ::: rpa 6/7 901-aba1589-19.doc available for trial and presence is required at the time of fling charge-sheet.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would remain present before the Court on intimation being given to him about the date of fling charge-sheet.He would provide his contact number to the investigating oficer.Thus, there is no impediment in allowing application for anticipatory bail and permitting him to travel to Bahrain.7 In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, application can be granted on certain terms.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 ::::: O R D E R ::(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.1589 of 2019, is allowed;(ii) In the event of arrest of Applicant in connection with C.R.No.68 of 2018 (originally registered at C.R.No.479 of 2018 with Nagpada Police Station), he be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;(iii) Applicant shall attend DCB CID Anti Extortion Cell, once in three months on frst Saturday of::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 ::: rpa 7/7 901-aba1589-19.doc frst month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., till further orders;::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::(vi) Anticipatory Bail Application and Interim Application both stand disposed of accordingly;(vii) The Passport of the applicant be returned to him immediately to enable him to traval to Bahrain.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 03:07:44 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Chatro Bai (acquitted co-accused) was wife of Karodi while both appellants are sons of Kadori.Between brothers there was enmity due to dispute of possession of land.On 7-6-89 at 5 A.M., late Kadori with both the appellants, his sons and wife Smt. Chatro Bai ascended in first floor of Amol Singh (P.W. 2), broke open the door and Hajrat Singh (A-1) with Farsa and Parvat Singh (A-2) with Axe badly belabored Amol Singh (P.W. 2) and his sons Jugraj, Dayaram and wife Smt. Tulsa Bai.On their shouting, Durga Soni and others rushed to save them.Amol Singh (P.W. 2) lodged FIR (Ex. P-6), the same day at P.S. Tyonda at about 10.40 A.M. On medical examination of Smt. Tulsa Bai, one incised would and one contusion was found on her person.On person of Dayaram, one incised wound was seen.On person of Jugraj, one lacerated wound, one incised wound and tenderness with swelling was noted.On person of Amol Singh (P.W. 2), seven incised wounds with compound fractures of left humerus and fractures of 2nd and 3rd metacarpal were noted.Radiologist noted fracture of metacarpal.JUDGMENT P.C. Agarwal, J.1. A.S.J., Basoda in S.T. No. 149/90 (State of M.P. v. Chatro Bai and two others) on 16-7-97 found both the appellants guilty under Sections 307/34 and 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 4 years on both counts.Parvat Singh (A-2) was further held guilty under Section 324 of the Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Period of detention was set off in such sentences.Admittedly Amol Singh (P.W. 2) was real brother of Kadori (since deceased).Soft humerus parietal bone and fibula of Amol Singh.Doctor opined that injuries of Amol Singh (P.W. 2) could be dangerous to life due to excessive bleeding.Blood was noted on Farsa seized from Hajrat Singh (A-1).Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed that they have been falsely implicated due to dispute of possession of land.Two witnesses in defence were examined to prove quarrel between the parties due to such dispute.Trial Court believed the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, though, co-accused Chatro Bai, the mother of appellants was acquitted.Amol Singh (P.W. 2) alone has been examined to prove the occurrence.His wife Tulsa Bai and Dayaram who were injured in the same occurrence have not been examined.The other son Jugraj Singh who was injured is reported to be dead.Kallu (P.W. 5) who happens to be the son-in-law of Amol Singh (P.W. 2) has claimed that in the way to police station Amol Singh (P.W. 2) had referred the story and named the appellants and their parents as aggressors.However, such story was not told by him in his statement Ex. D-2, before the Investigating Officer.Thus, his statement is clear improvement and cannot be relied upon.Prosecution story of course is supported by FIR (Ex. P-4) lodged the same day by Amol Singh (P.W. 2).Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) has noted 9 injuries on person of Amol Singh (P.W. 2).He has noted injuries on person of Tulsa Bai wife of Amol Singh (P.W. 2), Dayaram and Jugraj Singh sons of Amol Singh (P.W. 2) also.Of course, statements of Dr. A.P. Khilwani (P.W. 4) and Dr. Vinay Pandey (P.W. 6) further prove fractures on the person of Amol Singh (P.W. 2).Besides X-ray reports, X-ray plates are also there on record.He was examined on 9 P.M. and duration of injuries was 12 to 36 hours.There has been over-writing in medical report about duration.Anyhow, it can reasonably be assumed that such injuries were caused in the same incident which occurred at 5 A.M. i.e.t about 16 hrs.before this medical examination.Learned Advocate for appellants has drawn my attention to Rukma v. Ma, (1997) 11 SCC 579; Shiv Karan v. State of Rajasthan [(1998) SCC (Cr.) 712]; Vanrawan Anandji v. Koli Vashram Punja [(2001) 1 MPWN 139 (SC)]; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(2001) 2 MPWN 70] and Kanchedi v. State of M.P. (1991 JLJ 6) and claimed that non-explanation of injuries entitles the appellants to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version and further Amol Singh (P.W. 2) has suppressed a very important factum from the Court.He has further argued that Amol Singh (P.W. 2) is not a wholly reliable witness.He has indulged not only in suppression of the occurrence but in improving his story in Court as according to him is clear from Paragraphs 7 to 9, 13 and 14 of his statement.It is also argued that Durga Soni who was independent witness named in FIR has not been examined.Investigating Officer who visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ex. P-1) seized blood stained and simple earth from spot, vide Ex. P-2, seized Farsa from Hajrat Singh (A-1), vide Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5 a waist from Jugraj Singh and had sent the articles seized to F.S.L. has not been examined.Thus, the prosecution story is not well proved.Further, the appellants have prejudiced in their defence as they are deprived of cross-examining this I.O. Anyhow, the learned Trial Judge who has seen the witnesses deposing has believed the prosecution version which is well supported by other evidence on record.As it is, Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) has clearly opined that the injuries on Amol Singh (P.W. 2) can be fatal due to excessive bleeding.The appellants have merely denied their guilt.They have not put any counter version how Kadori, their father got injured.Kaluram (D.W. 1) and Hukumchand Jain (D.W. 2) merely claim that there was a quarrel between the parties yet they do not allege that the complainant party was aggressor.Thus, appeal is partly allowed and sentences of the appellants are reduced to that already undergo under all the counts.Appeal allowed in part.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 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.

In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.07.2010 in connection with Kultali P.S. Case No. 17/06 under Sections 302/201/34of the Indian Penal Code.

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

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

It is alleged in this complaint by the complainant that he is a property dealer and deals in the business of sale and purchase of properties from his residence in Paschim Vihar, Delhi.On 27.9.1995, Narender Singh (petitioner herein) and his sister Devinder Kaur (accused No. 2 in the complaint) approached the complainant and offered the property No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III consisting of two and a half story building over an area of 792 sq.yds.for sale.They represented that this property was in the name of their father Sahib Singh, who died in September 1991, leaving behind Will dated 20.4.1970 in respect of this property and as per the said Will, the petitioner and Devinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused Nos. 1 & 2') had inherited 2/7th and 1/7th share respectively.The petitioner agreed to sell his 2/7th undivided share to the complainant.However, subsequently the accused Nos. 1 & 2 neither handed over the peaceful and lawful possession of the property in question to the complainant nor returned his earnest money and rather they handed over the possession of the property in question to Shri Sudhir Kr.JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.The respondent No. 1 - Rajinder Kumar Lamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has filed complaint against the petitioner as well as against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein.Gupta, a partner of M/s. SS Associates (accused No. 3 and respondent No. 2 in this petition).On the basis of these allegations, the complaint has been filed.On the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint and after going through the evidence, the learned MM vide order dated 8.8.2000 was pleased to summon all the three accused observing that they were prima facie liable to be proceeded against for the offences under Sections 420/406/506 Part-II/448/480 read with Section 120B IPC.3. Accused No. 1, after receiving the summons, filed application for dropping him from the proceedings.Challenging this order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned ASJ, Delhi.The revisional court partly allowed the revision petition vide order dated 1.4.2004confining the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC only and discharged the accused persons for the offence under Sections 406/448/380/120B IPC.Still feeling aggrieved, order dated 1.4.2004 is challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition.The petitioner accepts the execution of the agreement to sell whereby he agreed to sell his 02/7th share in the undivided property in question to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 48.50 lacs.Case put up by him, however, is that out of this amount, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs and the balance amount of Rs. 45.00 lacs was to be paid at the time of final documentation, which the complainant failed to pay on one pretext or the other.Just to gain time, the complainant filed a suit being CS(OS) No. 2100/1996 for specific performance of contract in this regard on or about 28.9.1996 and obtained interim injunction.Contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the entire dispute is of civil nature and the cognizance of the complaint was wrongly taken by the learned MM.In order to support this contention, he has stated that in the suit filed by the complainant the petitioner, through his counsel, has made a statement on 10.9.2001 that the petitioner was ready to suffer the decree and the following order was passed:S. No. 2100/96 At this stage, learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 stated that defendant No. 1 is already to suffer the decree.Let affidavit of defendant No. 1 in their regard be filed.Learned Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to take necessary instructions in this regard.Accordingly, he filed the affidavit dated 11.10.2001 specifically stating in para 5 thereof that he was abiding by the statement his counsel made before the Court on 10.9.2001 and "hereby confirm and state that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 45 lacs by the plaintiff to him".He further pointed out that instead of making payment of the balance consideration, the complainant filed counter affidavit dated 22.10.2001 stating as under:That the only question which now remains to be determined/adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble Court in the above case is to whether the balance consideration payable by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff is Rs. 38,50,000/- or Rs. 45,00,000/- as claimed by the defendant No. 1 at the time of handing over of vacant physical possession of the property to the plaintiff.It is his contention, therefore, that even according to the complainant, the only dispute was as to whether the balance consideration was Rs. 45 lacs or Rs. 38.50 lacs and this was purely civil dispute.The accused Nos. 1 & 2 had agreed to sell their 2/7th and 1/7th share respectively.In respect of the 2/7th share each in favor of the other two sons, namely, Avtar Singh and Inderjit Singh, it was reported that they were living abroad and had executed a power of attorney in favor of the accused No. 2 on the basis of which she would deal with the said share in the property.He further submitted that though the petitioner agreed to suffer the decree, which was an empty formality without any bona fides, inasmuch he wanted payment of balance amount without giving possession and, therefore, this offer of the plaintiff was declined by the court.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A l l applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.282/2019, registered at Police Station Kaniwara, District Seoni, under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 307, 325 and 506/34 of IPC.This is the second application on behalf of applicants Rijwan and Nasir Khan.Other applicants have filed their first application.It is submitted by the learned counsel Shri Usmani that photocopy of Signature SAN Not Verified challan along with the photocopy of challan submitted in the cross-case has Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.11.25 16:49:04 IST 2 MCRC-39893-2020 been filed.The counsel read out the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the trial court upon the application filed by accused Rizwan and also pointed out the liability stated in the aforesaid order.The counsel also draws attention towards the medical report.Civil suit was filed by the applicants.The complainant also admitted that the accused was having the possession of disputed land.All accused have been enlarged on bail in the cross-case.No any grievous injury has been caused in this case.The applicants are confined in custody since September, 2019 and having no any criminal background.Counsel also read out some statements recorded in the shape of dying declaration by the doctor.Learned counsel Shri Naeen Khan submitted that as per prosecution case the present applicant caused the injury only to Hiralal.The counsel read out the dying declaration of Hiralal and it is also submitted that the name of present applicant is not mentioned in the aforesaid dying declaration.Only one injury has been caused upon the head of Hiralal.The counsel also submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case having no any criminal background, therefore, he should be enlarged on bail.Learned counsel Shri Vishal Daniel submitted on behalf of his applicants that as per the prosecution case all applicants used the Lathi, not any dangerous weapon.Lathi is a common weapon in the village area.Cross-case was also registered and the challan has been filed under section 439 of IPC also.The complainant party burnt the motorcycle of the accused persons, therefore, the case under section 435 of IPC found proved.It is also submitted that no any victim sustained any fracture.Any victim was not admitted in the hospital for more than 2 days.Any fracture or grievous injury is also not found.The case has been wrongly registered under section 307 of IPC.It is also submitted that after the detailed trial, the offence may come Signature SAN Not under section 308 of IPC (if proved) and the injury may come into purview of Verified Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.11.25 16:49:04 IST 3 MCRC-39893-2020 section 324 or 325 of IPC.The common object cannot be proved by the prosecution evidence.Only omnibus type of allegations have been made and they may be vary from the statements, dying declaration and the statements recorded under section 161 of CrPC.Therefore, the applicants should be enlarged on bail.T h e counsel for State strongly opposed all applications.It is submitted by the counsel for State that grievous injuries have been caused in furtherance of common object of all accused persons.The land was purchased by the complainant through registered sale deed.The theft of crop was committed by the accused persons and they also committed the crime in furtherance of their common intention.12 accused are involved in this case.Therefore, looking to the serious nature of crime, the applicants should not be enlarged on bail.I t appears from the record that M.Cr.The detailed facts have been mentioned in the aforesaid order.Therefore, in reference to the aforesaid two accused, no any subsequent change is found for taking a different view.Registry was executed in the name of Manish Singore.The accused Sharif Khan was claiming the possession over the land and created the dispute.In the year 2019 Manish Singore cultivated the crop of Corn (Makka) but the Sharif Khan and other cut the crop about 3 sacks of Corn (Makka) on 20.09.2019, therefore, the report was lodged.Applicants' counsel draws attention towards copy of the civil suit filed by Shafidad Khan, but this document does not show any title of the accused party upon the disputed land.While on the other side the complainant party Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.11.25 16:49:04 IST 4 MCRC-39893-2020 was having a registered sale deed in the name of Manish Singore.The present incident took place after lodging of the aforesaid report on 22.09.2019 at about 07:30 P.M. The accused persons Shafidad alias Baba Khan, Irshad Khan, Nasir Khan, Iqbal Khan, Rijwan Khan, Shahid Khan, Bhura Khan, Teetu Khan, Chotu Khan, Irfan Khan and Pappu Khan armed with lathi, rod and axe, reached infront of house of Hiralal Singore and used filthy language and said why he lodged the report regarding the theft of Makka.When the complainant party requested to keep silence all accused assaulted upon the complainant party.It is stated in the FIR that Sharif Khan S/o Shafidad Khan caused injury to Rajesh Singore by axe and Pappu Khan by lathi, Arif Khan caused injury to Sunil Singore by iron rod, Shafidat Khan caused injury to Hiralal by iron rod, Pappu Khan and Shakir Khan caused injury by lathi to Arvind Singore, Irshad Khan, Nasir and Iqbal Khan caused injury to Vijay Singore by lathi, Ridwan Khan, Shahid Khan and Bhura Khan caused injury to Khem Chand Singore by lathi.Teetu Khan, Chotu Khan and Irfan Khan caused injury to Manish Singore by lathi, when Shahid Khan complainant tried to interrupt then Nasir caused injury to him with the help of lathi.Rajesh S/o Atarlal, Sunil S/o Hiralal, Khem Chand, Hiralal and Vijay sustained grievous injuries except Sunil, the dying declarations of other injured persons were recorded in the presence of doctor.Sunil S/o Hiralal was semi-conscious, therefore, as per the opinion of the doctor he was unable to give his statement.Various injured persons were medically examined and found that they have sustained various injuries.The cross Crime No.284/2019 has been registered under Sections 147, 294, 323, 324, 506 and 435 of IPC.It appears from the challan of the cross-case that both cases are not related to the same incident.Both incidents happened one after other.The first applications of accused Rijwan and Nasir Khan have already been dismissed on merits.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Guha Ray, J.The short point in this application for admission of an appeal which was heard after notice to the State is whether an appeal lies at all.Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month on that count.He was further convicted under Section 354, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to rigorous imprisonment for two weeks more.The sentences of imprisonment on the two counts were to run concurrently.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 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 deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Chellappan @ Selvam.He was residing at Konangialli Koosankottai Village, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.The accused are the neighbours of the deceased.The first accused and the deceased are cousins.In between the house of the accused and that of the deceased, there was a poramboke land.A year before the occurrence, the deceased demolished his house and heaped the debris, on the said poramboke land.Claiming right over the said land, the accused questioned the same.This resulted in a quarrel.P.W.1 and the deceased assured them that they would remove the debris soon.After two days, again the accused came and shouted in the front of the house of the deceased, as to why he had not removed the debris.In that quarrel, they attacked the mother of the deceased.At that time, the deceased was not at home.P.W.1 informed him about the same.P.W.1 took the mother of the deceased to Pennagaram Hospital and admitted her as an inpatient.The deceased went to the hospital and after visiting his mother, returned to his house.Around 01.00 pm, on 23.06.2012, the deceased started sleeping.Around 03.00 pm, all the accused (accused 1 to 4) trespassed into the house of the deceased.The fourth accused threw chilly powder on the face of the deceased, when he was sleeping.The accused 1 to 3 then dragged the deceased from inside the house to the front yard.The accused 1 and 2 attacked the deceased with Aruval and the third accused stabbed him with Velkambu (spear).The deceased sustained injuries and fell in a pool of blood and died instantaneously.P.W.11 took up the case for further investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu. J.,) The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.The fourth accused is one Mrs. Saroja @ Chinnapappa.The accused 2 and 3 are the sons of the first accused and the fourth accused is the wife of the first accused.The trial court framed as many as three charges against the accused, as detailed below:-ChargesAccusedSection of lawCharge No.1Accused 1 to 4449 IPC.,Charge No.2Accused 1 to 3 302 IPC.,Charge No.3Accused 4302 r/w 109 IPC.,By judgment, dated 31.10.2014, the trial court acquitted the fourth accused from all the charges, however, convicted the accused 1 and 3 alone for the offence under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.Challenging the said convictions and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.They raised alarm.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.9, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.279 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC., Ex.P-1 is the complaint and Ex.P-10 is the First Information Report.On the same day, between 08.00 pm and 10.30 pm, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem.P.W.10, Dr.Ananthu, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 24.06.2012 at 11.00 am.He found the following injuries:-1.5x2 cm two cut injuries, backside of the head each.2.15x7 cm two cut injuries (incised wound) right arm upper each.3.10x5 cm incised wound, right shoulder, 4.4x2 cm incised wound left side of forehead.5.4x2 cm incised wound lower jaw.6.8x5 cm incised wound left side of neck.7.3x3x3 cms stab injuries right side of collor bone.8.Two incised wounds, right side of chest (10x4 cm) and (4x3 cm) of lower side of chest.9.Two stab injuries 2x2 cm each over the right shoulder and backside of right sounder.10.Stab injuries 10x5 cm on right side shoulder (backside).Sterum, Ribs  Normal, Heart  Normal, Lungs  Punctured lower edge right.Stomach contains about 200 gms of partially digested food.Liver  Punctured, spleen-Normal, Bladder-empty, Ext. genital-Normal, skull bone-intact, Brain-Hemotama seen, base of skull  normal.Ex.P-10 is the post-postmortem certificate.P.W.10, the Doctor, gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.He gave a further opinion that the cut injuries on the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like spear (M.O.3).On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place where he had hidden the motor-cycle and also the place where he had hidden the Veecharuval, Koduval and spear (M.Os.1 to 3).In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused for Judicial remand and also the material objects to the Court.He recovered the blood stained cloth from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.On completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same as false.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited, besides 12 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, has stated about the entire occurrence, including the individual overt-acts.P.W.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased.He has stated that on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, he rushed to the house of the deceased and witnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.She has also seen entire occurrence and has vividly spoken about the same.P.W.4 is the son of the deceased and at the time of occurrence he was hardly aged about 10 years.He is the child witness.He has stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was very much present at his house and he witnessed the entire occurrence.He has vividly spoken about the participation of all the four accused.P.W.5 is the minor daughter of the deceased.She was hardly aged 8 years, at the time of occurrence.She is also the child witness.She has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was very much present at her house.She has stated that she witnessed the entire occurrence.He has spoken about the individual overt-acts of the accused.P.W.6, the neighbour, has stated that he heard the alarm raised from the place of occurrence.He went to the place of occurrence and at that time, he found the accused 1 to 3 attacking the deceased and flying away from the place of occurrence, in a motorcycle.P.W.7 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the confession of the first accused and the consequential recovery of the material objects.P.W.10 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by them.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty under the said charges and accordingly, sentenced them, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Aggrieved over the same, the accused / appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, in this case, there is an inordinate delay in registering the case and in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court.He would further submit that this creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is delay of three hours in this regard.As seen from Ex.P-2, the distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is about 15.00 kms.P.W.1 is an illiterate poor village woman.A woman of such a stature cannot be expected to go the Police Station immediately, after the occurrence, as she may not know the importance of making the complaint immediately to the Police.She has stated that she took the help of others to go to the Police Station.In our considered view, absolutely there is no delay in lodging the complaint.The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the First Information Report has reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate only on 10.00 am on 24.06.2012, for which, absolutely there is no explanation.In this regard, to satisfy our judicial conscience, we perused the General Diary of Pennagaram Police Station.We permitted the learned counsel for the appellants also to go through the same.It however reveals that at 07.00 am on 23.06.2012, all the policemen from the said Police Station were deputed for bandobust duty, in connection with the examination held for selection to the post of Constables, at Dharmapuri.They were Mr.Bala Sundaram (P.W.9) and one Mr.Saravanan (Police Constable No.642).The General Diary further shows that, after the case was registered at 06.00 pm, at 06.40 pm, on 23.06.2012, P.W.9 handed over the Case Diary to Mr.Saravanan, Police Constable, with a direction to him to hand over the same to the Inspector of Police, so that the Inspector of Police would go to the place of occurrence, where the dead body was lying.Because he had sent Mr.Saravanan, according to the General Diary, P.W.9 alone remained in the Police Station.The entries in the General Diary further shows that, on the next day morning, i.e., on 24.06.2012, at 08.00 am, P.W.9 again deputed Mr.Saravanan to take the dead body for post-mortem.A perusal of the entries in the General Diary would go to show that there is no indication as to when Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-10 were sent to the Court.Taking advantage of this, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is an inordinate delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court.But, we are not persuaded by the same, for the simple reason, that, as is seen in the General Diary, except P.W.9, there was nobody else available for him to send these documents to the Court immediately, as the only another policeman has been sent to the Inspector of Police, carrying the case diary.For want of men only, there had occurred a delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court.Thus, the primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground of delay is rejected.In the Indian scenario, if the Court is able to separate the grain from the chaff, there can be no legal impediment for the Court to act upon the said grain.In this case, the trial court has separated the grain, as against the accused 1 to 3 and has acted upon the same, in which we do not find any infirmity.The medical evidence also duly corroborates the eye-witness account.We are bound to analyze the entire evidence in the case and to come to the conclusion, as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of each of the accused in the case.As we have already discussed elaborately, from the eye witnesses account of P.Ws.1 to 5, the prosecution has clearly proved the guilt of these appellants / accused.The motive has been spoken by P.W.1 and other witnesses.When the deceased was sleeping in his house, these accused had gone there, trespassed into his house, dragged him out and attacked him indiscriminately, causing as many as ten injuries on his vital parts.

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

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

JUDGMENT A.N. Ray, J.This is an appeal by special leave against the order and judgment dated 9 September, 1968 of the High Court Rajasthan.The question for consideration is whether the Additional Special Judge.Rajasthan, Jaipur could proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 2/68/Spl.as directed by the order of the High Court.That case was initiated under a sanction accorded by the Central Government under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellants along with four civilians were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 161, 165A. 420, 409 and 467A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch on 27 January, 1966 put up before the Special Judge, Jaipur a chargesheet against the four appellants and four civilians.One of the civilians turned approver.On 17 January, 1967 the State of Rajasthan made an application before the Special Judge that under Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950 a period of three years was provided after which no Court Martial proceedings could be commenced against the Army Officers and the period of limitation was to be computed from the date of such offence.The Special Judge did not deliver the four appellants to the Commanding Officer.On 28 January, 1967 the Officer Commanding, 123 Infantry Battalion (T.A.), Jaipur wrote to the Special Judge that the notice under Rule 5 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 served by the Officer on the Special Judge by letter dated 16 January, 1967 might be treated as cancelled.On 21 March, 1968 the appellants made en application before the Additional Special Judge, Jaipur that the Commanding Officer acted illegally and without jurisdiction in cancelling the earlier notice dated 16 January, 1967 and the Commanding Officer should have made a reference to the Chief of the Army Staff.The appellants prayed that they might be handed over to the Commanding Officer in terms of the letter dated 17 January, 1967 issued by the Commanding Officer asking the Special Judge to deliver the appellants to the Army authorities.On 5 April, 1968 the Additional Special Judge held that the Officer Commanding revised his discretion and intimated by letter dated 28 January, 1967 that the earlier notice dated 16 January, 1967 issued under Rule 5 requiring delivery of the appellants to the Army authorities for trial by Court Martial was cancelled and therefore the Special Judge would try the case and not deliver the appellants to the army authorities.The appellants thereafter made an application to the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 435 read with Section 561-A of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings before the Additional Special Judge and for directing the Special Judge to hand over the appellants to be tried by Court Martial.The High Court by order dated 9 September, 1968 dismissed the revision application and directed the Special Judge, Rajasthan to conduct the trial expeditiously, because sufficient time had elapsed since the submission of the charge-sheet by the Special Police Establishment Branch, Jaipur.9. Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the order of the High Court was wrong for 3 reasons: First, that the Special Judge having issued a notice on 12 January, 1967 under Rule 4 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 to the Officer Commanding and having received a reply dated 16 January, 1967 from the Officer, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with an application of the State made on 17 January, 1967 and pass an order on 17 January, 1967 on the stay application that the Commanding Officer should make a reference to the Central Government.The case was numbered 4/66/Spl.The appeal therefore fails and dismissed.

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

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

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J] Petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Kamalakannan S/o.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.2774/2017457 and 380 IPC2.S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Crime No.1843/2017454 and 380 IPC3.S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.34/2018457 and 380 IPC4.S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.39/2018457 and 380 IPC5.S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.40/2018457 and 380 IPC6.S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.41/2018457 and 380 IPCThe alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.47 of 2018 on the file of S-14 Selaiyur Police Station for offences under sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.The detaining authority has informed that the relatives of the detenu were taking efforts to move application to take him out on bail in adverse cases registered on the file of S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station and therefore, there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail and if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Though the detaining authority has informed of an effort by the relatives to move bail petition for the release of the detenu, there is no material to support such contention.The detaining authority has also informed that it was very likely of detenu coming out on bail in Crime Nos.1843/2017 and 47/2018 on the file of S-15 Selaiyur Police Station by offering sufficient sureties.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and also perused the records.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Kamalakannan S/o.Varadha Gounder, made in No.99/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 21.02.2018, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

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

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

The case of prosecution is that P.W.1 Anjalatchi is the wife of the deceased Sarangan.Deceased was an agricultural coolie.The accused persons belong to Koonichampet, Puducherry within the limits of Thirukkanur Police Station.On 10.03.2005, at about 05.00 a.m., P.W.4 Rajamani, took the deceased Sarangan to Koonichampet along with P.W.2 Subramanian and some others for sugarcane cutting work.On 10.03.2005 at about 08.00 p.m., near the arrack shop at Koonichampet, first accused Arumugam way-laid the deceased Sarangan, and fisted his face, and the second accused Velu@Punithavelu fisted his stomach and both the accused kicked him as deceased did not return a cycle belonging to first accused Arumugam.When P.W.2 intervened, both accused fisted P.W.2 on his back, and also kicked the deceased Sarangan on his private parts.Deceased sustained bleeding injury, fell down and became unconscious.Both accused ran away.They slept.The next morning i.e. 11.03.2005, P.W.7 Saravanan and one Raja gave deceased hot water fermentation.Both P.W.4 and P.W.1 took the deceased Sarangan to P.W.9, Doctor, who gave him first aid at 01.00 p.m. and required to go to Villupuram General Hospital.They took the deceased Sarangan to his house.As his condition deteriorated P.W.1 took him to JIPMER hospital on the sameday.P.W.12, Duty Doctor, admitted the deceased Sarangan in the emergency ward for treatment at around 10.00 p.m. P.W.1 informed P.W.12 that deceased fell down from a coconut tree of 20 feet height and sustained injury on his stomach and private parts.Sarangan died, despite treatment on 14.03.2005, at around 12.30 a.m.Printed FIR is Ex.Then P.W.11 seized blood-stained shirt M.O.1 which was handed over by one Nagappan, under Ex.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch Ex.P.12, observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and crime details form Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.3 Kamalkannan and one Srinivasan.At 08.45 p.m., he obtained intimation Ex.P.11 from P.W.12, Doctor of the JIPMER O.P. Police Station.On 14.03.2005 at about 07.00 a.m, P.W.2 Subramanian came to the Thirukkanur Police Station and informed about the incident and his sustaining injury therein.PW-11 recorded his statement, sent him to Mannadipet Hospital for treatment.P.W.2's wound certificate is Ex.He received information from JIPMER O.P.Police Station at 08.50 a.m, that at about 12.30 a.m, the deceased Sarangan expired.He handed over the case file to Inspector of Police P.W.14 for further investigation.P.W.14, Inspector of Police altered FIR to reflect sections 341, 304, 323 r/w.34 of IPC, vide alteration report Ex.P.12, obtained death intimation Ex.P.14 from JIPMER Hospital, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 12.00 hours and 16.00 hours in the presence of panchayatdars, witnesses Subramani and Seetharaman and 3 others and prepared inquest report Ex.2.A midline sutured wound extending from the xiphisternum downwards was situated in the abdomen.On cutting open the sutures it was found to be 21.8 cms in length and was peritoneum deep.9. Head (Scalp, skull brain, meninges and blood vessels) (Brain : M:1400 gms / F : 1275 gms) : Scalp and skull - Normal.Brain and meninges  congested.The pericardium was unremarkable.The heart weighed 310 gms.All the three coronaries showed varying degrees of atherosclerosis and were partly patent.Examination of the valves, orifices and chambers of the heart did not reveal any pathology.The myocardium was unremarkable.a) Abdominal Wall - A midline sutured wound extending from the xiphisternum downwards was situated in the abdomen.On cutting open the sutures it was found to be 21.8 cms in length and was peritoneum deep.b) Peritoneum - Contained purulent exudate forming a coating of the serosal surfaces of the various abdominal organs.c) Stomach and contents - Stomach contained 10 ml of dark greenish fluid with no particular odour; Mucosa  Congested.Small Intestine : 57 cms proximal to the ileo-colic junction, there was a surgical anastomosis of the small intestine, of the end to end type.The mesentery showed a sutured 3.7 cms in length.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T These appeals arise against the judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry passed in S.C.No.44/2005 dated 29.01.2008, convicting appellants/accused for offences under sections 304 part II & 323 r/w 34 of IPC and sentencing each of the accused to undergo 5 years R.I and fine of Rs. 500/- i/d 3 months R.I.3. P.W.1 Anjalatchi went to Thirukkanur Police Station on 13.03.2005, at about 03.00 p.m. and gave an oral complaint.P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.59/2005 on the file of the respondent Police u/s 341, 325, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.The body was sent for postmortem examination.After post-mortem the body was handed over to relatives of the deceased.P.5 is the Post-Mortem Report dated 14.03.2005 issued by JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, which reads thus:Dead body of a male.No clothes were seen present on the body.Rigor mortis was present in the neck and upper limbs only.Conjunctiva  Pale.Tongue was behind the jaws.Teeth  Normal.Moustache and beard  0.3 cms.Axillary hair and pubic hair  Shaved.All natural orifices  normal.The dead body was kept in the cold storage room prior to autopsy.Injuries (Antemortem) : The following recent, therapeutic injuries were observed:-1.A sutured wound, transversely situated in the mid-axillary plane of the right 5th intercostal space.On cutting open the sutures it was found to be 3.1 cms in length and was pleura deep, incised wound.One part of the left ventricle (myocardium) was sent to the Dept. of Pathology, JIPMER for histopathological examination.Opinion regarding the cause of death:OPINION RESERVED PENDING THE RECEIPT OF CHEMICAL EXAMINER'S REPORT AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION REPORT.' PW-14 arrested the accused Arumugam and Velu on 15.03.2005 and sent them to Court for remand.P.W.14, Inspector of Police examined Dr.Vimalakaran, who treated P.W.2, Subramanian and issued Wound Certificate Ex.He examined other witnesses and recorded their statements on different dates, and after completion of investigation, on 06.06.2005, he laid charge sheet against the accused persons for offences u/s.341, 304-II, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate I, Puducherry.On committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.44 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 15 exhibits and 1 material object.No witnesses were examined on the side of defence and no exhibits were marked.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 29.01.2008, convicted appellants/accused for offences under section 304 part II & 323 r/w 34 of IPC.There against, these appeals are filed.Heard learned counsels for appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.On consideration of rival submissions and perusal of records, this Court finds that Ex.P.7, Final Opinion Report on the death of the deceased, informed the same as owing to septicaemia following blunt trauma to the abdomen with resulting injury to the small intestine with post-operative myocardial infarction.Even if the prosecution case of injuries having been caused by these appellants to the deceased is to be accepted, for the purpose of appreciation, it is seen that death has been occasioned not owing thereto but owing to septicaemia.No offence under Section 304(2) IPC is made out.The prosecution is left with the evidence of P.W.2 injured witness.The conviction for findings under Section 323 when the accused have also been convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that in cross examination, P.W.2, the person allegedly suffered injury at the hands of the appellant have stated that his wife was taken to the Police Station and beaten towards obtaining information on his whereabouts and he had gone to the Police Station and stated that he knew nothing about the occurrence and that the deceased had suffered injury upon falling from a coconut tree.P.9 Wound Certificate of P.W.2 though informs he has not suffered any assault at the hands of two known persons viz., appellants herein, it also reveals that on 10.03.2005 at 08:00 p.m., P.W.2 went to the hospital only on 14.03.2005 at 08:45 a.m.According to P.W.12, Ex.P.14 issued by the JIPMER Hospital informs that the deceased in the case died on 14.03.2005 at 12:30 a.m. Thus, it is only after the death, P.W.2 has been sent to hospital on 14.03.2005 at about 07:00 a.m. and the alleged recording of the FIR i.e Ex.P.8 at 15:00 hours on 13.03.2005 is most suspect, particularly, since the same has reached the Magistrate only on 14.03.2005 at 05:00 p.m. The prosecution case bristles with several infirmities.These Criminal Appeals are allowed.The judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry passed in S.C.No.44/2005 dated 29.01.2008 is set aside.Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.

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

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

Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

"It is not a rarest of the rare case inviting imposition of capital punishment.I therefore CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 1 of 26 sentence the convict to undergo life imprisonment U/s 364-A IPC and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.He will undergo simple imprisonment for six months in case of default of payment of fine.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 1 of 26I further sentence the convict to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment U/s 392 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.He will undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in case of default of payment of fine.I further sentence the convict to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment U/s 394 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.He will undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in case of default of payment of fine.(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2012 Sumil went to Bhagwati Hospital in Santro Car bearing no.TN-24A-9373 along with his wife Pooja, mother in law Shakuntala Devi and daughters Naina and Neha.(ii) That the car was left in a running condition and Sumil proceeded to take medicines from the chemist and the rest of the family members were CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 2 of 26 sitting in the car.Abruptly, a boy arrived on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SBG-2570 (black color Karizma) and parked the same at a near distance from the aforesaid Santro Car.The driver of the motorcycle came from the opposite side and pointed out a pistol on Pooja and asked her to get down from the Car and consequently sat down on the driver seat and drove the car along with his mother in law and daughters namely Neha and Naina.Therefore, on the following circumstances, she raised an alarm and after sometime information was also received by the police.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 2 of 26At about 11.13pm in-charge of Libra-73, informed the district control room and as well as the PCR Delhi, that one lady along with her child have jumped from the Santro Car at Sai Baba Chowk and are taken to the BSA hospital.(iv) Later on, at about 12.09am it was informed by Sh.Sumit (PW-13) that a Santro Car has been seen near Rithala Metro Station and the occupant of the Santro Car has left one girl namely Naina at Rithala Metro Station.(v) PW-17 Jagmal on receipt of DD No.58B reached the main gate of the Bhagwati Hospital, Sector 13, Rohini and met Pooja and recorded her statement Ex.PW-1/A. Further the statement of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (PW-21) was also recorded by the IO, on which she stated that on 08.09.2012 she along with her son namely Sumil and daughter in law namely Pooja and grand-daughters namely Naina and Neha were at Bhagwat Hospital for purchasing medicines.Following to which the CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 3 of 26 accused pointed out a firearm and asked my daughter in law to get down from the Car and consequently sat down on the driver seat and drove off the car.Later on, the accused demanded money and PW-21 insisted on giving him, her gold chain and mala but he refused to take the following articles.Thereafter, the accused pushed her along with her grand-daughter Neha from the car and consequently they became unconscious.Based on the statement recorded of PW-1(Pooja) and PW- 21(Shakuntala Devi), FIR was registered under Sections 186/307/365/392/394 IPC.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 3 of 26(vi) During the course of the investigation the police contacted Upen Tilanga (PW-14) whose mobile number (9717858106) was used for making the ransom call, consequent to which he informed that on 08.09.2012 at 11.45pm he was taking his dog outside for a walk and subsequently a person approached him and told him that a small girl is sitting inside the car and the following girl wants to talk with her father.Accordingly, he handed over his mobile phone to the accused to talk with the father of the missing girl.Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in relying on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-21 because they are closely related to each other and are categorized as interested witnesses, hence their evidence cannot be exclusively relied on as trustworthy and reliable because there is very strong possibility of the prosecution witnesses being tutored and influenced.Learned counsel further contended that the statements of PW-3(Ct. Ajay) CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 5 of 26 and PW-4 (Ct. Haider) are not reliable and are not trustworthy as it is highly improbable that the appellant reversed the car in a narrow gali with punctured tyres and PW-3 & PW-4 failed to follow the appellant despite of having a motorcycle.Learned counsel further contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in relying on the testimony of PW-14, Upen Tilanga in relation to the demand of ransom, as no call detail records have been produced by the prosecution.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 5 of 26Ms. Pooja, wife of the complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that:"On 08.09.2012 I along with my husband Sumil, mother-in-law Shakuntala, my daughters Naina and Neha at about 10.15 PM went to Bhagwati CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 7 of 26 Hospital to purchase the medicine in our Santro car No.TN24A9373 black color.My husband stopped the car outside the hospital and ignition of the car was on and he went to buy the medicines and myself, my daughters and mother-in-law remained seated in the car.In the meanwhile, one young boy came on motorcycle No. DL4SBG2570 Karizma black color and stopped his motorcycle at a little distance from our car.After parking his motorcycle that boy came near to our car and from the driver side he aimed at me pistol and threatened me to get down from the car on the point of pistol.That boy sat on the driver seat of the car.I immediately got down from seat next to the driver seat of the car and started removing my daughters and my mother-in-law from the rear seat of the car.Before that I could alight my daughters and mother in law from the car, that boy drove away the car with my daughters and mother in law.At the time when he was taking round of my car at that point of time he was wearing a helmet.When he had entered inside the car he was wearing helmet.He remained inside the car for around one minute and thereafter I had alighted from my car.When I was trying to get my kids and mother in law out accused went away with my car along with my kids and my mother in law."Other significant prosecution witnesses are Ct.Ajay (PW-3) and Ct.Haider (PW-4), from Police Station - Aman Vihar.Both the witnesses who were on the night patrolling duty on the intervening night of 08/09.09.2012 testified the presence of appellant in the aforesaid Santro car on the date of the incident.PW-3 Ct.Ajay during his examination in chief deposed as under: -"On the intervening night of 08/09.09.2012, I was posted at PS Aman Vihar and was on night patrolling duty and was present in the area in patrolling.On wireless set message was received to the effect that from the area of PS Prashant Vihar Santro black color car No DL 24A 9393 has been looted and in the car women and children were kidnapped.On this I along with Ct.Haider started patrolling and checking in the area.During patrolling we had seen in one gali of Sharma colony Aman Vihar, the aforesaid Santro car parked.We immediately rushed there then the CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 11 of 26 driver of the car immediately started the Santro car and on its ignition.I along with Ct.Haider tried to stop the Santro car and when driver did not stop the car Ct.Haider had hit the front windshield glass of the car with the danda and the glass was broken down.I also moved towards the conductor side of the car and hit the left window pan of the door of the car with my pistol and tried to stop the car.Besides this driver of the car did not stop and attempted to run over the car over us and to hit us with the car.I fired on the left side tyre of the Santro car with my service pistol.On this driver of the car immediately back the car in a fast speed and then I came to the front side of the car and fired.But driver of the car backed the car fastly and made to run away from there.Both left side tyres of the car started flatting (air started coming out).We chased the Santro car and the driver but we could not met us.I had fired and used four cartridges of service pistol in order to stop the accused and to save ourselves, on the Santro.I had produced the empty four rounds to SI Arvind Kumar, PS Prashant Vihar."CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 11 of 26PW-4 Ct.Haider during his examination in chief deposed as under: -"On the intervening night of 08/09.09.2012, I was posted at PS Aman Vihar and was on night patrolling duty and was present in the area in patrolling.On wireless set message was received to the effect that from the area of PS Prashant Vihar Santro black colour car No. DL 24 A 9393 has been looted and in the car women and children were kidnapped.On this I alongwith Ct.Ajay started patrolling and checking in the area.During patrolling we had seen in one gali of Sharma Colony Aman Vihar, the aforesaid Santro car parked.We immediately rushed there then the CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 12 of 26 driver of the car immediately started the Santro car and on its ignition.I alongwith Ct.Ajay tried to stop the Santro car and when driver did not stop the car I had hit the front windshield glass of the car with the danda which was carried by me and the glass was broken down.Ajay also moved towards the conductor side of the car and hit the left window pan of the door of the car with my pistol and tried to stop the car.Besides the driver of the car did not stop and attempted to run over the car over us and to hit us with the car.Ajay fired on the left side tyre of the Santro car with my service pistol.On this driver of the car immediately back the car in a fast speed and then Ct.Ajay came to the front side of the car and fired.But driver of the car backed the car fastly and made to run away from there.Both left side tyres of the car started flatting (air started coming out).From the perusal of their testimonies, we find that on the intervening night of 08/09.09.2012, Ct.Ajay (PW-3) and Ct.Haider (PW-4), were on the night patrolling duty and on noticing the alleged Santro car as described in wireless message received from the control room of Delhi Police, they both rushed towards the car.Consequently, on arriving at the spot, the driver of the car started the ignition of the car and attempted to run over and hit Ct.Ajay (PW-3) and Ct.Haider (PW-4).Accordingly, on the following circumstances both the police officials endeavored every segment of their resources to stop the Santro car with hitting the front windshield glass with a Danda and firing four live cartridges from CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 13 of 26 their service pistol.The statement of both the police officials i.e. Ct.The aforesaid testimony of the both prosecution witnesses also finds support from the testimony of PW-7 Ct. Jagroop and PW-10 Ct.Hansraj (member of the crime team) who have deposed that when they had arrived at the alleged spot, one Santro car was found in a damaged condition.The front left side glass of the car was broken and bullet marks were present on the bonnet of the car.Demand of RansomAs per prosecution the appellant had borrowed the phone of PW-14, Upen Tilenga on the pretext of making an urgent call to PW-2, Sumil Kumar father of the missing girl who was sitting in his car but instead, demanded ransom in lieu of safe custody of his daughter.PW-14 Upen Tilenga during his examination in chief deposed as under: -CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 14 of 26"Probably on 05 or 08th September, 2012, at about 11:45PM, I was taking doggy for a walk outside our society, accused Gulshan present in the court today (correctly identified) came to me in Santro car.A small girl was also sitting in that car.Accused Gulshan told me that the small girl sitting in the car is the missing girl and that he wanted my mobile phone to talk to the father of that girl.Accordingly, I handed over my mobile phone to him to talk to father of that missing girl.Accused Gulshan talked on my telephone to somebody but I could not listen to the conversation as accused was talking in low tone.After talking on my telephone, he returned my mobile phone.The accused had talked on my mobile phone having sim number 9717858106 which is in the name of elder son of Sh.Surender Sharma namely Pulkit Sharma."PW-2 Sumil Kumar, during his examination in chief deposed as under: -"At about 11.45 pm on my mobile phone no. 8587021012 I received phone call from mobile No. 9717858106 and the caller was demanding Rs. 20 Lacs for the release of my elder daughter Naina, aged- 7 years.My statement was recorded by the police.The aforesaid number is in my name of Vodafone.I am still using the said mobile number.Later on, I had seen the accused, present in court, correctly identified, in the custody of the police after his arrest."PW-13, Sumit, during his examination in chief deposed as under: -"On 08.09.2012, at about 11:45pm after dropping my friend Vinod at Kamla nagar, I was going to my house.0816759TP00000122) who was previously arrested/convicted in cases whose details are given in annexure 'A'."The aforesaid Fingerprint Analysis report has been proved on record by (PW-24) ACP Rajender Kumar Vajpayi, Director, FPB, Delhi as Ex.The relevant portion from his statement recorded on 17.03.2016 read as under: -"I am working as Director of Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Market, PS Kamla Market.PW24/A4 (OSR) bearing my signature at Point C".CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 18 of 26Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed against the impugned judgment dated 02.06.2016 and order on sentence dated 01.07.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-03/North/Rohini Courts in FIR No. 356/2012, registered under Sections 365/392/394/307/186/364-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) at PS, Prashant Vihar whereby the Learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty and has sentenced him as follows:I further sentence the convict to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment U/s 397 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.He will undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in case of default of payment of fine.I also sentence the convict to undergo one- year rigorous imprisonment U/s 27 Arms Act and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.(vii) Thereafter on 09.09.2012 DD No.13-A was registered on receipt of the information that the accused Gulshan @ Sandeep @ Monu s/o Sh.Bhim Sen was arrested in a separate FIR No. 265/2012 registered under Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Aman Vihar and has confessed about the subsequent crime and the accused will be produced in Rohini Court Complex.Charges were framed under Sections 365/392/394/397/364A/186 of the Indian Penal Code, alternatively under Section 27 of the Arms Act.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 4 of 26To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 24 witnesses in all.Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.The appellant chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.Mr. Amit Sharma learned counsel for the appellant, opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 02.06.2016 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law, that the learned Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidences and has disregarded the cogent evidences in favor of the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that learned trial court failed to take note of the fact that PW-1 and PW-21 both deposed in their initial statements that the accused was wearing a helmet and has overlooked the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence as to how the accused has been positively identified as the actual perpetrator of the crime.Learned counsel for the appellant labored hard that the prosecution has intentionally planted the chance prints in the Santro Car and the comparison of the chance prints with the electronic retrieved prints of the appellants were not admissible as the same was not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. To substantiate his arguments on this point, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Mohd. Aman and Another V. State of Rajasthan reported in (1997) 10 SCC 44Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the statements of prosecution witnesses i.e PW-1, PW-21, PW-3, PW-4 and scientific evidence are corroborative in nature and the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 6 of 269. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the crime team inspected the alleged Santro car at Indra enclave, Aman Vihar on 09.09.2012 and lifted 3 chance prints which were forwarded to the Finger Print Bureau and one of the Chance Prints Q-2 was matched with the thumb impression of the appellant which evidently proves the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the alleged crime.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the entire material placed on record including the record of the Trial Court.Identification of the AccusedIn order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimonies of material witnesses of the prosecution, more particularly the testimonies of PW-1, Pooja, PW- 2, Mr. Sumil Kumar and PW-21, Shakuntala Devi, who have identified the appellant.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 7 of 26Smt. Shakuntala Devi, mother of the complainant was examined as PW-21 who deposed that:"On 08.09.2012 I along with my son Sumil and daughter in law Pooja and grand-daughters namely Naina and Neha went to Bhagwati Hospital to purchase the medicine from shop of Bhagwati Hospital at about 10 PM in Santro Car.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 8 of 26My son stopped the Santro Car outside the hospital as ignition of the car was on and my son went to purchase the medicines at the shop of Bhagwati Hospital.I along with my daughter in law and granddaughter was sitting in the Santro Car but I do not remember its registration car.My daughter in law got down from the Santro Car.One person came there and opened the door of the driver side and the person had taken out the firearm and shown to my daughter in law who was sitting on the seat of driver and asked my daughter in law but I cannot tell whether it was a pistol or revolver.The person sat on the driver seat and he raised the speed of the Santro Car and he ran away along with the car and that person asked me to give the money.I told that person that I had no money (currency notes).I asked that person that I was having a mala and gold chain and requested him to give the said articles but he refused.Thereafter, accused pushed me from the car.I along with my grand-daughter Neha had fell down from the car and accused ran away from their along with my grand-daughter Naina in car.I became unconscious when I regained my consciousness I found that myself in the hospital."Mr. Sumil Kumar, husband of the complainant during his cross examination has deposed as under: -"It is wrong to suggest that I have concocted a false story of ransom call at the instance of police official.My wife had told that accused was wearing helmet but his face was very much visible as it was not a full helmet."CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 9 of 26A conjoint reading of the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is evidently established that the appellant pointed out a pistol on PW-1 and threatened her to get down from the car and consequently drove away the car making the occupant of the car i.e. PW-21 Shakuntala Devi and two girls namely baby Neha and baby Naina as hostages.As far as the stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant that PW-1 and PW-21 are interested witnesses and closely related to each other, a survey of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case.Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased.In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.(Ref: Anil Rai Vs.State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. Vs.Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr.State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari & Ors.State of U. P., (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju@Balachandran & Ors.State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701; Ganga bhavani Vs.Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan Vs.State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52).CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 10 of 26In the present case nothing has brought on record to prove that the evidence of PW-1 & PW-21 cannot be believed and they have falsely implicated the appellant due to some personal vengeance or have been implicated in the present case at the instance of the prosecution.Therefore, aforesaid testimonies cannot be rejected on the mere ground of their relationship because the relationship by itself is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence of the witnesses and specify it as inappropriate for credence and hence the argument of the counsel for the appellant with regard to interested witness hold no ground.We chased the Santro car and the driver but we could not met us."CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 12 of 26Ajay (PW-3) and Ct.Haider (PW-4) were corroborative and natural.They also withhold the test of cross-examination except minor discrepancies.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 13 of 26The testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses find support from scientific evidence as three chance prints were lifted from the alleged vehicle and mark Q-2 was matched with the right thumb of the accused Gulshan @ Sandeep @ Monu.The bullet marks found on the bonnet of the car correlates with the scientific evidence and confirms that the alleged Santro car was stolen and used by the appellant and he was involved in the commission of the crime.From the perusal of the aforesaid statements, it is clear that the appellant borrowed the mobile phone bearing no. 9717858106 from PW-14 on a false pretext and executed the ransom call on the mobile number 8587021012 of PW-2, Sumil Kumar.PW-2 Sumil CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 15 of 26 Kumar has also corroborated with the aforesaid statement of PW-14 by deposing that around 11.45 p.m., he received a phone call on his mobile number 8587021012 and the caller was demanding Rs. 20 lacs for the release of his elder daughter Naina.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 15 of 26Accordingly, from the testimony of PW-2 Sumil Kumar and PW-14, Upen Tilenga, it stood established that it was the appellant who made the ransom call from the mobile number (9717858106) of PW-14 Upen Tilenga to the mobile number (8587021012) which belonged to PW-2, Sumil Kumar.Moreover, the story of the prosecution that one girl child was sitting in the car also finds support from the testimony of the PW-14 and the testimony of another independent witness being PW-13 Sumit.When I reached near the Rithala Metro Station, an unknown person stopped me and told me that a person had dropped a girl aged about 6- 7 years from his vehicle there and thereafter, that the person who was on the vehicle went away.I informed the police about that girl on the nearby police booth.After some time, PCR reached there and took that girl in the PCR vehicle."From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the view that the failure of the prosecution to bring on record the call detail record of the mobile phone of the prosecution witnesses should not lead to an adverse inference.The prosecution has been able to establish the commission of the offence in question by the appellant CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 16 of 26 beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt based on the other evidence produced on record.Therefore, the failure of the prosecution in not leading evidence with regard to the location chart of the mobile phone of the prosecution witnesses loses its significance and in the face of other evidence brought on record, the failure of the prosecution in bringing on record the call detail record and the location chart, cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 16 of 26Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has intentionally planted the chance prints in the Santro Car and the comparison of the chance prints with electronic retrieved records prints of the appellant were not admissible as the same was not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. In this context, we find from the record that crime team inspected the alleged Santro car at Indra enclave, Aman Vihar on 09.09.2012 and lifted 3 chance prints which were forwarded to the Finger Print Bureau and one of the Chance Prints Q-2 was matched with the thumb impression of the appellant, who had been previously convicted in FIR No.394/04 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, U/s 482/471 of the Indian Penal Code.The Fingerprint Analysis report was concluded with the following datum: -"Sub- Information regarding reprocessing of Un- Identified Chance Prints in Case DD No. 58B, dated 08/09/12, PS Prashant Vihar, Distt.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 17 of 26MEMO I want to inform you that during reprocessing of Un-Identified Chance prints available in the data-base of AFPIS on the upgraded application of matcher put on trial, the Un-Identified chance print marked Q2 (PIN-0817431LP00000039) is found IDENTICAL with Right Thumb impression of Gulshan @ Monu S/o Bhim Sen R/o P-52, Chhankey Palace, New Delhi (PIN-The chance prints Mark Q1, Q2 and Q3 were received in our office which were sent by Crime Mobile Team of outer district whose finger print proficient lifted the said chance print from vehicle.As per record available in Automatic Finger Print Identification System and data of convicted and arrested persons, the chance print Mark Q2 was found identical with the right thumb of accused Gulshan @ Monu s/o Sh.Bhim Sen who was previously arrested in case FIR No. 63 dated 07.03.2011 u/s 379/411 IPC PS Sarojini Nagar.The said accused was arrested in other cases also and convicted in case FIR No.394/2004 u/s 482/471 IPC PS R.K. Puram convicted by Ld. MM Ms. Namita Aggarwal, Saket CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 18 of 26 Courts, Delhi.The detail report of chance print matching is prepared by Inspector Shiv Raj Singh who signature at Point A which was checked by Inspector A.P. Verma who signature at point B. The detail report of chance print matching was prepared under my supervision.I can identify the writing and signature of Inspector Shiv Raj Singh and Inspector A.P. Verma who are working as Finger Print Experts in Finger Print Bureau at PS Kamla Market.The detail report of chance print matching Ex.PW24/A1 to Ex.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 21 of 26Burden of ProofFrom the above discussion and the scientific evidence produced on record, it is clear that the chance prints were lifted from the alleged Santro Car and they were matched with the right thumb of accused.Further, the testimonies of the witnesses are also corroborated with the scientific evidence on record as the chance prints lifted from the alleged vehicle matched with the right thumb of the accused Gulshan @ Sandeep @ Monu which were retrieved from the electronic records maintained by the Police Department.Further, the bullet marks found on the bonnet of the car correlates with the scientific evidence and confirms that the alleged Santro car was used by the appellant in forcefully confining and kidnapping the victims and have been spotted by the prosecution witnesses at relevant time.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 25 of 26A copy of this order be also sent the Superintendent Jail, Tihar Jail.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J January 17 , 2019 gr// CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 26 of 26CRL.A. 834/2016 Page 26 of 26

['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 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 2nd accused hails fromSrilanka, where LTTE was operating.One Mr.Kannan, who is absconding, is also a Srilankan National.According to the final report, the 2nd accusedand Mr.Kannan had conspired to help the LTTE operating in Srilanka.Subsequently, there was yet another conspiracy between the accused 1 to 3 tosupply raw materials to the LTTE in Srilanka for manufacturing explosives forunlawful activities.According to the respondent, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, on19.03.2008 the second accused purchased chemicals known as, Acetone, Glycerine, Formaldehyde and Di-phenylamine from P.W.15, who was then doing chemical business under the name and style of Mega Chemicals at Laxman Rao Road, Bangalore.The purchased chemicals were filled in sixteen plastic cans(14 black colour cans and 2 white colour cans).The 2nd accused, thereafter,wanted to transport the same safely to Madurai, so as to smuggle the same toSrilanka to supply to the LTTE.For that purpose, he approached the TVSParcel Service in Bangalore and booked the said consignment of 16 numbers ofcans with TVS Parcel Service for transport to Madurai.A sum of Rs.780/- waspaid by A2 for the said purpose.The person to whom the goods were to bedelivered at Madurai was the third accused.Accordingly, the above 16 canscontaining the chemicals were transported in TVS Parcel Service to Madurai.P.W.13 was then a Clerk working in the TVS Parcel service office at Madurai,Chockalinga Nagar.Pandi is a resident of Samathuvapuram at Sakkimangalam.The third accused is closely related to him.On 07.04.2008, according to him, these accused 1and 3 had brought the plastic cans containing some chemicals and unloaded the same from the van in front of his house.When P.W.6 enquired them as to whatwas contained in the cans, the accused 1 and 3 told him that it was soapoil.Believing their words, he allowed the same to be kept in front of hishouse.But he did not allow them to keep the same inside his house.On 08.04.2008, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.1, the then Sub Inspectorof Police, Q Branch Police Station, Madurai, along with fellow policemen, hadgone to Sakkimangalam Village in connection with some other work.14 cans werewhite in colour and two were black in colour.When he opened the same, hefound that there were chemicals in all the 16 cans.The first accused wassitting somewhere near the cans.On seeing the police, the first accusedattempted to run away.P.W.1, with the help of the other policemen, managedto catch him hold.When enquired, the first accused gave contradictorystatements about the cans and their contents.In the saidstatement, P.W.1 disclosed that the contents are chemicals for manufacture ofexplosives.Then, P.W.1 took sample from the above liquid measuring 250milli litres and he took 20 grams of powder as sample.P1 is thedisclosure statement made; Ex.P2 is the mahazar for the recovery of the abovecontraband and Ex.P3 is the special report submitted by P.W.1 to theInspector.Then, he arrested the first accused.He forwardedthe FIR and Ex.P3 to the Court and took up the case for investigation.Then,he forwarded the contraband to the Court and forwarded the first accused forjudicial remand.On the confession of the first accused, he came to knowabout the involvement of the other accused.On 02.06.2008, at 8.00 a.m., he arrested the 2nd accused EdwardJeyakumar in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Shanmugam and another Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Sangu (P.W.3).He recovered from him acell phone and a Loyola College Identity Card and also a family card.Then,he brought the 2nd accused to the police station and after completing thelegal formalities, he forwarded him to the Court for judicial remand. On12.06.2008 at 11.00 a.m., he arrested the third accused at MaduraiArappalayam in the presence of a Head Constable and a Grade-I Constable.From him, he recovered a Nokia cell phone and a family card.The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.334 of 2010 on thefile of the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.IlangaiNathan @ Nathan @ Rajan @ Chindu @ Ilango @ Sivalingam is the third accused in the case.On the police report filed by the respondent herein, the trial Courtframed as many as 6 charges in the case.Charge Accused Penal Provisions1A2 Section 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120(B) IPC2A2 Section 10(a)(iv) and 10(b)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the UnlawfulActivities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 120(B) IPC3A3 under Sections 10(a) (iv) and 10(b)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 120(B) IPC4A3 Section 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120(B) IPC5A1 Sections 10(a)(iv) and 10(b)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the UnlawfulActivities (Prevention) Act, 19676A1 Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 5(a) and 5(b) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908,read with Section 120(B) IPCBy judgment, dated 04.03.2015, the trial Court found the accusedguilty under all the charges and accordingly, punished them as detailedhereunder:Accused Conviction under SectionSentence imposed A1 Sections 5(a) read with Section 4(b) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 monthsSection 10(b)(ii) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months120(B) IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 monthsA2 6 read with Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six monthsSection 10(b)(ii) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months120(B) IPC read with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and theExplosives Substances Act, 1908 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six monthsA3 6 read with Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six monthsSection 10(b)(ii) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months120(B) IPC read with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and theExplosives Substances Act, 1908 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six monthsChallenging the same, the appellants have come up with this appeal.The thirdaccused appears to have not filed any appeal and he is undergoing thesentence.The firstaccused thereafter engaged a van bearing Registration No.TN 59 B 0811 atMadurai belonging to P.W.9 for hire.The third accused was also there withthe first accused.They told P.W.9 that the plastic cans contained soapoil.They paid a sum of Rs.450/- for hiring the vehicle.Accordingly,the consignment was transported to Sakkimangalam in the said van.P.W.6 - Mr.Thus, he sealed thesamples recovered the same under a Mahazar and took all the cans with the contraband to the police station.At the police station, he produced thefirst accused to the Inspector of Police along with a report.Then, heforwarded the third accused and the collected records to the Court.Thethird accused was remanded to judicial custody.Then, he made a request tothe Court for sending the samples taken from the contraband for examinationand accordingly, it was sent.The chemical Analyst gave report stating that the contrabands wereAcetone, Glycerine, Formaldehyde and Di-phenyl-amine.These materials are the raw materials for manufacturing explosives.He laid charge sheet againstthe accused finally.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framedcharges as stated above.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, asmany as 28 witnesses were examined and 29 documents were exhibited, besides 10 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 ? Mr.Sivakumar, theSub Inspector of Police, has spoken inter alia that on 08.04.2008 at 03.00p.m., he found the first accused in possession of the above 16 plastic canscontaining raw materials for manufacturing explosives substances.P.W.2 ?Mr.Kannan was then working as a Sub Inspector of Police at Q Branch Police Station at Madurai.He had accompanied P.W.1 at the time when P.W.1 seized the contraband.He has spoken to the said facts in a vivid fashion.P.W.3 ?Mr.Sangu is yet another Sub Inspector of Police attached to Q Branch PoliceStation.He is also said to have accompanied P.W.1, at the time when P.W.1seized the contraband.He has also vividly spoken about the arrest of A1.P.W.4 has spoken about the observation mahazar prepared at the place of occurrence.P.W.5 was the Village Administrative Officer of MaduraiThondaimanpatti Village.He has spoken about the recovery of the contraband,on 08.04.2008 in front of the house of P.W.6 by the police.P.W.6 ? Mr.Pandiis a relative of the third accused.He has spoken to the fact that 16 canswere brought in a van by the accused 1 and 3 and they were kept in front ofthe house representing that it was soap oil.He has further stated that theywere later on seized by the police.P.W.8 is also a neighbour and he has also spoken to the very same fact.P.W.9 is the Driver of the van bearing registration No.He has identifiedthe first accused, but he has not identified the second accused.P.W.10 is the mother of the first accused, who has turned hostileand she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.Ws.11, 12 and 13 have also turned hostile and they have not stated anythingincriminating against any of the accused.P.W.14 is the then SecurityOfficer working in the TVS Parcel Service at Madurai.He has spoken aboutthe recoveries of the records from the said Office.P.W.15 is the one fromwhom, it is alleged that the accused No.2 had purchased the chemicals.Hehas vividly spoken about the same.P.W.16 ? Manoj Kumar is a relative ofP.W.15, who was also present in the shop at the time when the 2nd accused purchased the chemicals.P.W.17 was then working as a Professor in Loyola College, Chennai.He has stated that the 2nd accused Jeyakumar completed M.Phil Course in Loyola College in the year 2007 and that the identity card -Ex.P.6 was the one issued by the College to him.P.W.19 was also a part time Professor at Loyola College during the relevant period.He hasnot stated anything incriminating against the accused.P.W.20 is theScientific Assistant, who has spoken about the scientific analysis conductedby him on the samples sent to him.He has vividly spoken about the resultsof the chemical analysis.P.W.23 was then working as a Booking Clerk in theTVS Parcel Service in Karnataka.He has vividly stated that 16 cans werebooked for transport to Madurai, but he could not identify the person, whobooked.P.W.24 was the Manager of the District Collector's Office atMadurai.He has spoken about the sanction granted by the District Collectorfor prosecuting the accused.Similarly, P.W.25 has also spoken to the samefact.P.W.26 ? the Head Clerk of the Court has spoken about the forwardingof the samples from the Court to the Forensic Lab for analysis.P.W.27 isyet another Sub Inspector of Police, who accompanied P.W.1 and witnessed the first accused in possession of the contraband.P.W.28 is the InvestigatingOfficer.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused,they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine anywitness on their side.They marked a photograph as Ex.Having consideredall the above, the trial Court convicted them as detailed in the earlierparagraph of this judgment.That is how, these two appellants are beforethis Court with this appeal.The third accused has not preferred any appeal.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr.C.Arulvadivel@ Sekar for Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and I have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the chargesframed in this case were highly misleading, irregular and there were lot ofomissions in the same.Thus, according to the learned counsel, the accusedwere deprived of a fair trial.As a result of which, according to thelearned counsel, there has occurred failure of justice to the accused andtherefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.Next, the learned counsel would submit that the conviction of theaccused for certain offences under few penal provisions are vitiated for wantof charges.He would further submit that when the accused were questioned byaffording opportunity to make their submissions in respect of the sentence tobe imposed, they were informed of certain offences, as though they wereconvicted for offences under those provisions, but while imposing sentence,they were sentenced for different offences under different penal provisions.The vandriver has also not identified the contraband.At the house of P.W.6, it isalleged that 16 cans were unloaded from the van.Under all the charges the Trial Court has included Section 120(B) ofI.P.C. in a very casual manner.In my considered view, the defects in the charges have surelyresulted in failure of justice.I will give my reasons for this conclusion alittle later.Now, turning to the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, thefirst accused has been convicted under Section 5(a) r/w Section 4(b) of theExplosives Substances Act, 1908 ? to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sevenyears and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; under Section 10(b)(ii) of theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ? to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 120(B) ofI.P.C. ? to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fineof Rs.2,000/-.As I have already pointed out, the offence under Section 5(a) and 4(b)are distinct offences.But the Trial Court has convicted him illegally bycombining both as one offence.Thus, the trial Court hascommitted lot of illegalities and irregularities, which have resulted infailure of Justice.In my considered view, I regret to say, the trial Courtwas so indifferent and colours and it had not bestowed its attention at all,while framing the charges, while recording the evidences and while deliveringthe judgment.They were not evenasked to identify the same during the trial.Curiously, they were identifiedand marked only through P.W.28, the Investigating Officer.As it was submittedout by the learned Additional Advocate General, probably there was amistaken impression on the part of the prosecutor that mere marking of amaterial object or a document through a witness would be suffice.It iscommon knowledge that mere marking of a material object through a witness, who has got nothing to do with the material object will not be sufficient atall to prove the relevance or link between the material object, the crime andthe accused.To establish The link between the accused and the contraband, atevery stage, the one, who has some knowledge of The relevance of propertyshould be asked to speak about the same and to identify the same.Theperson, who sold the chemicals at Bangalore should have been asked to identify the cans and the bill issued by him as well as the accused, whopossessed the chemicals.The clerk of TVS Parcel Service, who booked the cans should have been asked to identify the same.The person, who unloadedthe same at Madurai office at TVS Parcel Service should have been asked toidentify the same.The person, who transported the same in his van, shouldhave been asked to identify the same.P.W.6, before whose house, they wereunloaded, should have been asked to identify the same.P.Ws.1 to 9, whofound these cans containing chemicals, should have been asked to identifythe same.(4) The prosecution shall also be at liberty to examine any additionalwitness and the accused shall be entitled to cross examine the saidwitnesses.(5) The accused will be at liberty to recall any witness, who hasalready been examined, if not recalled by the prosecution and the accusedshall be entitled to cross examine the said witnesses.(6) The prosecution will be at liberty to prove any documents ormaterial objects in accordance with law.(7) The trial Court shall question the accused afresh under Section 313Cr.P.C., after the above exercise is over as required under law by affordingsufficient opportunity to the accused.(8) The trial Court shall thereafter pass a detailed judgment inaccordance with law.(9) The trial Court shall conduct the trial on day-to-day basis anddispose of the case within a period of four months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment.1.The 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Q Branch Police Station, Madurai3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 11.07.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.9,26,415/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the respondents/claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 19.02.1996 till realization of the amount.The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company only on the ground that the negligence has not been proved by the claimant, despite, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation.MAC.APP.750/2006 Page 1 of 7The proof of negligence remains the linchpin to recover compensation.While concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that in the present case negligence has not been proved, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.07.2006 be set aside or in the alternative case be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to be decided afresh under Section 163-A of MV Act.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/claimant has submitted that on 18.08.1995 at about 12.45 pm, when Dr. Asha Gupta was going to her residence from her dispensary towards Tri Junction, Ghaziabad, she was hit by a bus bearing No.PAB 3325, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, i.e., respondent No.3, who brought the bus on the extreme edge of the road and struck against Dr.Asha Gupta.On account of forceful impact from behind, she was thrown on the road and her head was crushed under the front wheel of the bus, due to which she died at the spot.It is important to note that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, were proceeded ex parte before the learned MAC.APP.750/2006 Page 3 of 7 Tribunal.Therefore, none has rebutted the accident and negligence on the part of the driver while driving the offending vehicle.MAC.APP.750/2006 Page 3 of 7Learned counsel further submitted that for the offence committed by the respondent No.3, an FIR No.603/95 was registered at P.S. Singhani Gate, Ghaziabad.It is not in dispute that vide judgment dated 30.07.2003, learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.3 only on the ground that the eye witness had not seen the driver as he fled away from the spot after causing the accident.Learned counsel further submitted that the fact remains that accident was caused by the vehicle in question and neither the appellant/Insurance Company nor the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle had rebutted that the vehicle bearing No.PAB3325 was not involved in the accident; and respondent no. 3 was not driving the vehicle on the date and time of the accident.Chatarpal Singh & Ors., 2003 ACJ 369, decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench.Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, a criminal case was lodged against the respondent No.3/driver, who fled away from the spot and the offending vehicle was impounded from the spot itself.The police investigated the case fully and thereafter filed the chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the respondent No.3 and that the respondent No.3 was acquitted only on the ground that eye witness did not support the prosecution case.It is to be bear in mind that the claim petition was decided under Section 166 MV Act where the negligence has to be proved.The claimants have to prove negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in a claim petition MAC.APP.750/2006 Page 5 of 7 filed under Section 166 of MV Act, therefore, I do not agree with the findings given by Ld. Tribunal.MAC.APP.750/2006 Page 5 of 7Be that as it may, criminal case bearing FIR No.603/95 was registered against the respondent No. 3/driver at P.S. Singhani Gate, Ghaziabad.The police investigated the case and thereafter filed the chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the said driver.The claimants have proved both the documents noted above before the learned Tribunal.Acquittal of the driver/respondent No.3 by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide its judgment dated 30.07.2003 would not have any adverse affect on the claim petition for the reason, he was acquitted only on the ground that eye witness had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle as he fled away from the spot.

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

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

The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be.The applicants will not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;Shri Raghuvir Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A.No.4266/2019, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the Public Prosecutor.On due consideration, application is allowed.Shri Raghuvir Singh and his associates are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing.The applicants have been arrested on 31-12-2018 and 28-12- 2018 by Police Station Bhonti, District- Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.305/2018, registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.22975/2019 Applicants are in custody since 31-12-2018 and 28-12-2018 where the allegations of murder and attempt to murder are alleged after forming unlawful assembly with the other co-accused including Laxman Singh Chauhan whose bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was rejected on 08-04-2019 vide M.Cr.C.No.13311/2019 on merits.Three injured persons; Natiraja, Chhoturaja and Mahendra Soni who are said to be assaulted by the other co- accused, has not sustained any grievous injury.Dismissal of application of co-accused Laxman Singh Chauhan is attributed to the overt act of stopping and dragging the deceased from the vehicle so that main co-accused could inflict firearm injury.Thus, looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against co-accused Laxman Singh, his bail application has been rejected.(Sheel Nagu) V.Judge Anil* Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2019.06.11 07:54:54 +05'30'

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) About one year prior to 25.09.2005, the appellant/accused, by giving false promise that he would marry P.W.1/de-facto complainant, had sexual intercourse with her.Even afterwards, he had sexual intercourse with her on the said false promise.But the appellant/accused was evading to marry her.(b) P.W.1 informed her father P.W.2 about the appellant/accused.Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened, which ended in vain.Ex.P-10 is the FIR.(d) Subsequently, P.W.12 went to the place of occurrence and conducted enquiry; she recorded the statement of the witnesses, namely Muthusamy and P.W.8 Abubakkar.P.W.12 drew Ex.P-11 rough sketch.On 26.09.2006, again P.W.12 went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses, namely Devaraj, Subramani and Muthusamy.On 14.11.2006, she examined Dr.Irudhaya, Dr.Jain and Dr.This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.05.2009 in S.C.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Court / Mahila Court, Salem.By the said judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment; he was also convicted for the offence under Section 506 (Part-2) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.The sentences imposed on the appellant/accused were directed to run consecutively.(c) Thereafter, on 23.11.2005, P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 with P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kondalampatti, Salem District.Thereafter, on 23.09.2006, on the basis of the direction of this Court, P.W.1 gave complaint (Ex.P-2) to P.W.12 Inspector of Police, which was registered in Crime No.6 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 417 and 506 (Part-2) IPC.Arjunan and recorded their statements.On 12.01.2007, she sent a requisition to the concerned Magistrate for conducting DNA test on P.W.1, accused and the child.Thereafter, on 10.07.2007, the offences were altered from Sections 417 and 506 (Part-2) IPC to Sections 376, 417 and 506 (Part 2) IPC.On completion of the investigation, P.W.12 filed charge-sheet before the Court against the appellant/accused for the said offences.The case was taken on file by the trial Court and the trial was conducted in S.C.No.40 of 2008 (Crime No.6 of 2006).In order to prove their case, during the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and marked 15 documents.When the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime.He neither examined any witness, nor marked any document.Upon hearing the submissions of either side and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused of the charge under Section 376 IPC as no case was made out and convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him for the offences under Sections 417 and 506 (Part-2) IPC, as stated supra.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed this Criminal Appeal.When the appeal is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that he is mainly arguing the appeal only on the question of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused.The sentences imposed on the appellant for the offences under Sections 506 (Part 2) IPC and 417 IPC, were directed by the trial Court, to run consecutively.He further submitted that the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused on the reasoning that the appellant and his parents threatened P.W.1 and obtained letter from her stating that there is no connection between the child delivered by P.W.1 and the appellant/accused.With regard to the conviction under Section 417 IPC, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the appellant has already been in prison for 83 days and hence, he prayed that considering the age of the appellant, i.e. about 22 years, the sentence imposed under Section 417 IPC may be modified to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that there is sufficient material to show that the appellant, along with his parents, threatened P.W.1, and therefore, he submitted that the reasonings assigned by the trial Court are legally sustainable and the same may not be interfered with by this Court and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.Keeping in mind the above submissions made by learned counsel on either side, I have carefully considered the materials available on record.The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is only with regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 506 (Part-2) IPC.@ /// vd; mg;gh.vjphpapd; tPl;ow;F brd;W vjphpapd; mg;gh.mk;khtplk; nfl;lhh;/ mth;fs; xj;Jf; bfhs;stpy;iy/ Ml;fis itj;J vd; mg;ghita[k;. vd; mz;zida[k; kpul;odhh;fs;/ vd;dplk; kpul;o ifbahg;gk; th';fpf;bfhz;lhh;fs;/ /////@Even the father of P.W.1, i.e. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that only the appellant's relatives came and threatened them.The mother of P.W.1, i.e. P.W.3 has stated in her evidence that the parents of the appellant/accused threatened them.As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, there is no specific evidence available to show that the appellant had threatened P.W.1 and obtained her signature in the letter.Moreover, P.W.5, who is an independent witnesses, has stated in his evidence that at no point of time, P.W.1's family was threatened, but P.W.5's evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court stating that P.W.5 knows the accused and both of them belong to the same village.In my considered opinion, in the absence of any strong and cogent evidence to show that the appellant/accused has criminally intimidated P.W.1 by threatening her, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 506 (Part-2) IPC is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.With regard to the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 417 IPC, I find that the trial Court has imposed the sentence only for a period of one year.Considering the age of the appellant/accused being 22 years, I am of the opinion that at this distant point of time, it would be appropriate to modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 417 IPC to the period already undergone by him.In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the appellant was in prison for 83 days.Considering all these factors, while confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 417 IPC, this Court modifies the sentence to the period already undergone by him.With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed.14.07.2016Index : Yes / noInternet: Yes / nocsCopy toThe Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kondalampatti, Salem District.(Crime No.6 of 2006).R.SUBBIAH,Jcs Crl.A.No.280 of 2009 14.07.2016

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

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

25.06.2018Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoiaToThe present petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records in C.C.No.245 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and to quash the same.The learned Judicial Magistrate No-II, Karaikal took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused.3.The contention of the petitioner is that the first and second accused are factory Manager and General Manager respectively of the Spinning Mill and that since the de-facto complainant did not work properly and damaged valuable machineries, the factory Manager and the General Manager questioned them.According to the petitioners, the de-facto complainant in order to escape from the liability has falsely lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 355, 294 506 (ii) I.P.C. R/w 34 I.P.C.4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the accused have not committed any offence and that since the de-facto complainant damaged a machinery, a false complaint has been lodged by him with the Inspector of Police, Nedungadu Police Station, Karaikal and that the first respondent has not conducted the investigation properly.5.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side), Puducherry would contend that the investigation has been done properly by the Inspector of Police and the allegations levelled by the petitioners are disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided at this stage.6.A perusal of the final report filed by the Inspector of Police, Nedungadu Police Station, Karaikal in Crime No.91 of 2010 shows that there are prima facie materials available on record to proceed against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 355, 294 506 (ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. Merely based on the bald allegations made by the petitioners / accused that the defacto complainant damaged the machineries and in order to escape from liability, he had filed a false complaint, the entire proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-II, Karaikal, Pondicherry cannot be quashed especially when the above contentions are disputed question of facts.7.In the facts and circumstances of the present petition, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal.Since the matter is pending from the year 2012, the petitioners / accused are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8.With the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal2.The Inspector of Police, M-2, Nedungadu Police Station, Karaikal, Union Territory of Pondicherry.R.HEMALATHA.J.,ia Crl.O.P.No.28546 of 201325.06.2018

['Section 294 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.

rrc (Allowed) C.R.M. 10728 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.12.2016 in connection with Burwan Police Station F.I.R. No. 384 of 2014 dated 21st August, 2014 under Sections 186/333/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner presented this application on 22nd December, 2016 seeking a direction that in the event of his arrest in course of investigation of Burwan Police Station F.I.R. No. 382 of 2014 dated 21st August, 2014 under Sections 186/333/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code, he may be released on bail.

['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

R.G. Mundkar.Before proceeding in this matter, it is necessary to examine the petitioner.Issue court notice to the Secretary of the Government Servants Cooperative House Building Society, Kalyan Kendra, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to produce or cause to be produced in this court the entire record relating to the property bearing no.52, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.A direction is issued to the Secretary, Land & Building Department to ensure that possession of this property is protected till further orders of this court."(Emphasis supplied)On 06th June, 2011, Mr. Mohd. Ali, ACP of the Sub-Division of Vasant Vihar filed a preliminary report dated 1st June, 2011 according to which serious offences had been committed in respect of the property No.52, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.Most respectfully and humbly, it is prayed that, vide order dated 03/06/2011, this Honble court was pleased to issue directions to DCP of P.S Vasant Vihar area to conduct an enquiry in the abovesaid matter.In this regard, it is submitted that, an enquiry in the matter was got conducted by SHO/PS Vasant Vihar, Delhi, supervised by the undersigned after getting instruction from DCP/South Distt.Briefly stated that petitioner moved a petition before this Honble Court for grant of probate of last will dated 25.08.1988, in respect of the asset of deceased late Sh.In the petition, petitioner stated that late Sh.R.G. Mundkar s/o Late Sh Gopal Krishan Rao Mundkar was a resident of 52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 3 of 15 before his death, had executed his last and final WILL dated 25.08.1988 in favour of petitioner, out of love and affection, as he had cared the deceased in his old age.As per directions of this Honble Court, enquiry of the above said facts mentioned in the petition was conducted.During the course of enquiry, petitioner Jay Prakash was contacted and examined who stated that from the year 1980 to 1995, he worked at the house of Sh.R.G Mundkar, i.e., House No A-52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar as a care taker.R.G. Mundkar had a daughter, who was mentally disturbed.His wife and daughter have expired.During the year 1995, Mr. Munkdar became seriousally ill and some of his relatives got admitted him at the hospital, where during treatment, he expired.After Mr. Mundkars death, he remained at the abovesaid house for 5- 6 months.Later on, after threatened by men of one Kiran Chaudhary, he went back to his native place and settled there.The same is enclosed as Annexure A.The copy of WILL in question was also obtained from Jay Prakash.The same is enclosed as Annexure B.The enquiry about the address mentioned in the said Will i.e. H No N-138, Pocket N, Pallavpuram, Phase-II, Meerut (UP) was made from Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, UP vide letter No.1423 II/Officer Tehsil/Meerut dated 26/06/2011, Tehsildar, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, UP informed that the said address/house is registered in the name of Jyoti Manav D/o Sh.Jay Prakash on 24.05.2001 and she is the first allottee of the abvoesaid property.Copy of the said reply is enclosed as Annexure C.Property No A-52, Vasant Vihar, Delhi is a disputed property presently lying vacant, situated at prime location of Vasant Vihar area, present worth around Rs.50 Crores.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 6 of 15The above sequence of events indicates towards some big land shark, who wants to grab the said property after obtaining probate orders from this Honble Court, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.The same requires in-depth and thorough investigation to un-earth the whole conspiracy.Status Report is submitted for kind perusal please."It is further stated that investigation in FIR No.133/2010 is pending with the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch and investigation in the other case is also being sent to the same department for further investigation.The preliminary status report which has been filed, suggests that certain serious offences may have been committed in respect of the property which was originally owned by Late Shri R.G. Mundkar who had originally owned property bearing no.A-52, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.(i) A certified copy of the present petition along with a certified copy of the Will dated 25th August, 1988 which has been propounded by Shri Jay Prakash (petitioner herein), shall forthwith be forwarded by the Registry to the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch Crime Branch which shall conduct an inquiry into the matter.(ii) A copy of the status report dated 4th July, 2011 filed before this court may also be forwarded by Shri Mohd. Ali, ACP, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch which would inquire into the matter.(iii) A direction is issued to the Sub-Registrar of Documents as well as to the petitioner who is present in person in court, to ensure full cooperation with the inquiry which shall be conducted by the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch.(iv) In case the inquiry discloses commission of any offence, the Economic Offences Wing shall take appropriate steps for registration of case and proceed in the matter with investigation, trial etc. as may be necessary.(v) A report in this behalf shall be placed before this court within six weeks from today.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 8 of 15(vi) The Registry shall place the report received from the Economic Offences Wing before this court on the next date.(vii) A copy of this order shall be sent to the Economic Offences Wing as well.The petitioner also stated that sometimes a woman used to come at the house of Mr. Mundkar and give him meal.He did not know about her but can identify her.He had mentally challenged daughter and wife.Later on both of them expired due to illness.In 1994, Mr. Mundkar fell seriously ill and during that period he handed over him a typed paper and told him to keep it safe.He was got admitted in a hospital for treatment by his relatives, whom he did not know.He further stated that in the year 2010 his son Sanjiv found a paper at his home at TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 9 of 15 Meerut (sic) and discussed the same with his cousin Sudhir.On checking, Sudhir informed Sanjiv that it is a Will executed by Sh.R.G. Mundkar in favor of Jay Parkash.He further verified it from the office of Sub-registrar, Kashmiri gate, Delhi where the said will was found registered.On asking whether he had ever told his address as mentioned in the will to Mr. R.G. Mundkar, he was not clear.He further stated that he along with his family member was residing at the address of Meerut i.e. N-138, Daurala, Meerut U.P. since 1978 and the said house was in the name of his father viz. Roopchand whereas as per reply received from Meerut Development Authority it was informed that at present the said address is registered in the name of Jyoti Manav d/o Sh.Jay Parkash since 24.5.2001 and she is the first allottee of this property.Upon this, petitioner was asked to clarify it, but he could not answer it satisfactorily.The said copy of the will was compared with the certified copy of Will dt. 25.8.88 executed by R.G. Mundkar in the name of Petitioner Sh.Jay Parkash for the property bearing No. A-52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi duly certified by Sub-Registrar-II.On scrutiny it was found that the text is the same and witnesses are also same, whereas, to ascertain the discrepancies on the document, it needs to be examined by some document examiner at FSL/GEQD.However, the claim made by petitioner Jai Parkash that he was staying on this address since 1978 needs to be verified which may take some time.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 9 of 15During inquiry, a letter to Dy.Director (Residential) DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi for providing the details regarding mutation of property A-52, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and other documents of the property was sent.A reply was received form Dy.Director, Coop.Societies, stating therein that the main file bearing no. F.1(360)78/CS/DDA in respect of property no. A-52, Vasant Vihar has already been seized by CBI as per seizure memo dt. 8.12.08 and under these circumstances the requisite information/documents in TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 10 of 15 respect of the said property cannot be supplied.The DDA office also enclosed a copy of seizure memo dt. 8.12.98 which reveals that Insp.Vishal, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi, seized the above said file in a case RC.BDI/2008/E/0005 dt. 27.8.2008 from Sh.S.S. Rawat, a UDC at Vikas Sadan, DDA, New Delhi.This aspect was verified from BS & FC branch of CBI, New Delhi from where it was found that the above case was registered on the complaint of Shri S.R. Kaushik, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Delhi alleging therein that the Directors of M/s Duro Marketing Pvt. Limited namely Mukesh Jain, Anil Dhall and Mr. R.G. Mundker were sanctioned a credit facility of Rs.4,46,89,558.22 and to secure it the above accused persons offered the security by way of equitable mortgage in favour of the bank with respect of property No. A-52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi standing in the name of Shri R.G. Mundkar.The complainant has alleged that she has apprehension that alleged persons Mukesh Jain, R.B. Pandey, Vijay Sisodia and Anil Chhabra, the Property Dealers in connivance with each other prepared the forged will in favour of R.B. Pandey and tried to sell the property in question.The instant case was initially investigated by local police and has now been received in EOW, for further investigation.During investigation the complainant was asked to produce the documents in support of allegations leveled in her complaint but due to one reason or the other she could not produce any documents and this fact was also brought into the notice of Ld. MM of Saket Court that the complainant is not cooperating in the investigation.The complainant was again asked to produce the required documents who joined the investigation along with her mother on 11.8.2011 and stated that her father Late Major Partap Singh Mehlawat had purchased the property in question from R.G. Mundker long time back and the documents regarding the purchase / ownership / transfer executed between her father and R.G. Mundker are in Delhi High Court in CS(OS)/2558/1997 filed by her along with mother and others against her step brothers namely Sunil Mehlawat and others over the distribution of assets of his late father.She further stated that she will hand over the photo copies of all the documents very soon.Mr. Rajiv Bansal reached at the spot in the presence of police officers and entered in the property and found that the lock of the main door had been charged.Other doors inside the house were open.The main doors lock was replaced with new one in presence of the police officers.During investigation by local police, PWs were examined and photographs of the spot were taken and accused persons H.K. Chhabra, Sanjay Chauhan and Jagvinder Singh were arrested in the case.I.A.10635/2017 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.I.A.10633/2017 & 10634/20172. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate person living in Bhagpat, U.P. and his counsel did not inform him the date of hearing of 20th May, 2014 and, therefore, he did not attend the Court on the said date.It is further submitted that his counsel did not inform the status report from 2014 to 2016 despite repeated requests and he engaged a new counsel in 2016 who inspected the record and filed the present TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 1 of 15 application.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 1 of 15Before considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court would like to record the relevant facts of this case.On 02nd June, 2011, i.e., more than 16 years after the death of late R.G. Mundkar, the petitioner instituted this present petition seeking probate of the Will dated 25th August, 1988 whereby the deceased bequeathed the property bearing No.52, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner.This petition was listed before this Court on 03 rd June, 2011 when this Court issued Court notice to the DCP, Delhi Police to conduct an inquiry.The relevant portion of the order dated 03 rd June, 2011 is reproduced hereunder:-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to have been a caretaker of late Sh.The Registry shall also issue a court notice to the DCP who is concerned with the Vasant Vihar Police Station enclosing a copy of the present petition.A direction is TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 2 of 15 issued to the DCP concerned to cause an inquiry to be conducted.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 2 of 154. Let notice be issued to the Land & Building Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi.Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned standing counsel for the Land & Building Department is directed to accept notice.Let a copy of the petition be made available to him.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 3 of 15The said will was duly witnessed by one Smt. Raj Kumari w/o Shri Rattan lal r/o D-56 A, Amar Colony, New Delhi as witness no.1 & Sh.The deceased has left no legal heir behind him except the petitioner being beneficiary of the said will, who now wants grant of probate in respect of the WILL of late Sh R.G. Mundkar.He further stated that during the year 1994, Mr. Mundkar handed over him a paper, with the directions to keep it safe.Around 7-8 months back, when he was shifting his residence from Meerut to Bijrol village, Distt Baghpat (UP), his son Sanjiv found this paper in the home and discussed the same with the cousin Sudhir.On scrutiny, Sudhir informed to Sanjeev that this is a WILL executed by Sh.R.G Mundkar in favour of Jay Prakash.He further TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 4 of 15 enquired/verified the same from Registrar office at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, where the said WILL was found registered.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 4 of 15Jay Prakash further stated that, he has no knowledge about the address of Raj Rani and stated that she used to provide meal to Mr. Mundkar and also has no knowledge about Advocate Mahavir Singh.Regarding the residential address mentioned in the WILL, Jay prakash informed that the said flat was purchased by his father around 30 years back and at present, the said house exist in the name of his brother Megh Singh.The statement of Jay Prakash was also recorded.The above developments show that the said WILL in question cannot be executed in 1988 with the said address, as the same came into existence only on 24/05/2001, when the said flat was registered in the name of daughter of applicant Jay Prakash.The enquiry, regarding the registration of abovesaid WILL with Registrar Office, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi was also conducted.The Certified copy of the abovesaid WILL was also obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate.The same is enclosed as Annexure D.On perusal of the copy of WILL obtained from TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 5 of 15 petitioner Jay Prakash and from Registrar Officer, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, bare eye scrutiny revealed lot of discrepancies with regard to name & signatures.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 5 of 15The Witness No.1 in the abovesaid WIIL Smt Raj Rani w/o Sh.Ratan Lal R/o H No.64, Gali No.3, Soni Vihar, Ajay Nagar, Palla, Faridabad (sic) was also examined, who stated that she was the owner of Rehri of food at R.K.Puram and one old person alongwith his servant from H No.52, Vasant Vihar used to visit her Rehri for the purpose of meal and some times she used to provide the meal at his abovesaid house.During this period, one day, she signed a paper at the instance of that old man.She further stated that neither she knew the contents of the same document nor the name of the said old person and his servant.She could not tell the time of signature of the said documents.Her statement was also recorded and the same is enclosed as Annexure E.The above statement raises serious doubts that a man of such a status, an IAS officer who retired as chief secretary, Haryana, having huge property in the posh area of Vasant Vihar, used to visit a Rehri for meal.Regarding the IInd Witness Sh.Mahabir Singh, Advocate, it has been informed that said advocate has already expired.It is further intimated that in the past also, various persons have tried to grab the said property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.In this regard, two criminal cases Vide FIR No.133/10u/s 420/467/468/471/120 B IPC PS Vasant Vihar & FIR No 42/11 u/s 448/34 IPC PS Vasant Vihar have been registered.Presently, the above- said property is sealed and in the custody of Honble Delhi High Court, Delhi.The investigation of Case FIR No 133/10 is pending investigation with EOW/Crime Branch & the investigation of Case FIR No 42/11 is being sent to EOW/Crime Branch for further investigation.Further, the glaring discrepancies between copy of WILL received from the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and copy of WILL provided by Jay Prakash raise serious doubts about the authenticity and genuineness of this document.Vide order dated 06th July, 2011, this Court directed the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch to conduct an inquiry.The relevant portion of the order dated 06th July, 2011 is reproduced here under:-Mr. Mohd. Ali, ACP of the Sub-Division of the Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has filed a preliminary report dated 1 st July, 2011 pursuant to an inquiry conducted in terms of the order dated 3rd June, 2011 of this court.Perusal of the report shows that the following two cases stand registered by the police in respect of transactions relating to the property which is the subject matter of the instant case:(i) FIR No.133/2010 under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.(ii) FIR No.42/2011 under Sections 448, 34 IPC registered in Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 7 of 15(viii) List this case on 29th August, 2011 for awaiting report from the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch.(Emphasis supplied)On 29th August, 2011, this Court noted that the petitioner had not produced the original Will dated 25th August, 1988 whereupon the petitioner was directed to file it within one week.On 17th August, 2011, the Economic Offences Wing of Crime Branch submitted the report according to which more than one Will was executed by R.G. Mundkar for the property in question and two criminal cases were pending investigation in respect of the property in question.The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereunder:-"That during inquiry, petitioner Jay Parkash was contacted who joined the inquiry and stated that from 1980 to 1995 he worked at the house of Sh.R.G. Mundkar i.e. at A- 52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar as a servant.He used to prepare meal for Sh.R.G. Mundkar and performed other routine works.After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court which is pending trial in the court of ASJ, Patiala House and fixed for prosecution evidence on 26.8.11 as informed by Pairvi Officer of CBI Sh.Anil Rawat.However, the details are yet to be collected.It is pertinent to mention here that various persons have tried to grab the above said property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.In this regard two criminal cases vide FIR No. 133/10 u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC PS Vasant Vihar and FIR No. 42/11 U/s 448/34 IPC PS Vasant Vihar, New Delhi have been registered.The case FIR No. 133/10 was registered on the orders of Ld.MM Patiala House u/s 156.3 Cr.P.C. on the complaint of Ms. Sheetal Mehlawat wherein she submitted that one unknown property dealer contacted them at their residence and he was having photocopies of the will in the name of R.B. Pandey for the House No. A-52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.The complainant also stated that regarding the above mentioned house, a civil case bearing TEST CASE No. 23/97 is pending in the Hon,ble High Court of Delhi and the keys of the house has been deposited in the High Court and the house is closed with the orders of Honble High Court.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 10 of 15TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 11 of 15Case FIR No. 42/2011 u/s 448/34 IPC P.S. Vasant Vihar was received for further investigation in EOW on 6.7.2011 from local police.This case was registered on the complaint of Local Commissioner, Advocate appointed by Honble Delhi High Court to inspect the property in question i.e. A- 52, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, Delhi in CS(OS) 2558/1997 TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 12 of 15 titled Smt. Kishan Devi and ors.Vs Sunil Mehlwat and ors.The keys of the property were directed to be released in his name.He reached at the property A-52, Vasant Marg, New Delhi and found a board fixed on the main gate which read "H.K. Chhabra, Advocate, Supreme Court of India" The gates were opened.A lock was hanging on the chain when he along with Amit Mahajan, Advocate entered in the property.They were accosted by two persons who objected the entry and questioned their identity.These two persons were apprised of the order dated 17.1.2011 of Honble Delhi High Court.One of two person Shri H.K. Chhabra represented that he is owner of the property having recently purchased the same but he refused to divulge the details.The photocopies of the documents provided by the accused H.K. Chhabra were taken into police possession out of which one document was a copy of will dated 28.1.1971 executed by R.G. Mundker in favour of Shri R.B. Pandey for the property in question which was got prepared from Meerut.However, no material has been placed on record to show as to how and when he contacted his counsel.This Court notices another petition for grant of probate has been instituted by the driver of deceased i.e. Harjinder Singh which is pending before the District Judge at the Patiala House Courts.The record of the Probate Case No.72/2016 titled Harjinder Singh v. State was requisitioned and as per the petition of that case, the petitioner's father, Sardul Singh was working as a driver with R.G. Mundkar from 8-10 years and after the demise of his father on 11th April, 1989, the petitioner started serving as driver till the death of R.G. Mundkar and due to love, affection, services and care provided by the petitioner and his father, R.G. Mundkar executed a duly registered Will dated 27th March, 1991 bequeathing the property bearing No.52, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of Harjinder Singh.Copy of this judgement be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.TEST.CAS.50/2011 Page 15 of 15

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the present appeal are individuals who are ordinarily resident in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and had purchased shares of one M/s Khushi Ram Behari Lal Ltd. ('KRBL') on respondent No. 3/BSE Ltd. (Bombay Stock Exchange) ('BSE') through respondent No. 4/SMC Global Securities Ltd. ('SMC'), which last-mentioned entity was the agency in which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 held Demat Accounts.By the impugned order, the single Judge has disposed of the writ petition, firstly holding that the DoE could not issue orders 'freezing' Demat accounts by resorting to the provisions of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') ; and secondly rejecting the contention that assets acquired prior to the enactment of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') could never fall within the definition of 'proceeds of crime' under the said enactment.The foregoing issues arose when, vid communication dated 13.02.2018 issued by it, DoE instructed BSE to withhold the amount payable to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ('private parties') towards shares of KRBL sold by the private parties on BSE.By the said communication DoE also instructed BSE to stop the sale of the said shares on the premise that it was suspected that such transaction was an attempt to transfer 'proceeds of crime' outside India, with the intention to frustrate proceedings initiated by DoE under PMLA in respect of alleged bribes paid in the transaction for acquisition of helicopters by the Indian Air Force/Ministry of Defence from M/s AgustaWestland, U.K. DoE also issued another communication dated 22.03.2018 ordering a 'freeze' on the transfer of shares held by the private parties in the Demat accounts maintained with SMC.Accordingly, the question that arises for our consideration is the following:It would be beneficial at this point to set-out the provisions referred to above in-extenso :

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

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

Pw-12 is the Doctor who gavetreatment to the deceased in an unconscious stage.He has given Ex. P7, theAccident Register of the deceased and who advised the person brought thedeceased to take him to Thanjavur Government Hospital.He also giventreatment to one Ezhumalai and had given Ex.p8, the Accident Register givento him.PW13 is also one of the doctors who gave first aid to one Jeyaraman.PW14 is the Scientific expect and PW15 is the Head Clerk of the JudicialMagistrate Court, Pattukottai.PW16 is the Police Constable attached with theAthiramapattinam police station, who on the direction of the Inspector of thePolice produced the dead body for postmortem and thereafter entrusted thesame with the relatives of the deceased.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.) The appellant is the defacto-complainant in S.C.No.4 of 2013 on the file ofthe III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.In the said case, 10 personswere shown as accused, among them the case as against the 3rd accused namely Balaji was splitted in S.C.No.25/14 on the file of the same court.Furtherthe accused No.5 namely Rajendran was died in the pendency of the case.In additionto that the PW1 along with one Rangaraj and Rajkamal were also inflictedinjuries by the accused.All the injured were taken to hospital, but thebrother of PW1 namely Jeyasundar was died.Based on the complaint of PW-1, a case was registered in Crime No. 115 of 2009 for the alleged offence undersections 147,148,324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.In pursuance of theregistration of the case, PW-22, commenced the investigation and filed acharge sheet under section 147, 148, 325, 324, 302 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC asagainst all the accused.Subsequently, the final report filed by theInvestigation Officer was taken on file as PRC No.33/2010 on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.Thereafter, theaforesaid case was committed to the file of the learned Principal Districtand Sessions, Judge, Thanjavur and the same was made over to the file of theIII Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur District at Pattukottai.4.In pursuance of the committal proceedings, charges were framed underSections 147, 148, 302, 326 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149 against all the accused.Further in order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 22witnesses, marked Exhibits P1 to P37 along with material objects MO.Nos.1 toAt the end of the trial proceedings, the accused were examined undersection 313 of the code of criminal procedure with regard to the availabilityof the incriminating substances as against them, but they denied as same.P17 also gave treatment to PW2 and also issued Accident Register Exhibit P22.Further PW17 also treated PW-3, Rajkamal and issued Accident Register Ex.PW18 is the doctor who conducted Post-mortem and issued Ex.P24, Post-mortem Certificate.PW19 is also a doctor who issued Exhibit P27, Accident Registerpertaining to the deceased.The defacto-complainant has filed theinstant appeal by raising seven grounds challenging the order of acquittal.Further, it is also the ground of the appellant that PWs 1 and 2 are the injuredwitnesses but the learned Judge has miserably failed to take into theirevidence for consideration.9.This court put its anxious consideration upon the oral and documentaryevidence of the case.It is the categorical case of PW1 in the chiefexamination that he and the deceased belong to a political party namelyAIADMK.The accused belong to another political party namely DMK.Since, the accused and the injured including the deceased belongto different political parties, they are having grudge with each other.Whenthe evidence of PW1 has gone through, the rivalry between them is found.Under this back ground, the evidence of all the prosecution witnessesincluding the evidence of the injured witnesses has gone through.Further,the motive is a double edged weapon.It is the settled principles of law inthe criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is liable to prove the casebeyond all the reasonable doubts.Though on 16.05.2009 itself it is allegedthat an occurrence of wordy quarrel had taken place, but in this connectionadmittedly no complaint was lodged.Unfortunately on the very next day thatis on 17.05.2009 the affray culminated into a culpable homicide of thedeceased.It is the categorical case of the prosecution that the deceasedfallen down in front of the residence of PW11 in a life and death condition.So, this court has bounden duty to ascertain whetherthe prosecution has proved the place of occurrence without any discrepancy.10.In this connection the Accident Register of PW1 Exhibit PW21 is to beperused.In the perusal, it is revealed that PW1 informed the doctor that hewas assaulted by 2 known persons by wooden log on 17.05.2009 at about 10.30 am near Athiramapattinam bus stand.As such when the Accident Register pertaining to PW2 namely Ramaraj is taken up for perusal, it is revealed thathe was assaulted by 30 unknown persons at Athiramapattinam bus stand.As such the Accident Register of another injured witness namely Rajkamal hasdisclosed the same.Further, it is alsorevealed that all the accused and the injured eye witnesses are known to eachother.If it is so, PW1,2,3 could have informed the doctors that they wereassaulted by known persons.But no such evidence is available to strengthenthe prosecution case.Apart from that according to the prosecution thedistance between the petty shop of PW1 Shivakimar and Athiramapattinam bus stand could be about 200 to 300 feet.So, this court is unable to accept theevidence of PW1,2 and 3 in respect of the place of occurrence which willseriously affect the credibility of prosecution case.11.Further, PW1, 2 and 3 were taken to Pattukottai Government hospital on17.05.2009 at about 10.45 am.The distance between Athiramapattinam and Pattukottai is about 15 kilometers.However, when evidence of PW12 is taken up for perusal, it cameto know that on 17.05.2009 at about 10.45 am the deceased Jayasundar was brought by one Veeraiyan to Athiramapattinam Government hospital fortreatment.It is very unfortunate to record here that the evidence ofPWs1,2,3,4,6 and 7 have disclosed that they took the injured Jayasundar,subsequently died, to Pattukottai Government hospital through an ambulanceand admitted for treatment.So, the testimony of PW1, 2 and 3 is totallycontradictory and it is not safe to rely upon to warrant conviction undersection 302 of IPC.This aspect is seriously affect the case ofthe prosecution.12.Further, it is relevant to point out here that the deceased Jayasundar wasbrought by one Veeraiyan to hospital and the same is recorded in Exhibit P27and this aspect is ascertained by PW19 Doctor Balasubramanian.As such through Exhibits P 21 to 23 it came to light that PW1,2 and 3 are admitted inhospital by one Najeeb.It is very unfortunate to mention here that theinvestigation officers PW 21 and 22 had not taken any effort to examine theaforesaid Veeraiyan and Najeeb.In a case of 302 of IPC, the investigationofficers are expected to be very sincere and most vigilant.But the failureof two investigation officers in not examining the aforesaid Veeraiyan andNajeeb has considerably affected the root of the prosecution., Am onthe same day.Unfortunately, the investigation officers investigated the caseas if it is one occurrence and filed final report.Further, the ObservationMahazar Ex.P3 and Rught Sketch Ex.P30 have been sent after a lapse of 2 months that is on 14.07.2009 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.But, he did not ascertain the same during the police investigation.Instead, the name of accused Nos.4,6,7,8,9 and 10 has been included in the case subsequently.3.The non examination of the persons namely Veeraiyan and Nazim brought the deceased to Adirampattinam Government Hospital and one Nazim who brought the PW1, 2, 3 to Pattukotti government hospital respectively would seriouslyaffect the case of the prosecutions.4.Evidence of PW1, 2 and 3 would show that they had taken the deceased along with them to Pattukottai Government Hospital, which is totally against theAccident Registers of the respective injured and the deceased.5.The important document Exhibits P3 and 30 have been belatedly sent to thelearned Committal Court, the contradiction and exaggerations of the eyewitness and the evidence of the other witness have not inspired confidence inthe judicial conscience of this court.Hence, the prosecution fails and the appealis liable to be dismissed.17.In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the order ofacquittal by the Learned Trial Judge is confirmed.1.The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.2.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai..

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CHC Court No.24 C.R.M. 517 of 2016 (Assigned) In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th January, 2016 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No.510 of 2014 dated 26.12.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 120B/354A/384/363/342/376D of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Mohammad Shabbir Khan ...petitioner Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr.These orders of bail were granted considering the extent of alleged involvement of the applicants for bail on the basis of materials available.So far as the petitioner is concerned, we do not think he is on the same footing as the other accused persons who have been enlarged on bail.In such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected.(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Sankar Acharyya, J.)

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

4 M.Cr.The allegation reveals that the petitioners prevented the affixation by the process server.Bhajanlal and others [1992 suppl.(1) SCC 335] Before entering into the field of mala fide, it would be appropriate to decipher as to whether prima facie offence as alleged u/S.353 of IPC is made out or not?The FIR discloses that when the complainant who is the Process Server went to serve the notice of hearing of proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry against Brajmohan Yadav who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 and when the notice was refused to be accepted by the petitioner, he tried to affix the same on the 2 M.Cr.C. No. 46748/18 conspicuous part of the house when he was prevented from doing so by the petitioner and therefore, he could not affix the notice on the conspicuous part of the house.2 M.Cr.C. No. 46748/18Force.--A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described.(First) - By his own bodily power.3 M.Cr.C. No. 46748/18Criminal force.--Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 4 M.Cr.C. No. 46748/18 extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.C. No. 46748/18Thus, petitioners prevented the affixation by setting themselves into motion in such a manner which caused change of motion or cessation of motion thereby preventing the process server from affixing the notice.This force applied by the petitioner was said to have intentionally made without consent of the process server and to cause injury/fear/annoyance to him and therefore, the force matured into criminal force.Thus, the petitioners appear to have prima facie applied criminal force to prevent process server from discharging his official duty of affixation.Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that on prima facie basis, the basic ingredients of the offence punishable u/S.353 IPC are made out.5 M.Cr.C. No. 46748/185 M.Cr.C. No. 46748/18

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

W.P. No.10711 of 1986 has been filed by the Secretary, School Committee, Gandhi Kala Nilayam Higher Secondary School, Pungamathur, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District, for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records relating to order bearing No.7736-U 1/8676, dated 16.7.1986 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and direct the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 27.1.1986 on merits.The allegations in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows:The second respondent was the Headmaster of Gandhi Kala Nilayam Higher Secondary School, Pungamuthur.His behaviour and conduct were unbecoming He was involved in an offence under Sections 307 and 148 I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arme Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years in B.C. No.134 of 1982 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet.However, on appeal be was acquitted and at the timeof filling the writ petition, a civil revision petition had been filed and was pending in the High Court.The school committee took disciplinary action against the second respondent and decided to dismiss him from service.Pursuant to such decision, the committee applied to the competent authority for approval under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to.The School Committee filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Act to the Joint Director, Tamil Nadu School Education, Madras.Against the dismissal of the appeal the School Committee preferred a revision to the first respondent under Section 45 of the Act. The first respondent by his order dated 16.7.1986 held that the revision was not maintainable and only an appeal would lie under Section 42 of the Act to the Tribunal.Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.A counter has been filed by the first respondent justifying the order of the Joint Director.The counter also justifies the stand of the first respondent that only an appeal would lie to the Tribunal."If the appeal under Section 23 was against the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or the termination otherwise of the appointment of any teacher or other person employed in any private school, such teacher or other person or the educational agency aggrieved by any order made in any such appeal, may prefer an appeal against that appellate order to the Tribunal."by any order, may prefer an appeal against such order to such authority or officer as may be prescribed; and different such authorities or officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private schools.Explanation: In this section, the expression 'order' includes any order made on or after the date of the commencement of this Act in any disciplinary proceeding which was pending on that date."In view of the discussion above, the writ petition has to succeed.6. WP.The allegations in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows:He was appointed as a trained B.T. Assistant on 6.6.1955 and on 22.10.1956 he was appointed as Headmaster.No charges were framed and on the expiry of two months from the order of suspension the writ petitioner demanded that he be reinstated as Headmaster.The fourth respondent had not applied to the third respondent for extension of the period of suspension.After the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, he brought the same to the notice of the fourth respondent on 31.3.1984 and demanded reinstatement.Faced with the difficulty in continuing with the petitioner's suspension, the secretary of the school Committee purported to pass an order dated 5.4.1984 terminating his service.Accepting this statement the second respondent by his letter dated 23.6.1984 called upon the third respondent to state if the procedure under law had been followed in the matter of placing a teacher under suspension.As nothing happened for the next three months the writ petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.9282 of 1984 for a mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to pass suitable order compelling the fourth respondent to restore the writ petitioner to service as Headmaster of the school, with effect from 9.11.1983 with continuity of service and backwages.Itwas filed on 17.7.1984 and was admitted on 19.9.1984 and in the petition for interim directions, notice was ordered returnable in ten days.By order dated 29.9.1984 the fourth respondent reinstated the petitioner in service, and when the petition for interim direction came up for further orders on 10.10.1984, this Court recorded the statement of the fourth respondent that the writ petitioner had already been reinstated.The petition for directions was dismissed.So far as the reliefs of continuity of service and backwages for the period of suspension were concerned, they still survive.The writ petitioner and the Secretary of the fourth respondent School Committee were brothers-in-law and due to their personal family disputes, the Secretary of the School Committee used to unnecessarily interfere in the day-to-day administration of the school and harass the writ petitioner.The writ petitioner complained to the Director of School Education and also reported that the Secretary had taken unauthorised donations.Since the Secretary came to know about this, by order dated 10.12.1984 in proceedings Na.Ka.424 of 84 the writ petitioner was again placed under suspension.The order of suspension did not also state that any enquiry into grave charges was contemplated.Since the enquiry was not completed within the two months period, the third respondent herein by proceedings dated 2.2.1985 in R.C. 42602/G3/84 directed the fourth respondent to reinstate the writ petitioner in service.The order also stated that the allegation of lack of cordiality between the writ petitioner and the secretary would not form the subject matter of an enquiry, since there was no violation on the Code of Conduct in Annoxure-II of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules.Inspite of that order the fourth respondent by his letter dated 11.3.1985 stated that he could not obey the order dated 2.2.1985, since the enquiry was still pending.The third respondent thereafter in proceedings dated 15.3.1985 directed the fourth respondent to reinstate the writ petitioner in service forthwith.In the meantime, the fourth respondent also filed an appeal to the third respondent.There was a warning administered by the third respondent to the fourth respondent by letter dated 22.4.1985 that if the writ petitioner was not reinstated in service forthwith, the third respondent would be constrained to take serious action against the fourth respondent.This was followed by another letter dated 6.8.1985 to the same effect.By order dated 12.12.1985 the second respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent.Among other grounds the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability also.The fourth respondent had written to the third respondent that he had preferred a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Government dated 16.7.1986 and that the writ petition had not yet been numbered.Because of the action of the fourth respondent in not- reinstating the writ petitioner in service with backwages, the writ petitioner was gravely prejudiced.The first and the third respondents had ample powers under Sections 12 and 14 of the Act to compel the fourth respondent to comply with the orders of the authorities, but for some strange reasons they had not taken action.This necessitated the writ petitioner to come up with the present writ petition.Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a common counter practically supporting the case of the writ petitioner and staling that action was being taken separately to examine and enforce the possibility of invoking Sections 12 and 14 of the Act. According to the counter, Section 12 of the Act dealt with the withdrawal of the recognition to the school by the competent authority and if it was implemented, it would result in not only disturbing the studies of the children studying in the school, but also the other teachers as they would have to be transferred from the school and given alternative appointments in suitable posts.As regards Section 14 of the Act, viz., withholding of the grant, if it was to be done permanently or temporarily as a measure of punishment, the entire staff in the school would be affected and there would be objections from the teachers of the school.The punishment contemplated under sections 12 and 14 would be implemented or resorted to only as a final course of action.From the narration it would be obvious that the writ petitions have been the culmination of some private individual ego problem and a blatant disregard of consideration for the welfare of the school going children and the teachers.When once there was a direction by the higher authorities to reinstate the writ petitioner in W.P. No.10711 of 1986, there was absolutely no choice except to obey orders.From a reading of the counters filed by the authorities, it would be amply clear that their attitude had been in favour of the reinstatement of the writ petitioner in W.P. No.11252 of 86 as Headmaster of the school concerned.The school Headmaster was honourably acquitted by the Sessions Court.No doubt, it is not known as to what happened to the criminal revision case stated to have been filed.It is also not known as to what happened between the filing of the writ petitions and now.Since I have held that the revision by the writ petitioner in W.P. No.10711 of 1986 is maintainable, the revisional authority will have to decide the revision on merits and communicate the order to the concerned persons within a period of three months from today.The writ petition will stand allowed.However, there will be no order as to costs.

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

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

He also submitted that no identificationparade was conducted to identify the accused by the prosecution.He would further submit that due toprevious motive, between one Mohan and the deceased, on 02.10.2016, about about 7.00 p.m., the accused said to have attacked the deceased with aruvaland he died on the spot.This Criminal Appeal has been filed praying to call for therecords relating to the order dated 26.05.2017 in Cr.M.P.No.1240 of 2017, onthe file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur andto set aside the same, as arbitrary and consequently, release the Appellantson bail in connection with FIR in Crime No.442 of 2016, on the file of theRespondent Police.The Appellants, who were arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 06.10.2016, for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.,r/w Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act 2015, in Crime No.442 of 2016, on thefile of the respondent police, seek bail.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous motive,between one Mohan and the deceased, on 02.10.2016, about about 7.00 p.m., the accused attacked the deceased with aruval and he died on the spot.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submitthat Goondas Act has been invoked as against the appellants and the same have revoked by this Court, as per the order in HCP(MD)Nos.18 and 21 of 2017,dated 23.05.2017 respectively.As per the confession given by A1 in this case, thefirst appellant said to have attacked the deceased with aruval, while ridingas pillion rider in a two wheeler, driven by the 2nd appellant herein.The2nd appellant said to have dashed on the vehicle driven by the deceased andfacilitate to commit the offence by the first accused in this case.He alsosubmitted that the first appellant is having four previous cases and the 2ndappellant is having one previous case.The appellants were arrested on06.10.2016 and they are now in judicial custody.Now, the case is pending asS.C.No.6 of 2017, on the file of learned 1st Additional District and SessionsJudge (PCR), Thanjavur and the matter is posted for trial.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and alsothe fact that the first appellant is having four previous cases including 302IPC., offence and also the alleged overt act of the first appellant in theoccurrence and the case is pending as S.C.No.6 of 2017 and the second appellant is facilitate to commit the murder by the first accused in thiscase, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming theorder dated 26.05.2017 passed in Cr.M.P.No.1240 of 2017 by the learned 1stAdditional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.1.The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.2.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Issue notice.A copy of the decree sheet has also been annexed to this petition.This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 251/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406 IPC at Police Station Swaroop Nagar on 18th October, 2013, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively.3. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Neelam Sharma are present in person and are also identified by the Investigating Officer/ SI Anil Deswal, Police Station Swaroop Nagar.The aforesaid FIR is stated to have been lodged by respondent Crl.M.C. No.4003/2014 Page 1 of 8Ultimately, during the course of proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail moved by petitioner No.1 before the trial court, the matter was referred to mediation, and, ultimately, both the parties arrived at a mutual settlement on 17th January, 2014 before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi.Finally, on 22nd August, 2014 the marriage between the complainant and petitioner No.1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 22nd August, 2014 in HMA No. 866/2014 passed by Family Court, Rohini, Delhi.M.C. No.4003/2014 Page 7 of 8I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself since the parties have settled the matter, which arose largely out of a matrimonial and domestic dispute, on terms; and the first petitioner and the complainant have obtained a divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, or even supporting the case of the prosecution if at all the same is launched.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 251/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406 IPC at Police Station Swaroop Nagar on 18th October, 2013, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J DECEMBER 11, 2014 AK/dr Crl.

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

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

As per Office note, the petition is barred by 21 days.Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.Heard on admission.This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 13.2.2008 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Satna in Sessions Trial No.42/2007, whereby respondent no.1 Ramsujan has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.Prosecution case, in brief, is that 7-8 months prior to 29/5/07, upon a false promise of marriage, as well as, under threat to kill her, respondent no.1 not only subjected the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste, to sexual intercourse and impregnated her, but also on her denial to abort the pregnancy, was inclined to assassinate her.On the aforesaid information, Crime No.218/07 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.In paragraph 9 she further admitted that when respondent no.1 had come to her house for the first time, she had consented for the sexual act.The trial Court, accordingly, inferred that prosecutrix was a consenting party.In paragraph 14, the learned trial Court found that it was not proved that the alleged offence was committed on the ground that prosecutrix was a member of scheduled caste.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

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

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

He was not in a position to issue certificate in favour of the complainant and he had never demanded money from the complainant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the court below be called for.Heard on I.A.No.13448/2018 application filed by the applicant under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Sehore district Sehore in S.T. No.6/2015, convicting the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 107 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo R.I.for four year with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant is innocent.The disposal of this appeal will take time.It is further submitted that finding of the learned lower Court is contrary to law and there is fair chances of him to succeed in the case.The allegation against the appellant is that he received money from the co- accused and kept the same in the drawer.On the aforesaid facts he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 107 of the IPC for taking bribe, while he was simply obeying the instructions of the co-accused Ramesh Chand.The appellant was working as a Peon.List for final hearing in due course as per the listing policy.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vj Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 28/08/2018 18:22:10

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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