Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

The deceased was the wife of the appellant/accused.The appellant is working as a mason.The deceased had a suspicion that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with some other women.Therefore, there were frequent quarrels between them.PW-2 who is the step mother of the appellant is residing two houses away from the house of the appellant in Poondi Colony.PW-1 is the son-in-law of the appellant having married his daughter Laxmi.He is also living in Poondi Colony.On 25-3-1988, the appellant returned home by about 8.30-9.00 p.m. after finishing his day's work.The deceased quarrelled with the appellant on suspicion that he had visited his concubine.In the quarrel between them, the appellant hit his wife on her head with the wall levelling reaper of the mason (Vernacular matter omitted) The deceased fell down and got fainted.PWs 1 and 2 were watching this event.The appellant, after the incident, left the house.As there was no one to look after the deceased.PW-2, the step-mother of the appellant, requested PW-3 and others to bring the deceased to her house, so that she could attend on her.PW-3 and his wife carried the deceased to the house of PW-2 where a paste was applied on her head to reduce the pain.On 26-3-1988, the condition of the deceased became worse and she could not even take liquid food.Soon she died.On the request of PW-2, the body of the deceased was taken to the house of the appellant.Thereafter, PW-1 informed about the incident to PW-6 the Village Administrative Officer, who prepared the report Ex. P. 1 and took it to Kondungalur Police Station.12 to 14 are the photo prints and M.Os. 9 to 11 are the negatives.This appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot District at Vellore to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.The facts of the case in brief are as follows :PW-8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Kilkondugalur Police Station, received the complaint Ex. P. 1 from PW-6 and registered the same in Crime No. 26 of 1988 of his police Station under section 302 Indian Penal Code and prepared the First Information Report Ex. P. 7, which was forwarded to the Court and his superior Officers.PW-9, the Inspector of Police.Vandavasi, receiving the First Information Report, came to the house of the appellant on the same day at 7.00 p.m. and took up the investigation.He found a swelling on the backside of the head and another swelling on the backside of the neck.The internal examination of the head revealed the presence of haemotoma back and beneath the skull, a fracture over the upper part right occipital bone 5 cm length and presence of haemotoma beneath and back of the neck region.The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to the cerebral haemorrhage 30 to 36 hours prior to the autopsy.Ex. P. 3 is the post-mortem Certificate.After the Post-mortem, PW-5 recovered the sarees, thali Kayiru, nose screw, jacket, skirt, ring etc., M.Os. 2 to 8 respectively from the body of the deceased for handing over the same to the Inspector of Police and handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased.The Inspector of Police, PW-9 arrested the accused/appellant opposite to the bus stop in Veliyambakkam in the presence of PW-6 and another.He took the police party and others to a place in front of the house of one Sait from where he took out M.O. 1 a wall levelling reaper which was seized by the Inspector of Police under Ex. P. 6 mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.The Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code.After the examination of the witnesses, the accused was questioned as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of the witnesses.The appellant denied his complicity crime and he said that on the date of the occurrence, he returned home by 8.00 p.m. but his wife did not cook anything for him and his children to eat, that when he questioned her, there was quarrel and she abused him with filthy words that one Selvam scolded her for such behaviour, but his wife scolded Selvam also, that when Selvam gave a push by placing his hands on her head, his wife fell on the stone of the pial backwards, that he, PW-3 Selvam, and others carried her to the house of PW-2 as they wanted to find out in the electric light whether there was any injury on her head, but there was no external injury, that before she could be taken to the hospital, she died, that he, Selvam, the Village menial Sekar.Thalayari Mani and PW-1 went to the Police Station to inform about her death but he was detained in the police station itself and the case was foisted against him.No witness was examined on his side.The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/appellant for the Offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code but has chosen to convict him under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code in the manner stated above.I also perused the records and I find that there is an ambiguity as to the nature of injury caused by the appellant.The doctor PW-4 has found only two swellings on the body of the deceased one on the backside of the head and the other on the backside of the neck.The internal examination revealed that the swelling on the backside of the neck had caused only haemotoma and it was only a simple injury whereas the injury No. 1, which was the swelling on the backside of the head, leading to the fracture of the occipital bone to 5 cm.Even though there were two injuries, as mentioned above, both the eye-witnesses PWs 1 and 2 have spoken only one hit by the appellant with his wall levelling reaper.The prosecution has elicited through PW-4, the doctor, as to the manner in which these two injuries could have been caused on the deceased.PW-4 has given opinion that the injury No. 2 namely the swelling on the backside of the neck, could have been caused by a hit with M.O. 1 reaper and the first injury namely the swelling in the occipital region could have been caused by a hit against the wall.Therefore, from the medical evidence, it is brought out that injury No. 2, which was simple in nature, alone was caused by the appellant and he was not responsible for the injury No. 1, which was fatal.Among the two eye-witnesses, none of them had said that the deceased was dashed against on the wall or the appellant had hit her head against the wall, PW-2 alone has stated that the appellant, holding the deceased by her turf and resting her head on the wall, beat her on the backside of the head with the levelling reaper.Mr. R. Reghupathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that as there is no evidence against the appellant that he had hit the head of the deceased against the wall, the only probability for injury No. 2 must have been due to a fall on the ground because both the ocular witnesses have stated that the deceased fell down when she was hit by the levelling reaper.If this explanation is accepted, the fatal injury namely injury No. 1, which is a fracture in the occipital region, could not have been due to the direct attack on the deceased by the appellant but only a consequential injury, when she fell down on the ground.So, it has to be concluded that the appellant had hit his wife on her neck causing only a simple injury.The next question to be considered is what is the effect of the consequential injury namely the fatal injury caused to the deceased due to the fall on the ground.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has cited a decision of the Apex Court in Jani Gulab Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1969 UJ (SC) 598, wherein the deceased, who abused the accused in that case, was pushed down and the deceased, who fell on the ground, sustained a fatal injury, leading to his death.Though the appellant was convicted under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court observed that the accused must not be posted with the knowledge that the death was likely to result in the circumstances under which the injuries were caused to the deceased and it is very rarely that if a man was pushed and he fell on the road, The occipital bone would get fractured and at any rate, it would be difficult to impute knowledge to the accused that the death was likely to result by the push that he was alleged to have given.Therefore, in that case, the appellant was found guilty only for the Offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code.Following this decision, this Court also in Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 1983 dated 20-3-1987, has convicted a person, who pulled down the deceased by his leg while he was standing on a pandal and sustained fatal injury by falling on a sharp projection.In that case, the deceased and some others were erecting pandal, which was objected to by the appellant and his brother, that while the deceased and others were carrying on the work of erecting the pandal, the appellant pulled down the deceased by his leg when he was standing at some height and the deceased, who fell down, developed a fracture in the head leading to his death.Even though the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant was having only a reaper used for levelling during the brick work and therefore, the appellant can be punished only under Section 323 Indian Penal Code as the weapon used in not a dangerous Weapon for causing the injury on the deceased the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the weapon of Offence cannot be said to be an ordinary stick because M.O. 1 the wall levelling reaper, measures more than 3 and it has sufficient weight to be used as a levelling reaper and therefore, the Offence would fall under Section 324 Indian, Penal Code.As M.O. 1 is as a weapon of more than 3 length, and it is a hard wooden reaper with smooth surface.Therefore, certainly, this reaper can be used even as a club or lathi to attack a person.Therefore, I agree with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to treat M.O. 1 as a dangerous weapon and by the user of this weapon, the appellant has committed the Offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code, for which, I am inclined to impose a punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment.

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

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

She was living in Karkudal Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police.Her husband was in the foreign parts.The child was doing his II Standard at Sakthi Matricualtion School at Vridhachalam.When P.W.2 and the deceased child Suresh got down from the van, the appellant/A-1 was waiting nearby along with the motorbike, came near the child, called him by name and informed the child that both her mother and grandmother were not doing well and so that, he wanted to take the child.With that false reason, he took the child from that place.This was witnessed not only by P.W.2, but also by P.W.3, a Villager of the place, who was actually coming on his way.(b) Since the child did not come back, P.W.1 made a search along with others.P.W.2 furnished the facts that the deceased child Suresh was intercepted by a person, and on the reason that both the mother and grandmother of Suresh were not doing well, he took Suresh in a motorbike.Then P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave a complaint to P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on the strength of Ex.P1, the complaint, given at about 7.00 P.M., registered a case in Crime No.106/2009 under Sec.366 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P14, was despatched to the Court.He took up investigation, proceeded to the spot and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.After the cell number was furnished, within a short span of five minutes at about 9.39 P.M., a phone call was made to the cellphone of P.W.1 by the appellant/A-1, who demanded a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs in order to release the child.Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station and gave that information to the Station House Officer who was on duty at that time, and the Investigation was taken up by P.W.19, the Inspector of Police.He arrested both A-1 and A-2 on 30.7.2009, and along with P.W.13, the Village Administrative Officer, he proceeded to the house of P.W.7, where during the relevant time, A-1 and A-2 were staying.In the presence of P.W.13, the confessional statement given by A-1 voluntarily, was recorded.The admissible part of the said confessional statement is marked as Ex.P9, pursuant to which A-1 first produced three cell phones, one with SIM card and the other two without SIM card and also M.O.5, motorcycle, which were all recovered under a cover of Ex.P10 mahazar.(d) A-1/appellant took the police party to Meerankulam within which the dead body of the child was thrown after the commission of Murder.Then the fire squad was informed, and P.W.9, the Officer attached to the Fire Department, came with his Assistant, and a gunny bag was taken out, and thereafter, an observation mahazar, Ex.P12, and a rough sketch, Ex.P17, were prepared by the Investigator.After the gunny bag was taken out from Meerankulam, it was opened, and the dead body of the child along with M.O.1 series, school bag, school books and also the slate of the child, was found.(e) The Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Suresh in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy.Thereafter, A-1 was brought to the station, and the case was converted to Sections 363 and 302 of IPC.The amended FIR, Ex.(f) P.W.12, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, on receipt of the said requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Suresh and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia by suffocation prior to dumping in water.According to him, at about 3.30 P.M. on 28.7.2009, A-1 came to his public telephone booth and he was also demanding Rs.5 lakhs ransom.P.W.17 was also examined.He gave a statement to the effect that on 28.7.2010 at about 8.30 P.M., when he was coming from the agricultural field, he found A-1 driving a bike and A-2 sitting as pillion rider, and in between a child aged about 7, was found sitting, and thereafter, at about 10.15 or 10.30 P.M., when he was sitting in front of the house, both A-1 and A-2 were returning, but the child was not found.The Investigating Officer also examined the Officer (Legal Cell) of the Vodafone Company from whom he got documents pertaining to the particulars of cellphone calls made on 27.7.2009 and 28.7.2009, etc., and the same was marked as Ex.P5 series.(h) A requisition was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.P.W.10, the Judicial Magistrate No.It was procedurally conducted.On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and also relied on 18 exhibits and 10 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the three charges levelled against the appellant/A-1 and found him guilty and awarded the above punishment.In order to seek confirmation of the death penalty, the matter is referred to by the Court of Session, while the appellant who was shown as A-1, has preferred the appeal whereby he challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial Court.However, the learned trial Judge was not convinced with the case of the prosecution in respect of A-2 and made an order of acquittal.Insofar as A-2, no appeal has been preferred by the State.The learned Counsel made the following comments and levelled criticisms on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.7.According to him, the prosecution came forward to state that P.Ws.2 and 3 have actually seen A-1 along with the child, and this evidence was believed by the trial Court.The evidence of P.W.2 should have been rejected by the trial Judge.P.W.2, at the time of occurrence was only 10 years old and at the time of evidence before the Court, 11 years old.But, the trial Judge has not even recorded any question to satisfy the maturity of mind of the child to depose before a Court of law.That apart, it was only 10 years old.Under the circumstance, the evidence of P.W.2 should not have been relied upon.8.Commenting upon the evidence of P.W.3, he would submit that P.W.3 could not have seen A-1 at the place of occurrence wherefrom the child was alleged to have been kidnapped, at all; that according to P.W.3, he was not only standing there, but also one Jayaraman was standing nearby who was examined as P.W.4; that P.W.4 has categorically deposed that he came to the place of occurrence at about 7.30 P.M. and thus he could not have seen the occurrence at all; that had it been true that P.W.4 was one standing by the side of P.W.3 at the time of the alleged kidnapping, both could not have seen at all; that apart from that, according to P.W.3, he also accompanied P.W.1 to the police station; that if to be so, he would have furnished the said information, but not done so; and that under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.3 becomes all the more doubtful.9.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the evidence of P.W.7 is concerned, during the relevant time, both A-1 and A-2 were actually residing in the house of P.W.7, and only to that extent, it can be taken; that except that, the other part of her evidence could not be relied; that as far as P.W.8 is concerned, according to her, there were two phone calls received by her at about 9.22 P.M. and 9.25 P.M. respectively from one Shankar, and the said Shankar wanted to know the cell phone number of P.W.1, and it was actually furnished by her in the second call made by him; and that if to be so, the Investigator should have actually made investigation whether Shankar is the person alive or a fictitious person, but no investigation was done from that angle.10.The learned Counsel would further add that according to P.W.1, she received a phone call at about 9.39 P.M. from A-1 demanding a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs; that as far as this is concerned, she has given a phone number; but, it is pertinent to point out that on verification, the phone number from which calls were alleged to have been received from A-1 by both P.W.8 and also by P.W.1 during the relevant time, belonged to one Vathsala; but the investigation was actually not done in that line; that it would be quite indicative of the fact that A-1 did not own such a phone on that day and at the relevant time; that under the circumstances, it would also cast a suspicion; that the investigation should have been done in that line, but not actually done; that the prosecution had relied on the recovery of the material objects on being identified by the appellant/A-1; that according to P.W.13, he was the Village Administrative Officer of Karkudal Village, and he received a requisition from the Investigating Officer at about 4.30 A.M., and after getting permission from the Tahsildar, he went to the police station, and he was taken to the house of P.W.7, and on being identified by P.W.7, A-1 and A-2 were arrested pursuant to which A-1 produced three cell phones and also a motorbike.Now, at this juncture, the learned Counsel commenting upon the evidence of P.W.13 would submit that P.W.13 had gone out of his jurisdiction; that while the witnesses were available in a place 40 or 50 kms.away in a different village, those witnesses should have been examined and their statements should have been recorded, and the recovery should have been made in their presence and not in the presence of P.W.13; that apart from that, P.W.13 has no where stated that A-1 has taken the child to Meerankulam; that so far as the recovery mahazars alleged to have been made at Meerankulam in respect of the gunny bag or the dead body or M.O.1 series are concerned, in no one of the recovery mahazars, the signature of A-1 was obtained; that it would also cast a doubt whether such a recovery could have been made at all; and that it would also cast a doubt on the arrest, confession and recovery of the material objects.11.Added further the learned Counsel that according to P.W.17, at about 8.30 P.M., he was coming from the agricultural field, and at that time, he found A-1 and A-2 sitting in the motorbike and in between a child was actually sitting, and they took the child, and after sometime, at about 10.15 or 10.30 P.M., when he was in front of his house, A-1 and A-2 alone were returning, but the child was not found in their company; that as far as the evidence of P.W.17 was concerned, it should have been completely rejected by the trial Court for the reason that when he gave a statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., he has stated that he was coming from the agricultural operation, but when he gave evidence before the Court, he stated that he came after attending the nature's call; that apart from that, according to him, he found the appellant/A-1 nearby Meerankulam; that an observation mahazar and also a rough sketch were prepared by the Investigator in which not even a light is shown; that according to P.W.17, he found both A-1 and A-2 at about 8.30 P.M.; that he has categorically admitted at the time of his cross-examination that he had not even seen A-1 and A-2 either before or after the time, and under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.17 was of no use to the prosecution.12.In his further arguments, the learned Counsel made much comment on the identification parade.15.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and looked into all the materials available.16.It is not in controversy that the dead body of a child aged 7, by name Suresh, the son of P.W.1, was found in Meerankulam during the investigation conducted by P.W.19 in Crime No.106 of 2009 originally registered under Sec.363 IPC and subsequently altered to Sections 363 and 302 IPC.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer and preparation of the inquest report, Ex.P18, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.12, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion that the child died out of asphyxia due to suffocation.18.According to P.W.1 the mother of the deceased child Suresh, the child used to leave for School every day at about 8.00 A.M. and come back at about 4.30 P.M., and on the date of occurrence, i.e., 27.7.2009, the child as usual went to the school.From the evidence of P.W.6, the Correspondent of Sakthi Matriculation School, Vridhachalam, and also the attendance register, Ex.Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.2 stood fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 was a native of the same village, and all these persons were already known to him.It is pertinent to point out that though P.W.7 has turned hostile, he has spoken to the fact that during the relevant time A-1 and A-2 were residing in the house, and he identified A-1 and A-2 to the Investigating Officer.At this juncture, P.W.13 has categorically spoken to the fact that at the time of arrest, A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded by the Investigator.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P9 pursuant to which he produced three cell phones out of which it was one which contained the number through which he made two phone calls to P.W.8 at about 9.22 P.M. and 9.25 P.M. respectively on 27.7.2010, and also at about 9.39 P.M. to P.W.1 making a demand for ransom.At this juncture, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel as to whether one Shankar who made the calls at 9.22 and 9.25 P.M., was alive or a fictitious person, and the cellphone recovered from A-1, did not belong to him even as per the documentary evidence have got to be rejected since they do not carry merit.The cellphone from which all the three calls were made namely two calls to P.W.8 at about 9.22 and 9.25 P.M. in the name of Shankar and one call at 9.39 P.M. by A-1 to P.W.1, has been recovered, and the particulars of those calls have been recorded in the cellphone, and it was actually kept by P.W.8 during the relevant time and also A-1 during the relevant time.Thus the prosecution has brought to the notice of the Court that in Ex.P5, the calls were actually found for 71 seconds at 9.22 P.M. and 43 seconds at 9.25 P.M. are found in Ex.Out of these three cell phones one cell phone was with the SIM card and the other two cell phones without SIM card.All the documentary evidence were placed before the trial Court.23.Now, the learned Counsel made a comment that if really such an information as to the demand for ransom was received by P.W.1 and she went to the police station and informed the same at the night itself, the investigation should have been done in that line.This contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the case was not registered for boy missing, but it was registered under Sec.363 of IPC, and the investigation was on.Now, it is pertinent to point out that the cellphone which was in the hands of A-1 during the relevant time, was not in his name, but in the name of one Vathsala, and therefore, even the verification would not have brought about any result at that time.The aggravating circumstances were described as under:-Some girl students of a University were travelling in a bus.The three accused persons attacked the bus and sprinkled petrol in the bus full of girl and boy students and set it on fire with the students still inside the bus.As a result, the inmates started escaping; however, three of the girls could not escape and were roasted alive.The unprovoked attack on the bus and the burning of the bus by sprinkling petrol on the bus, and the death of three students as a result of such burning was viewed by this Court as a barbaric and inhuman act of the highest degree.The offence was viewed as brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel, shocking the collective conscience of society.State of U.P. (1999 (4) SCC 108), which was a case of rape and murder of a young girl aged 14 years and where this Court had refused to confirm the death sentence on the ground that the death of the girl must not had been intended by the accused, and (iii) Om Prakash Vs.State of Haryana (1999 (3) SCC 19), which was a case where a BSF Jawan had murdered as many as 7 persons.This was also a case where the Court refused to confirm the death sentence on the ground that the bitterness in the mind of the accused had increased to a boiling point and the agony suffered by the accused and his family members at the hands of the other party, and for not getting protection from the police officers concerned and the total inaction on their part inspite of repeated written prayers, had goaded or compelled the accused to take the law in his own hands.However, this Court then took notice of the facts and noted that the accused in that case had fired at the marriage party as he knew that there was going to be a marriage on the next day in the house of the complainant.The accused had fired at the time when the feast was going on and 13 persons were killed on the spot and 8 persons were seriously injured.Out of all those 13 persons, one was 7 years' child.This Court, under the circumstances, refused to convert the death sentence into the sentence for life."Under the circumstance, showing mercy or leniency to such accused would be misplacing the mercy.1.The Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandram Cuddalore M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.AND M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is further corroborated by P.W.2 Annapurna, a neighbour who has deposed that she saw the accused entering the house of the child victim and closing the door after driving out her two friends.The evidence of the child victim receives corroboration from the evidence of her father P.W.3 Jitendra Mishra, is the submission.6. P.W.1 is the child victim who has deposed that on the day of the incident, at 12-00 noon she was going to the grocery shop to purchase chocolate when the accused met her on the way and enquired with the child victim as to where she was going.When the child victim told the accused that she was going to the grocery shop to purchase chocolate, the accused gave her Rs.1/-.th ORAL JUDGMENT :Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 20-11-2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur in Special Child Protection Case 49/2015, by and under which the appellant- accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 ::: 2 apeal630.17 is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ("POCSO Act" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::The prosecution case :The complainant (P.W.3) and his wife left their residence for work at 10-00 a.m. The child victim, then aged 6 years, was alone in the house.Normally in view of the cordial relationship with the accused Vinod Dongre, P.W.3 and his wife used to leave the child victim in the custody of the accused at his residence.Since 21-12-2014 was a Sunday, the child victim was left alone in the house.At 12-00 noon P.W.3 was telephonically informed by a neighbour one Ms. Borkar that the accused is doing some wrong act with his daughter by closing the door of the house.The complainant returned, made enquiries with the child victim who narrated as follows :The accused came to her house, demanded food, then closed the door and kissed the child victim, removed his clothes, put his hand in her knicker and inserted finger in her private part.A neighbour Julie Aunty (P.W.4) saw the incident, raised an alarm, the::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 ::: 3 apeal630.17 accused tried to escape by opening the door but was apprehended by the ladies, who assaulted him and informed the police.The accused was apprehended at the spot by the police.The complainant went to the police station with the victim and lodged report (Exhibit 33).::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::The Jaripatka Police Station registered offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exhibit 14) under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence is of total denial and false implication.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::The evidence of the child victim, whose statement was recorded after one month is not confidence inspiring is the submission.The learned Counsel attacks the prosecution case on the plank of the failure of the prosecution to examine Ketki and Saniya, the friends of the victim who according to the prosecution version were driven out from the house by the accused.The evidence of the child victim is criticized as unreliable in view of the material contradictions and embellishment.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.P. Maldhure would submit that the evidence of the child victim is implicitly reliable and confidence inspiring and is corroborated by P.W.4 Julie Nainwani, an eyewitness to the incident.The accused came to her residence after sometime.Two friends Saniya and Ketki were present and on seeing them the accused left.The accused returned after sometime and told Ketki to leave the house as her father was calling her.Saniya was not inclined to leave and was driven out by the accused on the pretext that her grandfather is calling her.The accused::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 ::: 6 apeal630.17 then asked the child victim for food.The child victim provided the accused food which he ate, then closed the door and removed the slack and knicker of the child victim, touched the private part and kissed her on lips and cheek.The child victim was asked to sit down which she refused.The child victim then wore her knicker and tried to maintain a distance from the accused who kept on trying to establish contact with the child victim.The incident was witnessed by P.W.4 Julie Nainwani from the window and she raised an alarm.The accused opened the door and attempted to flee.By that time a crowd had gathered.The accused was beaten up by the crowd.Somebody informed the parents of the child victim who came and the report was lodged.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::In the cross-examination, portion marked "A" in the examination-in-chief is brought on record as an omission vis-a-vis the statement recorded by the police.Similarly, portion marked "B" is also brought on record as an omission.The child victim denied the suggestion that she was tutored by her parents to give the evidence.She further denies the suggestion that she is deposing false at the instigation of her parents.The portions which are brought on record as omissions do not touch the substratum or core of the prosecution version.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::7. P.W.2 Annapurna corroborates the version of P.W.1 to the extent she has deposed that she saw the accused coming to the house of the child victim who was playing with her two friends.P.W.2 states that the accused left and then again came to the house of the victim and drove out her two friends Saniya and Ketki.The accused closed the door of the house of the victim, P.W.2 suspected foul play and alerted the ladies in the locality, one of whom Julie Nainwani (P.W.4) peeped from window and saw the accused removing the knicker of the victim and inserting his hand in her knicker.P.W.2 Annapurna informed the other ladies and knocked the door of the victim's house.The accused opened the door, was assaulted by the ladies and by then a crowd gathered and the parents of the child victim were summoned.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to assist the defence.Her testimony is not shaken in the cross- examination.8. P.W.3 Jitendra Mishra is the father of the child victim who has deposed that the incident was narrated to him by the ladies who had gathered infront of his house who were beating the accused.P.W.3 states that he enquired from the child victim who disclosed the incident.P.W.3 states that the disclosure was that the accused closed::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 ::: 8 apeal630.17 the door, kissed the cheek of the child victim and put his finger in the private part.P.W.3 states that he then slapped the accused twice or thrice and lodged the report (Exhibit 33) and printed first information report (Exhibit 34).::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::The entire testimony of P.W.3 has gone virtually unchallenged.The only suggestion given is that no incident took place as alleged.9. P.W.4 Julie is an eye witness who has deposed that she saw from the window that the accused kissed the child victim and put his hand on the knicker of the victim.In the cross-examination, an attempt is made to bring on record strained relationship between the mother of the P.W.4 and the wife of the accused.P.W.4 has denied the suggestion.However, it is not even argued before me that the child victim was less than 18 years of the age on the day of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::P.W.8 Sudhakar Khuje is one of the investigating officers who has proved oral report (Exhibit 33) and printed first information report (Exhibit 34).It is elicited in his cross-examination that he has not recorded the statement of the victim.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::The learned Sessions Judge appears to have invoked sub- section (b) of Section 375 of the IPC.Neither the testimony of the child victim nor the testimony of the eyewitness P.W.4 proves that the accused inserted his finger or any other body part or object in the vagina of the child victim.The evidence of the child victim, even accepting the evidence at face value, is that the accused kissed her lips and cheek and touched her private part.The evidence of P.W.4 Julie is that she saw the accused kissing the child victim and put his hand on the knicker of the victim.In my opinion, in the teeth of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, it cannot be held, with any degree of certainty, that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::However, the conviction of the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is unexceptionable.The evidence of the child victim P.W.1 and P.W.4 Julie who is an eyewitness, is implicitly reliable and confidence inspiring.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is more than amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 Annapurna and P.W.3 Jitendra, complainant.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the child victim.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 01:51:58 :::

['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Special Judge, CBI-01 allowing an application dated 21st December, 2015 filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi for release of documents seized during investigation.It appears that this order of the trial court was challenged by the CBI by way of Crl.M.C.No.257/2016 before this court.The ld.Single Judge had accepted CBI's challenge to the order dated 21st December, 2015 of the ld.The ld.Consequently, it came to be registered as CCP (Ref) No. 3/2016 and listed before the ld.An advance copy of the reference had been directed to be served by the Registry upon the Standing Counsel for the CBI.CBI was therefore represented before the court.The record shows that though notice was not issued by the ld.CCP(Ref.)No.3/2016 Page 6 of 58During the course of investigation in the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI" hereafter) seized seven accounts held by one of the companies being investigated i.e M/s Endeavour Systems Pvt. Ltd. with the Oriental Bank of Commerce.An application dated 27th February, 2016 came to be filed seeking defreezing of seven of these bank accounts.In opposition, the CBI filed a written reply dated 11th of March 2016 making a detailed factual assertion and finally summing up its CCP(Ref.)No.3/2016 Page 2 of 58 submissions in para 10 of the reply (wherein it was replying to para 16 of the application).The issuance of directions to return the documents at the time of initial investigation despite having consistent stand of the CBI to retain the documents for the purpose of investigation to reach to a logical conclusion; making the unnecessary observations in para 55 with regard to conducting the proceedings by the petitioner; having contradictory views in paras 58-59 and 44; directing to return the documents in original selected by the respondent no. 1 in para 8 of the application and having failed to exercise the jurisdiction to consider the application for retention of documents by the CBI, culminates into the impugned order not sustainable in the eyes of law"."(Emphasis by us)The extract of the reply resulted in the passing of an order dated 5th April, 2016 by the ld.Special Judge objecting to the insertion of the above in the reply.In the order dated 5th April, 2016, the ld.Trial CCP(Ref.)No.3/2016 Page 3 of 58 Judge has found above sub-para objectionable for reasons which can be summed up as under :(v) The reproduction was a "calculated psychological offence and mind game to intimidate the judge" to seek orders in their favour.The ld.Consequently, the ld.We, consequently, have first heard arguments on this aspect of the matter.M.C.No.257/2016 (wrongly referred to as Crl.In the reference order, the ld.This order was challenged by the CBI before this court by way of Crl.We have scrutinized the entire reply dated 11th March, 2016 passed by the CBI very closely.While referring to the order dated 10 th February, 2016 of the ld.Single Judge (in Crl.Single Judge had allowed Crl.In the perception of the CBI, the order of the ld.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal original Petition has been filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, for the alleged offences under Sections 268, 269, 278 and 290 IPC.The Judicial Magistrate ought to have referred the case to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.The respondent / complainant preferred complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Sriperumbudur under Section 190 (1) (a) and 200 of Cr.P.C, alleging that the petitioner / accused discharge from his factory premises contaminated effluent and dust particles into the complainant's land causing damage to the compound wall besides seriously affecting the health of the factory workers, staff as well as all the people who dwell within the factory premises; it poses a serious health hazards and in addition, it also become breeding place of mosquitoes and various diseases.The learned Judicial Magistrate, after conducting enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C and after considering the sworn statement of the complainant and the deposition of witness was satisfied that prima facie case is made out and therefore took cognizance of the offences under Sections 268, 269, 278 and 290 IPC and issued process to the accused under Section 204 (3) Cr.P.C.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends reiterating the points averred in the petition.The learned counsel for respondent per contra contends that the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken the case on file after due enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The offence under Section 269 IPC is a cognizable offence.When the Judicial Magistrate is taking cognizance of the said offence, he is bound to take along with that even non-cognizable offences if any.The other offences taken on file are Section 278 IPC for making atmosphere noxious to health and Section 290 r/w 268 IPC, relating to public nuisance.The copy of the statement of witness Delhi Babu recorded by the Judicial Magistrate has not been filed by the petitioner before this Court.Even from the complaint and the sworn statement, it is clearly alleged that discharge of effluent from the petitioner's factory possess a serious health hazard and because of that it became a breeding place of mosquitoes, various diseases and such discharge is seriously affecting the health of the factory workers, staff as well as the people who dwell there.P.C and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The trial Court is directed to dispose S.T.C.No.1229 of 2009, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to the Registry.The District Munsif-cum-The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.P.KALAIYARASAN, Jtsvn Crl.O.P No.776 of 2010 05-08-2016

['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Due to your aforesaid misdeed terror in Sardhana and in District Meerut terrorism has spread and in this way you have acted in such manner which is against the Maintenance of Public Law and order situation.On 11-2-88 at about 11.00 A.M. in the day at the Binauli Road in Kasba and Police Station Sardhana you alongwith your companion Vinay Kumar went to the Shop of Shri Ashok Kumar and you threatened Shri Ashok Kumar that he should pay Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand) by tomorrow or day after tomorrow otherwise he will be killed.On the basis of information of Shri Ashok Kumar Crime No. 48 under Section 506 I.P.C. has been diarised which is under consideration.Due to your aforesaid indecent terror in Kasba Sardhana and in the District of Meerut terrorism has prevailed and in this way you have acted in such manner which is against the maintenance of the Public Law and Order situation.On 3.3.88 in the Kasba of Sardhana, Police StationSardhana, District Meerut, you taking a Revolver in yourhand in the market of Sardhana said to the Shopkeepers thatwho so-ever will not pay money (CHAUTH), he cannot open theshop in the market, due to which the shops were closed inthe market.As per the Tele.CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.)No.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. )R.K. Jain, R.K. Khanna and A.S. Pundir for the Petitioner.Yogeshwar Prasad, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mrs. Rachna Joshi,Dalveer Bhandari, Ms. C.K. Sucharita and Ms. A. Subhashinifor the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This petition under Article 32 of theConstitution of India has been filed by the petitioner toseek the issue of appropriate writs for quashing an order ofdetention passed against261him under Section 3(2) of.-the National Security Act (here-inafter the 'Act') by the State of Uttar Pradesh and for hisrelease from custody.On April 5, 1988 an order of detentionwas passed against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of theAct but the petitioner could not be served the order ofdetention and taken into preventive custody as he was ab-sconding.In the grounds of detention three grounds were set outfor the detention of the petitioner and they read as fol-lows:On 8.7.87 at about 9.30 P.M. in the night at Kasba Sardhana, Police Station Sard- hana (Meerut) you alongwith your other compan- ions went to the garden of Lala Om Prakash Jain which is in the possession of Yusuf S/o Ismail on contract.You said to Yusuf etc. who were present there that they do not pay the (CHAUTH) fee for GUNDAGARDI of the Mango, therefore, you using abusive language said "Kill the Salas, so they may vanish for ever and you people with an intention to kill Yusuf etc. assaulted them.On the information of Shri Yusuf a case has been registered against you as Crime No. 211 under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., which is under consideration of the Court.H.C. Khajan Singh with the help of other employ-ees when tried to arrest you then you ran away on the MotorCycle alongwith your companion while firing in the air.By your afore-said indecent activity in Sardhana and in District Meerutterrorism has prevailed and in this way you have acted insuch manner which is against the provisions of Maintenanceof Public law and Order situation.The grounds of detention also set out the following:It is common ground that the petitioner made a represen-tation to the Government against his detention and the orderpassed therefore.Therein he had set out that he wished tohave the services of a friend at the time of the meeting ofthe Advisory Board to make representations on his behalf.The representation wasconsidered and rejected by the State Government on July 28,1988 and the petitioner was informed of the same through theJail Superintendent, Meerut.The meeting of the Advisory Board to consider the caseof the petitioner was fixed on August 2, 1988 and a Radio-gram was sent by the State Government to the District Magis-trate and the Superintendent District Jail, Meerut informingthe date of the meeting of the Advisory Board.The Radio-gram further set out as follows:"Board further directs that either District Magistrateor Superintendent of Police to appear before the Board onthe date of hearing with.all relevant records and on requestof the detenu his best friend (non-advocate) may also beallowed to appear with him." A copy of the Radio-gram wassent to the Jail Superintendent and it was shown to thepetitioner and his acknowledgement was obtained.The Adviso-ry Board considered the written and oral representations ofthe petitioner and gave a report that there was sufficientcause for the detention of the petitioner.The State Govern-ment accepted the report of the Advisory Board and passed afurther order on August 17/18, 1988 confirming the detentionof the petitioner.Thereafter the petitioner has come for-ward with this petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-tion.However, during thehearing of the writ petition no arguments were advanced inrespect of this ground of objection.Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner assailedthe order of detention on the following grounds:(1) All the three grounds set out in the grounds of detention even if true, are not incidents which would affect the maintenance of public order and at best they can be con- strued only as offences committed against individuals or incidents which are likely to affect the law and order situation.(2) The third ground is a concocted incident in order to give credibility to the detention order by making it appear that the petitioner was indulging in anti-social acts which affected the maintenance of public order.Besides these contentions Mr. Jain also raised a fourthcontention that under Section 3(5) of the Act the StateGovernment is enjoined to send a report within seven days tothe Centre Government, of the detention of any detenu underthe Act together with the grounds on which the order hadbeen made and on receipt of such a report the Central Gov-ernment is bound to consider the matter and either approvethe detention or revoke the same in exercise of its powersunder Section 14 of the Act. In this case there was nomaterial to show that the Central Government had performedits duty under the Act.Since this contention was not raised in the petition andsince the Central Government had not been impleaded a partyrespondent, the petitioner's counsel filed a petition andsought leave of Court for raising an additional ground andfor impleading the Central Government as a party respondent.Mr. Jain argued that grounds 1and 2 were threats meted out to individual persons regardingwhich criminal cases have been registered and the 3rd groundwas identical to the one noticed by this Court in GulabMehra's case.Consequently, it was argued that we shouldalso hold, as was done in Gulab Mehra's case that thegrounds set out against the petitioner would at best affectonly the law and order situation and would not pose a threatto the maintenance of public order.We have given the matterour careful consideration but we find ourselves unable toagree with the contention of Mr. Jain.In ground No. 1, thepetitioner had gone with his associates and threatened oneYusuf, the contractor of a mango grove that fees for goonda-gardi (Chauth) should be paid to him and the petitioner andhis associates assaulted Yusuf saying that they will "Killthe salas".The petitioner has averred in hispetition as follows:"The petitioner orally as well as in writing requested the Chairman of the Advisory Board to allow him to engage a counsel or atleast a person who is acquainted with the law to represent him before the Advisory Board, as the petitioner was illiterate and was not capable of representing his case before the Advisory Board.Unfortunately, the Advisory Board rejected the request of petitioner and did not allow him to engage a legal counsel or atleast a person 269 who is acquainted with the provisions of the National Security Act and forced the petition- er to appear before the Advisory Board without any defence helper.dated 26.7.88 of the Home Deptt.of Government of U.P., Lucknow, the petitioner was allowed to appear before the Advisory Board through non-advocate next friend.A copy of the said message is annexed hereto and marked as annexure R-I.However the petitioner's assertion that he is illiterate is wrong because he knows English and has submitted detailed representation.According to information available, petitioner is an Intermediate.The ratio of the decision in A.K. Royal v. U.O.I., (reported in AIR 1982 SC 709) has not been contravened in any manner in the instant case."In the counter affidavit on behalf of the State of U .P. ithas been stated as follows:"But it is evident from the record that the Advisory Board had directed the State Govt. through its letter dated 2 Ist July, 1988 that since the petitioner Shri Sharad Tyagi had requested to appear alongwith his next friend, he may be informed to attend the Board's meeting alongwith his next friend (non-advo- cate) on the date of hearing.The State Gov- ernment complied with the instructions of the Advisory 270 Board and had sent the necessary directions to the District Authorities through its radiogram message dated 26 July, 1988, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-I".Besides the specific averment made in the counter affi-davit, Shri Yogeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the Stateof U.P. also drew our attention to the radiogram sent by theGovernment to the District Magistrate wherein it has beenclearly stated that "on request of detenu his next friend(non-advocate) may also be allowed to appear with him." Mr.Yogeshwar Dayal also made available to us the file contain-ing the original records relating to the detention of thepetitioner.We find from the records that the radiogram hadbeen served on the petitioner through the Superintendent ofthe Meerut District Jail.The petitioner has affixed hissignature in English therein and also written the word"date" but he has not filled up the date.This would falsifythe averment in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the peti-tioner's wife Smt. Shobha Tyagi "that the copy of the tele-gram annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondent No.2 was not served upon the detenu; the detenu was neverinformed that he was entitled to be represented by a friendwho is not an advocate." Mr. Jain's contention was that evenif the radiogram had been shown to the petitioner, it musthave been done belatedly and there would not have been timefor the petitioner to contract anyone and make arrangementsfor a non-advocate friend appearing alongwith him at themeeting of the Advisory Board.In the firstplace, the petitioner has not raised such a plea in hispetition.His specific contention was that he had requestedthe Chairman of the Advisory Board in writing as well asorally to permit him to have the services of a counsel or aperson acquainted with the law to represent his case beforethe Advisory Board but the Advisory Board rejected hisrequest.In the result we do not find any ground for quashing theorder of detention passed against the petitioner.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No. 78 of 2017 dated 14/03/2017 under Sections 448 /325 /307 /302 /354B /379 /506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: - Tapash Makhal ....petitioner.Mr. R. Sengupata, Mr. S. Talukdar, Ms. R. Rudra ...for the petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

I refused to come to his house because he has earlier asked me to remove my underwear.Thereafter the accused brought me into his house and removed my underwear.The accused removed his underwear also.JUDGMENT Batta, J.The appellant was tried for rape on a minor girl aged 15 years and criminal intimidation under Ss. 376 and 506(I) IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was awarded as compensation to be paid to the prosecutrix in case of realisation of the fine.The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentences in this appeal.We have heard Advocate Shri Menino Teles for the appellant and P.P. Shri G. U. Bhobe for the State.The accused was charged for the offences of rape and criminal intimidation committed by him on 10-1-1991 at 3 p.m. The parents and brother of the prosecutrix were working in the lime stone quarry of the appellant and the appellant used to call the prosecutrix for domestic work at his house.PW. 1, the brother of the prosecutrix has stated that he came to know of the pregnancy of the prosecutrix in May, 1991, when she was 5 months pregnant and upon making inquiries as to who had spoiled her, she did not reveal the name of the person concerned.P.W. 4 has also stated that they had even beaten the prosecutrix to find out the name of the culprit, but she did not disclose the same.The appellant had examined two witnesses in his defence.The evidence of Dr. Madhukar Usgaonkar, P.W. 5, as well as of Dr. Anand Haldankar, PW. 6 does not help the prosecution case, except for the blood grouping of the prosecutrix, the child born as a result of the incident and that of the appellant.This vital piece of evidence could have connected the appellant with the crime and could lend assurance to the version of the prosecutrix, which was considerably weakened during her cross-examination.The prosecutrix, in her examination-in-chief had stated :"While I was working in the house of the accused on 2 occasion the accused caught my band and took me inside the room.He was trying to throw me down.Then I shouted and came out running.On the next day the accused again called me.The accused slept over me and he had sexual intercourse.Then I shouted.As I was shouting the accused closed my mouth by putting clothes on my face.Then I came out crying.The accused threatened to beat me if I cried.I told the accused that I will inform my mother that you slept with me.The accused threatened to beat me if I tell my mother.The accused had sexual intercourse with me on 3 occasions.As a result I became pregnant and delivered a child.At that time the accused told me that I will become pregnant thereafter the accused wife and another lady by name Shanta took me to a doctor.The doctor after having examined me opined that I am pregnant."However, the prosecutrix was confronted during the course of cross-examination with her police statement, in relation to the version given by her in her examination-in-chief and we must say that the prosecutrix was thoroughly discredited in the said process.The prosecutrix had stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused had thrown her down twice and she was confronted with her police statement, wherein it was not so recorded.She had also stated in her deposition that the accused threatened to beat her in case she did not remove her underwear.On being confronted with her police statement, this fact was not found recorded therein.She had also stated in her deposition that the accused told her to remove her under-wear and that in case, she did not remove, he would beat her and as such, she shouted and came out running.The witness was confronted with her police statement, but the version found in the police statement was completely different wherein it is recorded that she shouted when he forcibly removed her under-wear, took her to bed and when she tried to shout, the accused put some clothes in her mouth.She had further stated in her deposition in the Court that on the next day, the accused again called her, but she refused to go to his house, because he had earlier asked her to remove her underwear and when she was confronted with her police statement, the said fact was not found recorded therein.The prosecutrix had further stated in her deposition that the accused removed her under-wear and made her to lie down and he slept over her, but when she was confronted with her police statement, the said fact was not found recorded therein.She had also stated in the course of her deposition that the accused had also removed his underwear, but when she was confronted with her police statement, the said fact was not found recorded therein.She had also stated that in response to her shouts, three people came there, but when she was confronted with her police statement, the said fact was not found recorded therein.She had also stated that while running, she was seen by one Shanta, but this fact was also not found recorded in her statement before the police.Said Shanta was not examined in the Court on the ground that her whereabout were not known.The prosecutrix had also stated that she shouted, came out crying and the accused threatened to beat her, but when confronted with her police statement, the said facts were not found recorded therein.She further stated that she had told the police about the timing of the incident on all the three occasions and was confronted with her police statement on this aspect.Of course, she had stated in the Court that she did not know the date on which the accused had sexual intercourse with her on three occasions.After having discussed the evidence of the prosecutrix in detail, we are of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecutrix has been totally discredited in the cross-examination and, as such we hold that her evidence does not inspire confidence.We are further of the opinion that her evidence is unworthy of credit and it is not possible to sustain the conviction on such evidence.For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the appeal as allowed.The conviction and the sentence of the appellant under Ss. 376 and 506(I) IPC is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges.The Bail Bonds of the appellant are cancelled.Appeal allowed.

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

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

The deceased viz., Marilakshmi is the wife of the accused.They were running a hotel named “Vinayagar”.The deceased was having a grievance that the accused was spending money from the income derived from the hotel only for his family members.There used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused.On 11.05.2012, at about 09.30 p.m., there arose a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the accused is said to have poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.As a result of which, the deceased died on 12.05.2012 at about 04.15 a.m. in the hospital.2/22http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 20173 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The complaint and evidence collected during the investigation:-(3.1).(3.2).In the mean time, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti received the information from the Government Hospital at about 12.40 a.m. on 12.05.2012 and he immediately rushed to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, after satisfying himself that the deceased is in a conscious state of mind and is capable of giving the statement.He also ascertained the conscious state of mind from the Doctor.The deceased is said to have informed the learned Judicial Magistrate that there was a fight between the deceased and the 3/22http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 accused and the accused had set her on fire.The learned Judicial Magistrate found that the deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries.Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate took hallux impression in the statement recorded from the deceased along with the Certificate from the Doctor.The learned Magistrate completed the recording of the statement at about 01.10 p.m. (3.3).After registration of the First Information Report, the investigation was handed over to P.W.18, who proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 12.05.2012 at about 03.45 a.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.13) and he examined the witnesses and recovered the material objects.He received an information around 04.30 a.m. that the deceased had died in the hospital and therefore, he went to the hospital around 05.00 a.m. and got the death report (Ex.4 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017(3.4).On the same day at about 08.30 a.m, P.W.18 who conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P.15) and at about 10.35 a.m., he prepared requisition for 4/22http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 sending the body for postmortem.The body was taken for postmortem and thereafter, the body was handed over to the relatives.5 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017(3.5).P.W.18 recorded the statement of the witnesses and on 13.05.2012 at about 06.00 a.m., he arrested the accused person and produced him before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.Immediately after the arrest, based on the confession made by the accused, the match box was seized from his pocket.All the material objects that were seized / recovered were sent to the concerned Court.P.W.18 also collected the Postmortem Report, Chemical Examination Report (Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18).Except her head, neck and face, on all other parts of the body she had lost the whole skin.There would be loss of fluids and consciousness.It is true that the pain killer may have been given as was stated by the doctor as burns may not have evenly impacted the skin.But what is important is whether despite the extensive burn, the patient 15/22http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Crl.I, Kovilpatti, on receiving the information at about 12.40 a.m. on 12.05.2012, rushed to the Kovilpatti Government Hospital within five minutes and he went to the emergency ward.He enquired Doctor Srikumar (P.W.9), who certified that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind and immediately, thereafter, he started recording the dying declaration around 12.47 a.m. The deceased had clearly stated that there was a wordy quarrel between her and her husband on 11.05.2012 at about 09.30 p.m., and he had set her on fire and ran away from the scene of occurrence.The learned Magistrate had also received the right hallux impression.This was also 16/22http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Crl.S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.An information was received by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station (P.W.17) on 11.05.2012, at about 11.30 p.m. from the Government Hospital and she reached the Kovilpatti Government Hospital on 12.05.2012 at 01.00 a.m. and took the statement from the deceased in the Hospital (Ex.P.11) and a First Information Report came to be registered at 02.30 a.m. in Crime No.79 of 2012 (Ex.P.12) for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.An express First Information Report was immediately sent along with the statement recorded from the deceased to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti.P.3) and he thereafter, altered the First Information Report under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.This was immediately sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II.On completion of the investigation, he laid the final report before the concerned Court and the same was thereafter, committed to the file of the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, framed charges against the accused person for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution examined 18 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.18) and marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.5/22http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 20176 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The Trial Court had put all the incriminating materials collected during the trial to the accused person and questioned him under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied the same as false.● All the witnesses who were examined on the side of the prosecution had turned hostile and the Court below has found the appellant guilty only based on the two dying declarations.One given to the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.14) (Ex.P.2) and another given to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.17) (Ex.P.11).http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 ● The deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries and she was not in a conscious state and was also administered with pain killers.Therefore, the prosecution cannot solely rely upon the dying declaration of the deceased to substantiate their case.● Admittedly, there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused and even on the date of occurrence, there was a fight and the same is very clear even on a reading of the charge against the appellant and therefore, the appellant had committed the offence under grave and sudden provocation.The case squarely falls under first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant ought not to have been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.7 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State made the following submissions:The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Police submitted that the dying declaration that was recorded from the deceased clearly point out to the fact that it was the appellant alone, who had poured kerosene and set on fire the deceased and there is absolutely no ground to suspect the dying declaration.He 7/22http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 further submitted that the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W.15) and the Postmortem Certificate, marked as (Ex.P.8) clearly point out to the fact that the deceased had died only due to burn injuries.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore concluded his arguments by submitting that the Court below has considered the oral and documentary evidence and has come to the correct conclusion that the appellant has committed the murder and the case squarely falls under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Vs.8 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the entire oral and documentary evidence.The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the dying declaration since almost all the witnesses had turned hostile.8/22http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 “DYING DECLARATION (A) CONSCIOUSNESS AND FIT STATE OF MIND9 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The appellant would urge that the deceased was having 92% burn injuries.P.W. 14 was the medical officer.He has deposed that he examined her and she was conscious throughout.He also says that pain killer was given to the patient but unable to tell which pain killer was given.He has not mentioned in the certificate which questions were put to patient.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 the Executive Magistrate and the dying declaration orally made need not be doubted.The Magistrate being a disinterested witness and a responsible officer and there being no circumstances or material to suspect that the Magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested for fabricating a dying declaration, question of doubt on the declaration, recorded by the Magistrate does not arise.These injuries are characterized by redness and blisters.The deeper the burn the more prevalent the blisters, which increase in size during the hours immediately following the injury.Like first-degree burns, second- degree injuries may be extremely painful.The development of complications and the course of healing in a second-degree burn depend on the extent of damage to the dermis.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 because the pain receptors have been obliterated along with the rest of the dermis.Blood vessels, sweat glands, sebaceous glands, and hair follicles are all destroyed in skin that suffers a full-thickness burn.Fluid losses and metabolic disturbances associated with these injuries are grave.15 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017XXXX Surgeons measure the area of a burn as percentage of the body's total skin area.The skin area on each arm is roughly 9 percent of the body total, as is the skin covering the head and neck.The percentage on each leg is 18, and the percentage on the trunk is 18 on the front and 18 on the back.The percentage of damaged skin affects the chances of survival.Most people can survive a second-degree burn affecting 70 percent of their body area, but few can survive a third-degree burn affecting 50 percent.If the area is down to 20 percent, most people can be saved, though elderly people and infants may fail to survive a 15 percent skin loss.”A(MD)No.478 of 2017 was conscious and mentally and physically in a condition to understand the questions put to her and to give answers to the same.”16 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017If the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applied to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 certified by the Doctor and the entire process was completed at around 01.10 a.m. This dying declaration was marked as (Ex.P.7).17 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The other dying declaration was recorded by P.W.17, who was the Sub Inspector of Police at Ettayapuram Police Station.She got information from the hospital and she went to the hospital at around 1.15 a.m on 12.05.2012 and recorded her statement, which was treated as dying declaration and this was marked as Ex.Based on the same, the First Information Report came to be registered at about 02.30 a.m. in Crime No.79 of 2012 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The statement recorded from the deceased by P.W.17 also does not contradict the earlier dying declaration that was made to the learned Judicial Magistrate.18 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The next ground that has been urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the facts of the present case will squarely fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of I.P.C. In order to substantiate the said arguments, the learned Senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the charges framed against the appellant and also the dying declaration given by the deceased.A(MD)No.478 of 2017In the present case, it is found that the appellant was completely deprived of the power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation and he caused death of the deceased by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.It is found that the appellant had not voluntarily provoked himself and there were obviously earlier fights between the 19/22http://www.judis.nic.in 20 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 parties for a very long time and the verbal fight that took place on 11.05.2012, became the last straw on the camel's back.20 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017The facts of the present case clearly falls under exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the appellant is convicted for “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” and he is sentenced under Section 304 (i) of the Indian Penal code, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years.The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below in S.C.No.148 of 2014, dated 15.03.2017, is modified to that extent and accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.It is made clear that 20/22http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017 the appellant shall be entitled for set off in accordance with Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the period of detention already undergone by him.21 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 201722 Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2017

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Passed on the 6th day of February, 2013) This order passed by this Court shall govern disposal of the above mentioned criminal revisions, as both the revisions have arisen out of common impugned order.The applicant-prosecutrix has preferred the criminal revision No.2099/12 against the order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.310/2009 for 2 Cr.R. No.2099/12 & 2008/12 framing of the charges for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC against the respondent No.2 (applicant-accused in Cr.R.No.2008/2012).On the other hand, the applicant-accused has preferred the Cr.R.No.2008/12 against the impugned order by which the charges of offence punishable under Sections 452, 376/5011, 506-B read with Section 120-B of IPC were framed against the applicant-accused.The prosecution's case, in short, is that the applicant-accused had lodged an FIR at Police Station Gorakhpur on 16.3.2006 that four accused persons went inside the house of the applicant-accused and threatened him.On 29.3.2006 the applicant-prosecutrix had sent a written report to the SHO Gorakhpur where upon she was informed about the report lodged by the accused-applicant, but actually on 16.3.2006 at about 1:00 PM various culprits (four accused in the case) went inside the campus of her house by jumping the courtyard wall and tried to kidnap her children and gave a threat that they would kidnap her children and they would commit rape upon her.They also tried to commit rape upon 3 Cr.R. No.2099/12 & 2008/12 her.She was informed that the applicant-accused had also lodged an FIR, and therefore she may be given the copy of that FIR.She requested for the police protection and investigation.The prosecutrix and her children gave their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in detail.Thereafter a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the applicant-prosecutrix, who was present in person in the Court.The applicant-prosecutrix has submitted that the accused-applicant was her husband and a divorce took place three years prior to the incident.It was the accused-applicant, who had sent other co-accused persons to commit such an offence and thereafter to dilute their guilt, a false FIR was lodged by the accused-applicant.The prosecutrix- applicant, who appeared in person before this Court has also submitted that the FIR which was lodged by the accused-applicant was nothing, but a forged document and the applicant-accused cheated with the 4 Cr.R. No.2099/12 & 2008/12 prosecutrix to give advantage to other co-accused persons, and therefore it was for the trial Court to frame charges of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC against the accused-applicant.The prosecutrix, who appeared in person has invited attention of this Court at the various documents filed by her.She has also submitted that the applicant- accused misused the power of attorney granted by her, and therefore it is prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and the trial Court be directed to enhance the charges of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.The order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is hereby set aside.The accused-applicant is discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 376/511 read with Section 120-B and Section 452 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PrayerAppeals filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,against the judgment dated 27.06.2007 in S.C.No.7 of 2006 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.A.11 is the son of A.10'ssister-in-law.In the year 1997, some of the witnesses in the present case attackedone Krishna konar who belonged to Madumeithan group and in that connection, acase in Cr.No.29 of 1997 was registered by Arumuganeri Police Station for thecommission of the offences under Section 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. Aftertrial, the accused therein were acquitted and from that time onwards, bothgroups are inimical to each other.In Kandan Kudiyiruppu, there are two temples belonged to Yadhavacommunity.One of the temples, i.e, Amman temple is within the said KandanKudiyiruppu and another temple, i.e, Sudalai Madasamy temple is on the southernside of the Kandan Kudiyiruppu.There is a practice to give donation/kodai(bfhil) once in two years to Sudalai Madasamy temple and all along, it was givenby the people belong to Seevanathan group.On 02.08.2005, Madumeithan group under the leadership of A.10,Paramasivam, had given such donation/kodai to the said temple.However, P.W.3,Murugesan, belongs to Seevanathan group has not given donation/kodai.On thatday, during night hours, P.W.7, Vaikundam, who is the priest/samiyadi had goneto midnight ceremony and give holy ash firstly to P.W.22, Murugesan and due tothe fact also, the enmity further developed between two groups.In connectionwith the said incident, all accused assembled in the house of the A.2, MaharajaKonar on 06.08.2008 and hatched a conspiracy to finish off the people belong toSeevanathan group and it should be done before the eight day festival.Due to the said conspiracy, on 09.08.2005 at about 08.30 p.m, bothgroup after finishing off the pooja and after obtaining prasadh (gpurhjk;).At that time, all the accused with an intention to murder armed withdeadly weapons and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in front ofSudalai Madasamy temple on Ammanpuram to Arumuganeri road.At that time, P.W.3,Murugesan, came and he was wrongfully restrained by A.1 and he has scolded himas he has not paid any tax/kodai and why he has not given? After uttering thesaid words, he beat P.W.3 with the handle of his aruval and caused injury at theleft eye and also left knee.A.2, told him that he is the sole cause ofall troubles and with an intention to murder him, beat him with a stick.A.2also instigated other accused to finish them off and immediately, the accusedstarted attacking Nainar konar (D.1).A.3 to A.5 indiscriminately cut Nainarkonar (D.1) with aruvals and due to the injuries sustained, Nainar konar died onthe spot.Swaminathan, (D.3), on seeing the attack on Nainar konar questionedthe accused and immediately, he was attacked by A.6, A.7 and A.8 with aruvalsand he was inflicted with cut injuries.While Swaminathan, (D.3), was taken tothe Government Hospital, Tiruchendur, he died.P.W.4, Periasamy, who is thefather of Swaminathan (D.3) on seeing the attack on his son raised alarm and hewas stabbed by A.9 with Valaya kambu and caused him bleeding injuries and it wasquestioned by P.W.2 Raghavan and he was attacked with aruval.A.10, alsoattacked P.W.5 Isakkimuthu with aruval.The said incident was seen by Periyasamy, younger brother of P.W.1,Shanmugakrishnan.A.6, as a result of a conspiracy hatched, cut him with sword(ths;) on Periyasamy and he falls down.A.6, once again cut him with his swordand A.11 cut him with aruval.A.7 and A.8 also attacked Periyasamy witharuvals.A.2, beat Periyasamy on his head with a stick.Due to multipleinjuries, Periyasamy (D.2) died on the spot.All the accused assembled togetherand threatened the witnesses with the weapons that if they come near, they willalso be finished off and they ran away with the weapons.The prosecution after investigation, has laid the charge sheet asagainst the accused as follows:Charges Accused U/s.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty sevenwitnesses and marked sixty exhibits.The prosecution also marked M.O.1 toM.O.31 to sustain their case.On behalf of the accused, three witnesses wereexamined and three exhibits were marked.There were totally seven eyewitnesses to the commission of theoffence.P.W.1 to P.W.5 were the injured witnesses and P.W.6 and P.W.7 werealso eyewitnesses to the occurrence.P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to Kurumboor Police Station atabout 09.30 p.m, and gave a statement under Ex.P.1 to P.W.25, the Sub Inspectorof Police of Kurumboor Police Station.P.W.25, based on Ex.P.1, has registered an F.I.R in Cr.No.230 of 2005 underSections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. The printed F.I.Ris marked as Ex.P.W.25, after registering the F.I.R, prepared the medicalmemo and sent the injured witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.3 to the GovernmentHospital, Srivaikuntam.P.W.25, also forwarded the F.I.R, the Statement ofP.W.1 under Ex.P.1 through P.W.17, the Head Constable attached to KurumboorPolice Station to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikuntam and he alsoforwarded the copies to his higher officials.He also informed the CircleInspector of Police, Alwarthirunagari.P.W.27, was the then Inspector ofPolice, Alwarthirunagari circle and when he was on patrol duty at about 10.30p.m, on 09.08.2005, he got the information about the registration of the saidcase.On receipt of the information, he went to the scene of occurrence namelySudalai Madasamy temple and in that place, he got the copy of the F.I.R.P.W.27, in the presence of P.W.24, the Village Administrative Officer andVillage Assistant, prepared the scene mahazar at about 11.00 p.m on that day,which has been marked as Ex.No bony injury in the skull bone.Stomach contains partlydigested food particles of about 300 gms.All vital and visceral organs arepale.Brain tissue normal in consistency."P.W.10, issued the post-mortem certificate under Ex.P.8 and he opinedthat the deceased Nainar Konar (D.1) would appear to have died 12 to 16 hoursprior to the post-mortem and the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhageon account of the multiple injuries sustained by him.Thereafter, the articlesfound on the body of Nainar Konar (D.1) was recovered under a cover of mahazarand the body was handed over to the relatives for cremation.20. P.W.27, conducted the inquest on the body of Periyasamy (D.2) on10.08.2005 between 02.15 a.m and 04.15 a.m and prepared inquest report underEx.P.40 and he also examined P.W.6 and two other persons and obtained theirstatements.The photographs of the deceased Periyasamy was also taken.6. 4 X 2 X 6 cms stabbed injury left shoulder close to neck on the back.7. 10 X 2 X 2 cms cut injury in the centre of skull bone on the back inthe longitudinal pl... making fracture of skull.Left side ear pinna cut into two haves from above and hanging."After post-mortem, P.W.10 issued post-mortem certificate under Ex.P.10wherein he opined that the deceased Periyasamy would appear to have died 12 to16 hours prior to the post-mortem due to shock and haemorrhage on account ofmultiple injuries.The articles found on the body of the deceased Periyasamywere sent to the Court.P.W.27, in the presence of P.W.24 and Village Assistant, collected theblood stained earth and other articles at the place in which the body of Nainarkonar was lying, under a cover of mahazar under Ex.P.W.27, received theintimation under Ex.P.37 from the Government Hospital, Tiruchendur with regardto the death of Swaminathan (D.3) and he proceeded to the Hospital and he wasaccompanied by P.W.6 and two other persons.In the mortuary, P.W.27, conductedthe inquest on the body of Swaminathan (D.3) in the presence of Panchayatars andprepared the inquest report under Ex.He examined the witnesses, Kannanand Padmanaban who were present at the time of inquest and recorded theirstatements.P.W.21, has issued the post-mortem certificate under Ex.P.26 whereinhe opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to the multiple injuries sustained 12 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem.After post-mortem, the articles found on the body of Swaminathan (D.3) wererecovered.P.W.27, after coming to know that P.W.4 and P.W.5 were admitted in theGovernment Hospital, Tuticorin, on reference form Tiruchendur GovernmentHospital, went on 11.08.2005 and recorded their statements.On12.08.2005, on coming to know about the presence of A.2, he arrested A.2 in thepresence of P.W.24 and recorded his voluntary confessional statement and basedon the admitted portion of the said statement, he recovered M.O.2, underEx.Insofar as Swaminathan (D.3) is concerned, A.6 toA.8 inflicted the fatal injuries.P.W.1 further deposed that he was attacked byA.2 with a stick on his back.A.9, stabbed P.W.4 with Valaya kambu and P.W.2was also attacked by A.1 on the reverse/blunt side of aruval and A.10 cut P.W.5with an aruval.In the cross-examination, it was suggested that the injuriesfound on the injured witnesses were self-inflicted and the complaint and F.I.Rwere concocted as it contains specific overt acts on the part of each accused.31. P.W.6 and P.W.7 who were not injured and who were present in the sceneof occurrence, had fully corroborated the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.5 withregard to the overt acts on the part of the accused and the weapons used bythem.They were also extensively cross-examined with regard to the availabilityof light in the scene of occurrence and also the cycle used by P.W.3 Murugesan.32. P.W.8, Dr.Jeyakumar has treated P.W.1 at about 03.30 p.m on 09.08.2005and issued wound certificate under Ex.P.W.8 also treated P.W.2 and P.W.3and issued wound certificate under Ex.P.4 and P.3 respectively.Amutha had seen P.W.4 and P.W.5 and treated them on 09.08.2005 and issuedwound certificates under Exs.P.33 and P.35 respectively.P.W.10, Dr.Subbiah, conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceasedNainar konar (D.1) and Swaminathan (D.3) and issued post-mortem certificatesunder Exs.P.8 and P.10 respectively.P.W.11, Ayyanar, had put lights in thetemple and he has spoken about the light aspect in the scene of occurrence.P.W.12, is a wire man of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, had turned hostile.34. P.W.13, is an auto driver and he took the deceased Swaminathan and twoothers to Hospital and in the cross-examination, he has deposed that Swaminathan(D.3) was made to walk to the hospital.P.W.14, had taken photographs in thescene of occurrence.P.W.15, Panchayat President, speaks about the streetlights.!For Appellants ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11 Mr.P.Jeyapaul for A.10 Mr.Ravi for A.6 to A.8^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Kasinathan, Additional Public Prosecutor* * * * *:COMMON JUDGMENTM.SATHYANARAYANAN.,J The above appeals are preferred by the appellants/A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.6 toA.8, A.9, A.10 and A.11 respectively challenging the conviction and sentencepassed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track CourtNo.1, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.7 of 2006 dated 27.06.2007 wherein the appellantswere convicted and sentenced as under:Accused Conviction SentenceA.1 U/s 324 I.P.C (2 counts) to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under each count and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- i/d to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.A.2, A.6 U/s 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.(2 counts) to undergo Life Sentence under each countto A.8 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.A.2 U/s.323 I.P.C. to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and the sentence was ordered to run concurrently along with earlier sentence imposed on him.A.3 to U/s.302 r/w 34 I.P.C. to undergo Life Sentence and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-a fine of Rs.2,500/- i/d to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.A.10 U/s.326 I.P.C. to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.The trial Court had acquitted A.1, A.3 to A.11 regarding the commissionof the offences under Sections 148, 120(B) and 506(II) I.P.C and A.1 underSection 341 I.P.C and A.2 under section 120(B), 147, and 506(II)The State has not preferred any appeal challenging the above saidfindings of the trial Court as regards acquittal.The case of the prosecution is as follows:P.W.1, Shanmugakrishnan @ Shanmugasundaram, is doing milk business atKandan Kudiyiruppu.In Kandan Kudiyiruppu, there are two sects of people belongto Yadhava community.They are Seevanathan group and Madumeithan group.P.W.1,Shanmugakrishnan, belongs to Seevanathan group.The appellants/accused are alsorelated to each other and they belong to Madumeithan group.A.6 to A.8 are brothers.In Ex.P.1, P.W.2 signed as a witness.P.W.27, also prepared a rough sketch underEx.P.W.27, conducted inquest on the body of Nainar Konar (D.1) in thepresence of the Panchayatars on 10.08.2005 between 12.15 a.m and 02.15 a.m., andprepared the inquest report under Ex.During inquest, he examined P.W.6and other two persons and recorded their statements.P.W.10, a Doctor attached to the General Hospital, Srivaikuntam,conducted the autopsy on the body of Nainar Konar (D.1) and noted the followinginjuries:A deep cut injury starting from behind the left mandible upto 1cmbehind the angle of mouth left, 8 X 4 X 6 cms size.upto the centre ofthe back of neck of 9 X 4 X 6 cms size.A cut injury 5 cm behind the left ear resulting a skin slap hanging of6 X 4 cms size and skull exposed.4. 4 X 1 X 1 cms size cut injury dorsum of left hand.5. 4 X 1 X 1 cm size cut injury near injury No.4, parallel to it.6. 6 X 3 X 3 cm size cut injury in the middle of right forearm on theouter side.Two linear incised injury of 4 and 5 cms length in the outer aspect ofright arm.8. 1 X 1/2 X 1/2 cm cut injury in the tip of nose.An incised wound of 1 X 1/2 X 1/2 cms in the back of right shoulderhyoid intact.Arequisition for conducting the post-mortem on the body of the deceasedPeriyasamy through P.W.19 was sent to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam.A cut injury of 6 X 3 X 2 cms in the centre of the back exposing thevertebral bones.2. 4 X 2 X 3 cms size cut injury on the back side of right loin.A deep cut injury of 8 X 5 X 8 cms on the back in the left side abovefrom the shoulder below upto lower end of spapula bone fractured 3rd, 4th, 5thribs fractured lung tissue injured.4. 4 X 2 X 2 cm cut injury right side of cervical vertebrae.5. 6 X 5 X 5 cm cut injury left loin below the axilla 6 X 5 X 5 cms with5th, 6th, 7th ribs fractured.Thereafter, P.W.27, gave a requisition under Ex.P.24, to conductautopsy over the body of Swaminathan (D.3).P.W.21, Dr.Ponravi conducted thepost-mortem on the body of Swaminathan (D.3) and he noted the followinginjuries:A cut injury 7cm X 1cm X 1cm over left lower jaw with fractured bone.A cut injury 15cm X 3cm X 3cm just below left ear extendings from leftcheek up to the back of neck.A cut injury 3 cm X 1 X 1/2 cm over back of left shoulder.A cut injury 3 cm X 1/2 X 1/2 cm over middle of forehead.A cut injury 4 cm X 1 cm X 1/2 cm just above right ear.A cut injury 2 cm X 1/2 X 1/2 cm over back of neck.A cut injury 4cm X 1cm X 1/2cm over left shoulder.A cut injury 1 cm X 1/2 X 1/2 cm just below injury No.8."A.1, A.3, A.4, A.6 to A.9 had surrendered before the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.1, Tuticorin, on 11.08.2005 and P.W.27, on receipt of the saidinformation, filed necessary application seeking police custody.On 18.08.2005,A.11 surrendered before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin.P.W.27, put the accused into police custody and according to the prosecution,they voluntarily gave a confessional statements and based on their statements,the weapons used by them were recovered under a cover of mahazar.The seized material objects were sent for chemical analysis and theChemical analysis report was marked as Ex.P.13 and the Serological report wasmarked as Ex.P.14 and the other material objects were also sent for Chemicalanalysis and reports were also received.P.W.27, after completing the investigation, has laid the charge sheeton 14.10.2005 against the accused for the commission of the offence underSections 147, 148, 341, 120(b), 307, 324, 326, 506(II) and 302 I.P.C read withSection 149 I.P.C.In the chiefexamination, he has spoken about the motive aspect and also the overt acts onthe part of the accused.According to P.W.1, A.1 beat P.W.3 Murugesan with thehandle of aruval and A.2 beat Nainar konar and also instigated the other accusedto finish them off.It was also suggested that with such a position, it is not possible for P.W.1 togive such a version with specific overt acts and weapons used by the accused.On behalf of A.5 also suggestions were put.P.W.1 was alsoextensively cross-examined with regard to the cycle of P.W.3 used by him toreach the police station.P.W.3 alsocorroborated the versions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in its entirety and he was alsoextensively cross-examined with regard to the injuries sustained by him.P.W.4,another injured witness, had also corroborated the version of P.W.1 to P.W.3with regard to the injuries sustained by him.P.W.4, another injured witnesshad also corroborated the version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 with regard to the weaponsused by the accused and their overt acts and in the cross-examination, hespecifically deposed that A.5 Kombaiya, cut the deceased Nainar Konar on therear side of his ear and also on his neck and he has also spoken about thelights in the scene of occurrence.30. P.W.5, another injured witness had fully corroborated the version ofP.W.1 to P.W.4 and he was also extensively cross-examined with regard to theinjury and also with regard to the utilisation of services of sniffer dogs.P.W.16, the Court official, had sent the material objects for chemicalanalysis.In the cross-examination, he deposed that the column 15 has notbeen filled up and the distance between the police station and the Court isabout 20 Kms.P.W.18 to P.W.20 took the bodies of D.1 to D.3 for post-mortem.P.W.21, had conducted the autopsy over the body of D.3 Swaminathan and issuedEx.P.26, post-mortem certificate.In the cross-examination, he deposed that thedeceased Swaminathan (D.3) after injuries can be alive for ten minutes and hecannot run or walk.P.W.22, had received the holy ash from P.W.7 on 12.08.2005 and hedeposed that no sniffer dogs came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.23 speaksabout the conspiracy hatched by the accused and he deposed that all the accusedwent to the house of A.2 on 06.08.2005 and he overheard the conversation.P.W.24, the Village Administrative Officer, is a witness to the seizure mahazar,arrest of the all accused and the recoveries made from them pursuant to theirconfession.In the cross-examination, he deposed that he is prone to memorylapse.P.W.25, has registered the F.I.R on the basis of Ex.He also deposed thatP.W.1 to P.W.3 were sent on single medical memo.P.W.26, had treated P.W.4 andP.W.5 and he also deposed that the deceased Swaminathan (D.3) was brought to theHospital and he has given the intimation to the police station.In the cross-examination, he deposed that P.W.5 told him that he was attacked by more thaneight persons.P.W.27, the Investigating Officer after investigation, laid thecharge sheet.All the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating materials against them andthey denied it and further submitted that false case has been foisted as againstthem.38. D.W.1 was the Head Constable attached to the Dog Squad through whomthe General Diary maintained by the said Squad, came to be marked as Ex.D.1.According to Ex.D.1, the services of the sniffer dogs were sought for in respectof Cr.No.230 of 2005 and the sniffer dog was also sent to the scene ofoccurrence.D.W.1 also had spoken to that effect.39. D.W.2 was the Head Constable attached to Kurumboor Police Stationthrough whom page No.76 of the General Diary dated 09.08.2005 came to be markedas Ex.He denied the suggestion that prior to the registration of the casein Cr.No.230 of 2005, some cases were registered and thereafter also some othercases were registered.40. D.W.3, Dr.Vetrivel, has been examined on behalf of A.5 namelyKombaiah.As per the testimony of D.W.3, he examined A.5 on 13.08.2005 andissued wound certificate under Ex.D.3, wherein it has been stated that themental capacity of A.5 is not that of the person aged about 18 years and hecannot do things without the help of others.In the cross-examination, D.W.3has admitted that he is not a Psychiatrist, but only a Paediatrician.The trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences,had convicted the accused and sentenced them as stated above.A.1, A.9 and A.10 had preferred appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.393 of 2007.A.3 to A.5 and A.11 had preferred appeal in Crl.A.6 toA.8 had preferred appeal in Crl.Insofar as A.10 in Crl.A.(MD)No.393 of 2007 is concerned, he has beenrepresented by Mr.P.Jeyapaul, advocate.V.Kathirvelu, advocate, has appearedfor A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11 and Mr.Ravi has appeared for A.6 to A.8 and Weheard their submissions.We have also heard the submissions of Mr.V.Kasinathan,learned Additional Public Prosecutor.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11 hasmade the following submissions:The F.I.R registered based on Ex.P.1 complaint, is not based on theearlier information as the earlier information with regard to the commission ofthe offence has been burked by the prosecution.The F.I.R came to be registeredonly after the sniffer dogs came to the scene of occurrence and at that time,the accused were not yet fixed and only after deliberation, the names of theaccused were fixed and thereafter, Ex.P.1, complaint was preferred by P.W.1based on which the F.I.R came to be registered.The injuries found on P.W.1 toP.W.5 were self-inflicted.It is also submitted that in Ex.P.1, the minute details with regard tothe overt acts on the part of the accused have been given by one of the injurednamely, P.W.1 and the same would not have been possible as admittedly, threepersons have done to death and the occurrence was over within a very short spanof time.Moreover, the F.I.R reached the Court only after 8 1/2 hours and thestatements recorded from the witnesses including the eyewitnesses reached theCourt only at the time of filing of the charge sheet.However, the inquestreport has reached the Court within two days from the date of its preparation.The motive attributed by the prosecution was flimsy.According to theprosecution, there was a previous enmity wherein some of the prosecutionwitnesses came to be arrived as accused which ended in acquittal even in theyear 2000 and there was no enmity.Even on 02.08.2005, when P.W.22 was givenholy ash by P.W.7, there was no confrontation between the accused and thewitnesses/deceased.The conspiracy aspect spoken by P.W.27 was disbelieved bythe trial Court and all the accused were acquitted of conspiracy charge.Near the scene of occurrence, there is no clinching evidence to showthat there were lights so as to enable the witnesses to see the occurrence andthe Wireman of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, P.W.12 had turned hostile.As regards the injuries sustained by P.W.1 to P.W.3, the woundcertificates are in variance with their oral testimonies.As regards theadmission of Swaminathan, (D.3) at the Tiruchendur Government Hospital, it wasthe version of the prosecution through an auto driver, P.W.13, that D.3 wasmade to walk and the opinion of the post-mortem Doctor had indicated that withthe injuries sustained by D.3, he would not have alive for ten minutes.It is also the submission that the arrest, recovery andpreparation of mahazars were stage managed.As regards A.5, it has beensubmitted that the sentence was suspended by this Court on production ofcertificate that he was an adolescent at the time of the alleged commission ofthe offence and the evidence of D.W.3 had also established that he is notmentally sound.Therefore, the overt act attributed against A.5 as spoken to byP.W.1 to P.W.7 are highly unbelievable.It is further submitted that the blood stained clothes worn by A.5 wasnot recovered and sent for chemical analysis.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11,had invited the attention of this Court to the oral evidence of prosecutionwitnesses and submitted that the F.I.R with regard to the alleged commission ofthe offence has been suppressed by the prosecution.The F.I.R had reached theCourt only after 8 1/2 hours and there is no explanation forthcoming from theprosecution as to the said delay.The wound certificate in respect of P.W.1 toP.W.5 are quite contrary to their oral testimonies and therefore, it is highlydoubtful with regard to the manner in which they sustained injuries while theoffences were committed.The injury sustained by P.W.1 to P.W.3 were self-inflicted and in view of the summoning of Dog Squad to the scene of occurrence,the version stated by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 giving minute details with regard to themanner of occurrence and the overt acts on the part of the accused cannot bebelieved at all.Since there is no clinching proof adduced by the prosecution withregard to the burning of lights in the scene of occurrence, the witnesses wouldnot have seen the occurrence at all.The sum and substance of the argumentsmade by Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11 isthat since the F.I.R is highly doubtful and that the motive is very flimsy andthere are many inconsistencies and the gaping holes in the case projected by theprosecution coupled with the fact that in respect of the conspiracy charge, allthe accused were acquitted and so also, with regard to the commission ofoffences under Section 147, 148 and 341 I.P.C, the trial Court has committed agrave error in convicting the said accused.It is further submitted byMr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11, thatawarding of double imprisonment for life in respect of A.2, A.6 to A.8 istotally unwarranted and in any event, the trial Court ought to have awardedbenefit of doubt and acquitted the said accused.It is vehemently contended by Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel forA.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11 that the perusal of testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.5,the injured witnesses and P.W.6 and P.W.7 would reveal that their testimoniesare verbatim same and their testimonies are parrot-like and therefore, noreliance can be placed upon their testimonies.In support of the saidsubmission, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11,has placed reliance upon the following decisions:The Honourable SupremeCourt of India also found that all the witnesses are partisan witnesses andnotwithstanding the fact that four of them had sustained injuries, the Court isunable to accept their evidence in the peculiar circumstances of the case.TheHonourable Supreme Court of India further found that the investigation itself isfound to be tainted and as regards the minute details spoken to by thewitnesses, the Honourable Supreme Court found that they were all attackedsimultaneously and if so, it was impossible for each of them to have motives toattack on everyone.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in thatcase found that it was night time and only light available was that of the Moonand in the cross-examination, they admitted that they did not see the actualassault as they were prevented from going to the place of occurrence by theappellants.It is further deposed by them that some time thereafter, they againwent to the place of occurrence, but they could not see the appellants as wellas the dead body.Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court of India found thatthe assertion of these witnesses that they had gone to the place of occurrenceduring that night appeared to us a cock and bull story.The Honourable SupremeCourt of India also noted that even after the ghastly attack, none of thewitnesses ever thought of going to the father of the victim to inform him aboutthe incident and also did not go to the police station during the same night tolodge the F.I.R.We have perused the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.7 and also Ex.Itis to be remembered that the accused and the prosecution witnesses and thedeceased belong to the same community and are residing in the same village andthey knew each other very well.The motive projected by the prosecution thatsome of the prosecution witnesses were prosecuted in the year 2000 which endedin acquittal and thereafter, on 02.08.2005, when P.W.7 gave holy ash to P.W.22who belonged to other group and that on 09.08.2005, when P.W.3 was attacked andthereafter, the murders took place, had been spoken by the witnesses.Assumingthat there is no motive for the commission of the offences, since it was aneyewitness account, the motive for commission of the offence pale intoinsignificance.As regards the availability of lights in the scene of occurrence,though P.W.1 has deposed that on the road, there was no light put up, this factwas spoken to by P.W.2 Raghavan, and also P.W.3 Murugesan and so also P.W.4Periyasamy. P.W.5 had also spoken about the burning of lights put up for theoccasion and also the street lights.58. P.W.6, who was a witness had also spoken about the burning of lightsput up for the occasion and also burning of street lamps and so also, P.W.7 whowas not an injured witness.As already stated above, that the accused and the prosecutionwitnesses belong to the same community and they are residing in the same placeand that they knew each other very well.Therefore, it is possible for P.W.1 toP.W.7 to identify the accused who attacked the deceased with lethal weapons.Itis the version of P.W.1 to P.W.5 that they witnessed the occurrence in a closequarters and that they were also subjected to attack and except P.W.5, all ofthem sustained only simple injuries.P.W.5 suffered fracture on his left hand.Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it was possible for them to witness theoccurrence and with specific overt act on the part of the accused.Even for thesake of arguments that the testimonies of injured witnesses can be eschewed asthey could not have seen the occurrence because of the attack on them, We cannotbrush aside the testimonies of P.W.6 and P.W.7 who admittedly did not suffer anyinjuries.The testimoniesof P.W.1 to P.W.7 would reveal that A.3, A.4 and A.5 caused the murder of thedeceased Nainar Konar (D.1) with lethal weapons and A.6, A.7, A.8 and A.11caused the death of the deceased Periyasamy (D.2) and A.6, A.7 and A.8 causedthe death of the deceased Swaminathan (D.3).A.1 beat P.W.3 Murugesan and A.2also beat the deceased Nainar Konar (D.1) and also instigated the other accusedto finish them off.TheHonourable Supreme Court of India has held that the entry in the woundcertificate made in a document regularly maintained and the doctor had no reasonwhatsoever to make an incorrect entry, and no question was asked to the Doctorwhen he was in the witness-box as to the correctness of the entry and hence, dueto weight should be given to the contents of the wound certificate and theCourts below ought not to have rejected the same on the basis of oral evidencegiven by certain witnesses.62. P.W.8, Dr.Jeyakumar treated P.W.1 and gave Ex.P.2, wound certificateand he also treated P.W.2 and P.W.3 and gave wound certificates Ex.P.4 and P.3respectively.P.W.9, Dr.In the cross-examination, suggestions were put to P.W.8 that the injuries on the injuredpersons were self-inflicted and he denied it.However, in respect of Ex.Two of them died on the spot and one of themdied on the way to the Hospital.Apart from the death of three persons, fivepersons were also injured and were admitted in the hospital.As already said above, Ex.The F.I.Rwas handed over to P.W.17 and it reached the Court on 10.08.2005 at 07.30 a.m.The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses especially P.W.1 to P.W.7 wouldreveal that they stick on to their version as found in Ex.P.1 complaint.Evenassuming that there was a delay in forwarding their statements to the Courtalong with the charge sheet, no exaggeration, insertion or concoction took placein their statements.P.W.27, the Investigating Officer was also not cross-examined on thataspect.In the opinion of the Court, forwarding of the statements ofeyewitnesses and other witnesses along with the charge sheet, in the facts andcircumstances of the present case, will not vitiate the credibility of theprosecution case.The delay in forwarding the statements in all the case,cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution and it would dependupon the facts and circumstances of each case.P.1,complaint came to be preferred based on the which the F.I.R came to beregistered and the same would shake the foundation of the prosecution case, inour opinion, lacks merit.A perusal of the testimonies of eyewitnesses would reveal that nosniffer dog came to the scene of occurrence and the investigating officer hasalso not spoken about the same.Since the complaint came to be lodged withintwo hours from the time of occurrence and the F.I.R also reached the Court onthe next day morning at 07.30 a.m, it cannot be said that the complaint is afalse and concocted one.As regards the false implication of the accused, We already found thatthe accused and witnesses are belonged to the same community and the residentsof the same village and even according to the defence version, there was noenmity among them.The occurrence had taken place at about 08.30 p.m, on09.08.2005 near the temple where the festival was going on and accused, deceasedand prosecution witnesses were present and P.Ws.1 to 7 were eyewitnesses togruesome murder of three persons.The testimonies of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.11 would alsoreveal that street lights and lights put up for the occasion were burning andhence, it would have been possible for the witnesses to see the occurrence.Admittedly, the witnesses and accused knew each other and therefore, it would bepossible for the witnesses to identify the accused and see their overt acts.Insofar as A.2,A.6 to A.8 are concerned, the judgment of the trial Court in ordering them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for life consecutively is modified and instead,they are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life concurrently.Insofar as A.1 is concerned, he was convicted under Section 324 I.P.C on twocounts and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yearsconsecutively.A.1 caused injury on P.W.3 by using the handle of the aruval andas per the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were simple in nature.In viewof the same, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on A.1 is ordered to runconcurrently.In the result, all the appeals are dismissed subject to the abovemodifications.It is represented that A.1, A.5, A.9 and A.10 are on bail and inview of the dismissal of these appeals, the bail bonds are terminated.TheInspector of Police, Kurumboor Police Station, is directed to secure the custodyof the said accused and produce them before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,Srivaikuntam for the purpose of undergoing the remaining part of their sentence.For compliance, call these matters after three weeks.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.2.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District.3.The Inspector of Police, Kurumboor, Tuticorin District.4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the prosecution case, Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh and Sunil are sons of Munnalal.All of them lived together near Radhakrishna Mandir at Budhni, District Sehore.Ravishankar along with his family also lived in their neighbourhood.On 3.11.1999 at about 7:00 a.m. Mukesh threw lemon and coconut in the house of Ravishankar to which he objected.Ravishankar thought that Mukesh by throwing lemon and coconut was practicing witchcraft with a purpose to grab the adjoining land of his house.The objection of Ravishankar infuriated Mukesh who started abusing him.Thereafter, Mukesh, Rajesh, Rakesh and Sunil armed with weapons entered the premises of Ravishankar and forcibly dragged him to their house where Munnalal gave a fatal blow on his head with a dagger.At that point of time sons Dinesh Kumar (P.W.1) and Vijay (P.W.3) of Ravishankar rushed to intervene but they too were assaulted by Mukesh, Rajesh and Rakesh with their respective weapons rod, knife and sword.And during this period Sunil had caught hold of Vijay.Ravishankar could not survive the head injury and died on the spot.Dinesh and Vijay then rushed to Police Station Budhni, which was situated only 400 meters from the spot.At the police station Dinesh lodged the first information report wherein he narrated the entire incident as stated above.The first information report was recorded at 7:25 a.m. i.e. within 25 minutes from the time of incident.Acting upon the report the police registered offences under sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants.The post-mortem examination of the body of Ravishankar was conducted by Dr. Sunil Bharti (P.W.5).He found a compound fracture on the right temporal area with bony fragments inserting inside the brain matter.He, apart from finding contusions on the abdominal region, also found an injury on the right forearm of Ravishankar.Dr. Sunil Bharti in his post-mortem report, Ex.P11, opined that the cause of death was coma due to head injury and that the death was homicidal.(5.9.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by :Ajit Singh, J. Appellants Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh, Sunil and Munnalal have been convicted under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.They have also been convicted under section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each on two counts.Appellants Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh and Munnalal have further been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each whereas appellant Sunil has been convicted under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Victim of the incident was Ravishankar, aged 45 years.Dinesh and Vijay were also sent for medical examination by the police.Both of them were examined by Dr. Rajendra Bairagi (P.W.2).According to the injury report, Ex.P4, of the doctor one lacerated wound, which was simple in nature, was found on the parietal region of Vijay.The injury report, Ex.P5, shows that Dinesh had sustained a swollen injury on the thumb of his left 3 hand which was possibly caused by a hard and blunt object and one cut injury on his left elbow.During investigation, the police recovered weapons used in the commission of crime from Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh, Sunil and Munnalal pursuant to their memorandum statements.The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet for offences under sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.During the trial, a defence plea was taken that Ravishankar along with Dinesh and Vijay had forcibly entered the premises of Munnalal abusing filthily and accusing that Mukesh was practicing witchcraft.It was also averred that at that time Vijay and Dinesh had rods with them and Vijay dealt a blow with a rod on the head of Munnalal and another blow above the eye-brow of Rakesh while Ravishankar dealt a blow with a rod on the head of Mukesh.In defence it was further averred that Munnalal had become unconscious for a while and when he regained consciousness he lodged a police report at the police station but since Ravishankar was in the police department, the report by him was not acted upon.No witness was, however, examined in defence.The trial court, relying upon the evidence of eyewitnesses Dinesh, Vijay and Chain Singh (P.W.7), convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.The trial court also fully relied upon the evidence of Dr. Sunil Bharti, Dr. Rajendra Bairagi and the evidence of Sanjay Panjabi (P.W.4) insofar as it related to the recovery of weapons from the possession of appellants.The trial court did not believe the defence of appellants.We have carefully scanned the evidence of Dinesh and Rajesh with more than ordinary care and caution because they happen to be the sons of Ravishankar.Since both of them had admittedly received injuries in the incident, their presence on the spot has not been denied by the learned counsel for appellants.According to the evidence of Dinesh, on the date of incident at about 7:00 a.m., Mukesh had thrown lemon and coconut in his house to practice witchcraft and when Ravishankar objected, Mukesh, Munnalal, Sunil, Rakesh and Rajesh abused Ravishankar filthily.Thereafter, Mukesh, Sunil, Rakesh and Rajesh, armed with weapons, entered the premises of his house and forcibly dragged Ravishankar to their house where Munnalal gave a fatal blow on the head of Ravishankar with a dagger.Dinesh 4 has testified that when he and Vijay rushed to intervene, injuries were caused to them also by Mukesh, Rajesh and Rakesh with weapons like rod, sword and knife whereas Sunil had caught hold of Vijay.Dinesh has further deposed that Ravishankar had died on the spot and he lodged the first information report within 25 minutes against Mukesh, Sunil, Rakesh and Rajesh.Vijay too has fully corroborated the evidence of Dinesh.Vijay categorically denied in his evidence that he could not see Munnalal giving a fatal dagger blow on the head of Ravishankar.His evidence is same as that of Dinesh.Both these witnesses have stood firm in their lengthy cross-examination and nothing has been brought out to discredit their evidence.Chain Singh is an independent eyewitness.He too has testified that Ravishankar was dragged from his house by Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh and Sunil to their house where Munnalal dealt a blow on his head with a dagger.The post-mortem examination report prepared by Dr. Sunil Bharti also corroborates the evidence of Dinesh, Vijay and Chain Singh.Dr. Sunil Bharti in his evidence has confirmed that the fatal injury caused on the head of Ravishankar could have been caused by the seized dagger.On reading the evidence of Dinesh, Vijay and Chain Singh, as a whole, we find that the prosecution has fully established that Munnalal committed the murder of Ravishankar.We accordingly hold him guilty for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and confirm his sentence of life imprisonment with fine stipulation.But we find that there is absolutely no evidence to show that Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh and Sunil had dragged Ravishankar from his house to their house knowing that Munnalal would cause the death of Ravishankar by giving a blow on his head with a dagger.The possibility that they had forcibly brought Ravishankar to their house for any other purpose but for causing his death also cannot be ruled out.Moreover, had they any intention to commit the murder of Ravishankar, they would have done so in the house of Ravishankar itself instead of dragging him to their house.Rajesh, Mukesh, Rakesh and Sunil, thus, cannot be held as members of an unlawful assembly sharing common object with Munnalal to commit the murder of Ravishankar.We accordingly set aside their conviction under section 302/149 of the Indian 5 Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment, including fine, imposed to them by the trial court.In the result, their conviction and sentences under sections 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code are also set aside.And as the record reveals they have already undergone their jail sentences, they need not surrender.The appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.

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

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

Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for State/R-1 Mr. M.R. Chanchal, Adv. for R-2 CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 12362/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks quashing of FIR No. 613/2004 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Preet Vihar, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.A compromise deed dated 15.07.2014 has also been annexed to the petition.Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as, counsel for the complainant/second respondent, enter appearance and accept notice.CRL.M.C. 3585/2014 Page 1 of 6It is jointly submitted by counsel for both the parties that the FIR in question came to be lodged by the complainant exclusively against the petitioner, who happens to be her mother-in-law, and that no allegations were made against the complainant/husband, Ashok Gupta.The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

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

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

Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record carefully.She has been falsely implicated in the present case for harassment and humiliation.It is further contended that applicant has not wrote any complaint / letter against opposite party no. 2 regarding bribe of Rs. 20,000/-.He further contended that there was no evidence against the applicant, therefore, entire proceeding in lower court is liable to be quashed.After commencing some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant wants to apply for discharge and she may be permitted to do so under the Code of criminal procedure.Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of proceedings.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allegation against the applicant, submission made at bar, it is provided that if the applicant moves an appropriate application for discharge through counsel or in person within a period one month from today, the same shall be considered and decided on merit by the Court below within a further period of two months without granting unnecessary adjournment in the matter.It is also made clear that if the application for discharge is not moved within one month, trial court shall be at liberty to proceed the trial against the applicant in accordance with law.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution's case in short is that on 21.5.2011 the prosecutrix (PW-3) went from village Karoundi to Bilaspur to attend a marriage ceremony arranged in the house of Parasram, who was her brother-in-law.Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant/State.Heard on admission.The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8.5.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anuppur in S.T. No.139/2011, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 302, 201 and 506(part-II) of the IPC.The respondent who was son-in-law of real sister of the prosecutrix also visited in the marriage.On 25.5.2011 the respondent took the prosecutrix and her husband on his tractor to drop them at village Khajurwar.At that time, wife of the respondent was in her parents house.In the way, the respondent took the deceased Darbari Lal husband of the prosecutrix to consume some liquor.The respondent also gave some liquor to the prosecutrix (PW-3).At about 4:00 p.m. in the evening, when the prosecutrix and her husband started leaving for their village Karoundi then, the respondent told that he had a date to attend the Court at Dindori on 25.6.2011 and therefore, he would stay in the house of the prosecutrix and her husband.Thereafter, they left Khajurwar to go village Karoundi.In the way, the respondent committed rape upon the prosecutrix.On her shouting, her husband Darbari came to the spot and therefore, a scuffling was started.Thereafter, the prosecutrix tried to save her husband but the respondent killed the deceased Darbari by throttling and threatened the prosecutrix to say that the deceased died due to hanging.Thereafter, the prosecutrix (PW-3) told various villagers who reached to the spot that her husband committed suicide.On investigation, it was found that the respondent committed rape upon the prosecutrix and also killed the deceased Darbari.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.After considering the submissions made by learned Government Advocate and considering the evidence given by various prosecution witnesses, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has turned hostile before the Court that no rape was committed upon her and her husband committed suicide by hanging on a tree.Sukh Sen (PW-1), Fislu Singh (PW-6) Janki (PW-10) etc. have stated that the prosecutrix told them that her husband committed suicide and he was hanging.If the respondent did not try to commit rape upon the prosecutrix then, there was no need to the deceased to make any obstruction against the respondent or there was no any reason so that a quarrel would have started.It is found that the prosecutrix and her husband left the village Khajurwar alongwith the respondent and therefore, the fact of last seen is established by the witness Rajaram (PW-5).It is true that the deceased died due to throttling but by only these two circumstances, it cannot be said that the crime of murder was committed by the respondent.The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken.It cannot be said that the respondent killed the deceased Darbari or thereafter hanged his dead body on a tree.The benefit of doubt is to be given to the respondent and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to grant leave to appeal.Consequently, the leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information alongwith its record.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants, five in number, challenging the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Ranipet, Vellore District dated 11.11.2003 in S.C. No. 15 of 2002, filed this appeal.The charges and conviction against them are as follows:(i) The first accused stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 read with 140 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded with life imprisonment.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:(i) P.W.8 is the wife and P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are sons of the deceased Velu.The accused and P.Ws. are all residents of Palla Colony in Ayilan village.A complaint lodged against the third accused was also withdrawn.(ii) On the date of occurrence viz. 4.6.2001 afternoon, sixth accused was found talking in filthy language in front of the house of P.W.1against P.W.6 Venkatesan.P.W.5 came forward to question about the same.Then, the fourth accused took a stick and attacked P.W.5 on her hip.In that course, she had pain and she was taken inside for the purpose of taking her to hospital.Thereafter, P.W.5 was taken outside to take her to the hospital.When P.W.1 went inside the house to take money, he found all the accused persons armed with sticks standing in front of the door.(iii) The first accused attacked the deceased Velu on his head.He fell down.On seeing the other witnesses, who are all injured in the occurrence, the first accused instigated others to attack them and in that course of transaction, the injured witnesses were all attacked.All these accused fled away from the place of occurrence.They also found the deceased dead.(iv) P.W.12 Doctor examined P.W.2 and marked Ex.P9 accident register.He also examined P.Ws.3, 4,5,6 and accident register copies are marked as Exs.P10 to 13 respectively.P.W.1 went to the police station and gave complaint Ex.P24 was despatched to the Court.He proceeded to the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars.P25 is the inquest report.He also prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.26 and Rough sketch Ex.He also recovered M.Os.1 to 7 available there under Mahazar Ex.The injured accused were also medically examined by the Doctor and the accident register copies of accused 1, 2 and 3 were marked as Exs.One Haridoss, son of accused No. 3 was also injured and he was also medically examined.P14 is the accident register in this regard.(ii) Accused 2 and 3 stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them found guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded with punishment of 65 days Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each in default to undergo Rigorour Imprisonment for 15 days for each offence and the sentences should run concurrently.(iii) Fourth accused stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 323 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and awarded with punishment of Rigorour Imprisonment for 53 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo Rigorour Imprisonment for 15 days for an offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorour Imprisonment for 53 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- on each count in default to undergo Rigorour Imprisonment for 15 days for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code(2 counts) and the sentences should run concurrently.(iv) Fifth accused stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded with punishment of Rigorour Imprisonment for 53 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo Rigorour Imprisonment for 15 days for an offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorour Imprisonment for 53 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo Rigorour Imprisonment for one month for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences should run concurrently.(v) Accused 6 and 7 stood charged and tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.P1 to P.W.19 the Sub Inspector of Police.On the strength of the same, a case came to be registered on 4.6.2001 at 6 p.m. in Crime No. 166 of 2001 and the First Information Report Ex.All the accused persons were arrested and sent for judicial remand.Case in Crime No. 166 of 2001 was taken up for further investigation.All the Materials Objects were sent for chemical analysis and two reports viz. Chemical analysis report Ex.P20 and serological report Ex.P19 were also received.(vi) P.W.21 Inspector of Police took up the case for further investigation.After obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor, a final report was filed before the Court against the accused and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and necessary charges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and relied on Exs.On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied them as false.No defence witness was examined.The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinized the materials available on record, found the accused 1 to 5 guilty referred above.Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellants.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned Counsel made his sincere attempt in assailing the judgment of the Trial Court and made the following submissions:(i) In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 4.6.2001 at about 3 p.m. in front of the house of the deceased.When P.W.5, who was attacked by the fourth accused previously, was taken to the hospital by other witnesses, the deceased was attacked by the first accused and all the accused persons chased the prosecution witnesses and attacked them.(ii) Firstly, even as per the F.I.R. Ex.P1, the occurrence has commenced much earlier.When one of the accused was using filthy language in front of the house of the deceased against P.W.6 and the same was questioned by P.W.5, the fourth accused took the stick and attacked and hence she sustained injury.Thereafter, when she was taken to the hospital, all these accused persons armed with sticks, in which the first accused attacked the deceased and the other accused attacked the other witnesses.Now at this juncture, even as could be seen from the F.I.R. Ex.P1 the whole transaction commenced, when one of the accused was using the filthy language against the sixth accused in front of the house of the deceased and the attack was over by the accused.In the instant case, accused Nos. 1`, 2, 3 and one Haridass, son of the third accused were all injured in that regard.P6 to 8 and 14 are the accident registers as to the injuries sustained by them were marked.The perusal of these documents would go to show that the occurrence had taken place at about 1.40 p.m. According to the prosecution case, the attack was made on the deceased at about 3 p.m. A reading of the F.I.R. would clearly reveal that these accused were injured during the course of transaction.If to be so, the duty was cast upon the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused.Even the F.I.R. which is on the strength of Ex.P1 would reveal that these accused sustained injuries in the course of transaction, but none of the witnesses namely eye witness to the occurrence have spoken about anything about the injuries sustained by the accused.In a counter case registered against the prosecution witnesses in Crime No. 167 of 2001 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and the same has also mentioned in the history to the post-mortem Doctor that one Haridoss, son of the third accused sustained grievous injury and his life is under threat, the duty of the prosecution is to explain the injuries sustained by them also.But the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by anyone of the accused.(iii) Secondly, in the instant case, the entire transaction commenced at 1.40 p.m. and completed at 3 O' clock.Admittedly, the police personnel have registered two cases one is Crime No. 166 of 2001, at the instance of P.W.1 and another is Crime No. 167 of 2001, at the instance of the third accused.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that Crime No. 167 of 2001 registered by the respondent-police at the instance of the third accused was also for a grave crime of attempt to murder.A perusal of Ex.P15, the history of the case to the Doctor would clearly reveal that case in Crime No. 167 of 2001 was a counter case.If to be so, the duty cast upon the prosecution is to place all materials.It is pertinent to point that with regard to Crime No. 167 of 2001 the prosecution has not even filed a F.I.R. copy or the statements recorded.P.W.20 on suggestion, he stated that the case was referred as "Mistake of Fact".Hence the Trial was not able to find out the truth of the entire case and take a correct decision of the case and thus it would be fatal to the prosecution case.(iv) Thirdly, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 4.6.2001 at 3 p.m. The report was given on 4.6.2001 at 6 p.m. and the case was actually registered by P.W.19 at 6 p.m., but the First Information Report reached the Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur on 5.6.2001 at about 3.30 p.m. The Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sholingur, who was examined as P.W.14, has categorically spoken to the fact that the First Information Report was received by the Court only at 3.30 p.m. on 5.6.2001 and thus, there was a delay of nearly 21 hours in a case originally registered in Crime No. 166 of 2001 for murder.If to be so, the delay of 21 hours remained unexplained.The prosecution made some attempt to give explanation that P.W.17, the police Constable who took the First Information Report could not despatch the same to the Court, since the concered Judicial Magistrate was not available at that time.(v) Fourthly, In the instant case, first part of occurrence, the deceased was attacked by the first accused was spoken to only by the first accused and other witnesses did not speak.P.W.1 did not know about the second part the injured witnesses.The F.I.R. would narrate entire part that P.W.1 examined he did not speak about the second part of occurrence.In the instant case, the prosecution has suffered all these lacuna, infirmities which and the circumstances the Lower Court should have given benefit of doubt to the appellants and has not proved beyond reasonable doubt.This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.This Court paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made by either side.In the instant case, it is not a fact in controversy that one Velu the father of P.W.1 was done to death in the incident taken place on 4.6.2001 at 3 p.m. in front of his house and following the inquest made by the Investigators, the body was subjected to autopsy and the post-mortem Doctor has given an opinion that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries sustained by him on the vital organs.This fact was never questioned by the accused and the same has to be recorded so.In the instant case, in order to establish the accusation made against the accused 1 to 7 before the Trial Court, the prosecution rested its case on the direct evidence.P.Ws.1 to 6, who were examined by the prosecution, were not only eye witnesses, but also injured witnesses.But, insofar as Ex.The prosecution has also not brought forth any material, oral or documentary.Merely filing of the accident register copies of accused 1 to 3 and Haridoss, son of third accused would not be sufficient.Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the duty is cast upon the prosecution to explain as to the injuries sustained by the accused 1 to 3 and one Haridoss.Apart from this, it is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, when the police thought it fit to register the case in Crime No. 167 of 2001 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 307 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the injury sustained by the accused, the duty was cast upon the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, but the prosecution has failed to place necessary material to explain the same.The added circumstance is the suppression in respect of part of transaction.The occurrence had taken place on 4.6.2001 at 3 p.m. and the case was registered at 6 p.m. on the same day, but the First Information Report reachjed the Court at about 3.30 p.m. on the next day.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.235/2017 under Sections 224/225/34 IPC registered at PS Farsh Bazar.This Court vide order dated 31st January, 2018 dismissed the writ petition being W.P. (Crl.) No.2006/2017 filed by the petitioner as under:-"By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.235/2017 under Sections 224/225/34 IPC registered at PS Farsh Bazar.The genesis of the above noted FIR is a complaint by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts who stated that the petitioner is an accused in an ongoing investigation in case FIR No.312/2016 under Section 420/34 IPC.Despite efforts the petitioner could not be traced and was not joining the investigations.Since the petitioner was appearing in another FIR No.46/2016 under Section 365 IPC registered at PS Krishna Nagar for recording of her statement under W.P.(CRL) 1425/2018 Page 1 of 5 Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer of the case sought permission to arrest the petitioner which was granted.When the Investigating Officer was preparing the arrest memo of the petitioner to formally arrest her, she fled away.W.P.(CRL) 1425/2018 Page 1 of 5Considering the nature of allegations and the conduct of the petitioner, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings therefrom.The petition and the application are dismissed."Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that the advocate who appeared on 31st January, 2018 was not authorized to argue the matter and thus second petition seeking quashing of the abovenoted FIR is maintainable.Though the present petition is barred by res judicata and as noted above the learned counsel who appeared was heard at length, however, still this Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner.vs. State of U.P. & Ors.and thirdly, the Magistrate could not have issued directions since the offence related to outside his territorial jurisdiction.FIR No.235/2017 under Sections 224/225/34 IPC registered at PS Farsh Bazar reads as under:-"FIR No.235/2017 PS Farsh Bazar U/s 224/225/34 IPC State Vs.Harun Sheikh W.P.(CRL) 1425/2018 Page 2 of 5 Present : Ld.APP for the State.IO in person.Accused Harun Sheikh in person.W.P.(CRL) 1425/2018 Page 2 of 5IO has moved an application seeking permission of formal arrest and interrogation of accused (In muffled face) the ground that accused has committed the offence of cheating by taking money from Victims in the name of starting of franchise of some company.Heard Record perused.The complaint of the Victim Ashish Chauhan and Ms.Hiya Raj is also on record.IO has submitted that accused was absconding and now she has appeared in this Court in case FIR No.46/2016 u/s 365 IPC PS Krishna Nagar for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in the present application.IO has further submitted that co-accused Anil who used to work with the present accused is also absconding and therefore the present application is moved stating that she may abscond again.Submissions heard.Record perused.Sufficient material is available on record to show prima facie involvement of accused in the present case.In view of this conduct or the accused, concerned SHO is directed to register the FIR against present accused for running W.P.(CRL) 1425/2018 Page 3 of 5 away from the custody and deliberately evading arrest.Copy of this order be sent to concerned SHO for compliance.Copy of this order be also sent to Ld.District and Sessions Judge (East), KKD Courts Delhi and Ld.CMM (East) KKD Courts, Delhi for their information.Copy of this order be given dasti to IO for compliance (Deepti Devesh) Duty MM (East) KKD Courts, Delhi."W.P.(CRL) 1425/2018 Page 3 of 5

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is alleged against the deceased Ramesh that he killed his wife because she had illicit relations with the applicant and thereafter, he committed suicide.If the applicant had illicit relation with the wife of the deceased Ramesh then he would have taken a legal recourse against the applicant.It appears that the deceased committed suicide so that he can be saved from punishment of his offence to kill his wife.The overt act as alleged against the applicant does not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of I.P.C and therefore, prima facie no offence under Section 306 of I.P.C is made out against the applicant and consequently no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L. opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT S.C. Roy, J.There were six appellants in this case.Three of them were officers of the Government of the State of Bihar and others, were contractOrs.All these persons are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy for committing the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, in respect of large amounts of Government money earmarked for a Project known as "Mahuadar Development Block Pilot Project".Mahuadar Block is in Latehar Sub-Division of the District of Palamau.The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1967 was Barneshwar Prasad Sinha alias Lallan.He was the Development Head Clerk in the Deputy Commissioner's office at Daltongani during the relevant period.Harihar Prasad.the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1967 was the Project Executive Officer in .his capacity of the Block Development Officer of Mahuadar throughout the relevant period.The headquarters of the District is at Daltongani situated at a distance of about 64 miles from Mahuadar.In the villages of this Block the population is predominantly "aboriginal (scheduled tribes')".At first a National Extension Service (N.E.S.) Block was established at Mahuadar with a Block Development Officer in charge of it.The sanctioned grant for the Block was Rs. 12 lakhs.In 1956-57 the Government of India sponsored a scheme of intensive multi-purpose development for the welfare of scheduled tribes.One of the main objects was to wean away the tribal people from the pursuit of shifting cultivation and.to induce and enable them to take to settled cultivation.In the State of Bihar, eight such special multipurpose projects were taken up.Under the scheme each Block was to have a schematic budget of Rs. 27 Lakhs.This amount of Rs. 27 lakhs was to be allocated to each Block from the very start without limiting the expenditure in the early stages.And the emphasis was laid upon the "effective and expeditious implementation of the programme".An outline of the scheme was communicated to the Commissioners of the Divisions and was also received by S.K. Sinha.I.A.S. the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau.He was informed that Rs. 27 lakhs as aforesaid would be available for the entire period of five years.Two Schedules were attached - Schedule I contained a break-up of the schematic budget.There were estimates for Mahuadar Block during 1956-57 estimated under different heads.This letter directed that the tentative programme as in Schedule II should be scrutinised by heads of technical departments in the light of "felt-needs", and in consultation with the Block Development Officer concerned.The District Officer was to.if necessary, make modifications after consulting the Block Advisory Committee.The programme thus finalised was to be forwarded to the Development Commissioner with the comments of the Divisional Commissioner at an early date.In the District and Block levels the following steps were taken.Under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner.the appellant Harihar Prasad.Block Development Officer, re-designated Project Executive Officer, prepared an ad hoc schematic programme for Mahuadar for five years.He forwarded this to the Deputy Commissioner.In his covering letter Harihar Prasad indicated that the programme, after approval, may be returned to him for obtaining the approval of the Block Advisory Committee.Copies of the schematic budget, prepared by Harihar Prasad. were sent to the Assistant Development Commissioner.Chhota-Nagpur, Ranchi.by the Deputy Commissioner under a forwarding letter in which he stated that he had been informed by the Block Development Officer that the programme had been drawn after discussion with the Assistant Development Commissioner.N.K. Banerjee admitted that the draft of this letter forwarding the schematic programme bears his signature But Harihar Prasad said that it was not sent with his knowledge.There can.however, be no doubt that Harihar Prasad was the author of the ad hoc schematic programme.The document bears his signature on every page.The ad hoc schematic programme as prepared by Harihar Prasad was in due course returned to the Deputy Commissioner for being finalised after approval by the Block Advisory Committee.The Deputy Commissioner was requested to get the programme finalised with the approval of the Block Advisory Committee.There was.according to this document, a discussion by the technical heads.The schematic programme as drawn up by the Block Development Officer was considered and the budget estimates were prepared.There were many alterations with regard to the subsidy to tribal families.The Committee decided to extend help to the extent of 250 families during the current year by giving them bullocks seeds, manures etc. Under the heading "Rural Housing" it was recorded that houses per unit would cost not Rs. 1.050/-but Rs. 1.950/-.The minutes of the proceeding further state that with these modifications the schematic programme, and budget estimates have been approved.and the copies thereof were forwarded to the Development Commissioner Patna.the Assistant Development, Commissioner.with a covering letter under the signature of N.K. Banerjee.In the meantime N.K. Banerjee addressed two letters, one to the Development Commissioner.and the other to the Block Development Officer Mahuadar.The Development Commissioner was intimated that subsidy would be given to 250 families before the onset of monsoon, and request was made for the necessary allotment of funds.In the other letter N.K. Banerjee asked the Block Development Officer to prepare the list of families to whom the subsidy was to be given.No mention.is to be found in the proceedings of any amended programme for the grant of subsidies to the tribal families as regards "Rural Housing" the Conference seems to have taken the view that any alterations should have the approval of the Executive Engineer.Copies were in due course forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner.and the Project Executive Officer.Out of this sum Rupees 1.72,000/-were earmarked.again earmarking Rs. 75.000/-.Funds so allotted were, however, less than those indicated in the amended schematic programme.The action taken for utilisation of funds by way of implementation of the scheme was as follows:-N.K. Banerjee drew a bill for Rs. 23,400/-in favour of Kohili who had been selected by Banerjee as a contractor for the . supply of bullocks, implements etc. with a view to granting subsidy to 78 tribal families.This was a payment to Kohili by way of advance to the extent of 75 per cent, of the value of the contract given to him.Harihar Prasad drew another bill for Rs. 15.600/-in favour of Mohd. Ayub who.was then serving as Head Clerk-cum-Cashier under the Project Executive Officer.(ii) in favour of Sahani ... Rs. 79.400/-(iii) in favour of Jwala Prasad ... Rs. 79.400/-This amount of Rs. 2,38.200/-was paid to the contractors by way o.f advance for construction of houses at a cost of Rs. 1,950/-per house.This was by way of advance to each contractor to the extent of 85 per cent, of the value of the contracts.Harihar Prasad drew eight bills as follows:-(i) for Rs. 17,500/-in favour of Kohili as advance for construction of drains:(ii) for Rs. 24.500/-in favour of Kohili as advance for payment of roads or lanes:(iii) for Rs. 24,000/-in favour of Sahani as advance for construction of causeways:(viii) for Rs. 1.951/-in favour of Kohili.Nos. (v).(vi) and (vii) were final payments for supplies of bullocks, implements, seeds etc. and No. (Via) for paying transportation charges for bullocks supplied by Kohili.The advances in some cases represented 90 per cent, of the value of the contracts.Harihar Prasad drew three more bills in favour of Jwala Prasad: the bills were (i) for Rs. 16.000/-: (ii) for Rupees 1.000/-and (iii) for Rupees 7.333/-.The total payments made to each of the contractors were as follows:-To Kohili ... Rs. 3.89.294-81 To Sahani ... Rs. 1.77.965-00 To Jwala Prasad ... Rs. 1.21.933-00 To Goburdhandas ... Rs. 39.780-00 Dubey (who was acauitted).The prosecution case was as follows:the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves in order to cheat the Government and to misappropriate large sums of Government money under the pretext of the speedy execution of the scheme.In pursuance of the conspiracy the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated and cheated the Government of more than Rs. 5.00.000/-.N.K. Banerjee.They did not get this amended schematic programme approved by the Block Advisory Committee and such amended programme was wrongfully forwarded to the superior authorities without, placing it before the Deputy Commissioner or consulting the other technical heads of the District.This was done with a view to bringing large sums of Government money at the disposal of the members of the conspiracy.were disregarded.Some decisions taken by the District Officers' Conference were also willfully contravened.Huge expenditures were incurred, although necessary allotment of funds had not been made by the State Government.Bills for large amounts were drawn up in favour of the contractOrs.N.K. Banerjee himself drew a bill, although he was not the drawing and disbursing Officer, and undue favour was shown to the contractors in various ways.The contractors were selected because they were known to the trio - i.e. N.K. Banerjee.Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha.Contracts went to them without calling for the tenders.Huge advances were made to them without taking any security from them.To secure easy passage of bills through the treasury, advance payments were not mentioned as such.No care was taken to see that the contractors executed proper agreements.The articles supplied by the contractors and the works executed by them were worth far less than the amounts paid to them, but payments were made to them at full rates.The favours shown to the contractors were in consideration of illegal gratification paid by them to N.K. Banerjee, Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha, Harihar Prasad so manoeuvred matters that not a single proposal of his was placed for sanction before the Deputy Commissioner and all his proposals were blindly approved by N.K. Banerjee.Additional Collector, although he had no authority to do so.The whole thing was rushed through and the Deputy Commissioner and other superior District authorities were totally ignorant about the true manner in which the scheme was being worked out.Large personal gains were made under the cover of implementation of the schemes.Such schemes were made illegally and dishonestly by each of the accused persons at the cost of the Government.the Assistant Development Commissioner Sri R.N. Sinha visited Mahuadar.In the present case the drawing and disbursing officer was the Project Executive Officer Harihar .Considering the relevant bills in the background of these Rules, it appears (a) that the first bill was within the allotment, but N.K. Banerjee who drew the bill was not the drawing and disbursing officer.In paragraph 44 of his evidence P. W. 52 the Deputy Commissioner says that "N.K. Banerjee had no financial powers.He had no powers to accept tenders, giving contracts or ordering payment of money." From this it follows that the action of N.K. Banerjee in drawing the bill was wholly unjustified.His action in giving directions for purchase of articles for providing subsidy to the families and making or ordering payments of money to the contractors was also wholly uniustified.The second bill was also covered by the allotment letter.Out of Rs. 15.600/-.when the allotment had lapsed under the Financial Rules.Prasad drew three bills for an aggregate sum of Rs. 90,950/-.This was for giving advances to the contractOrs.Sahani Jwala Prasad and Kohili for supplies of bullocks etc. for giving subsidy to 250 tribal families.The only letter of allotment regarding this matter which had been received from the Development Department was dated April 11. 1957 for an amount of Rs. 51.250/-.This was meant for expenditure 'on all heads.Out of this sum only Rs. 6.250/-were earmarked for irrigation which included the head relating to subsidy to tribal families.In that letter it was clearly indicated that the Block Development Officer was authorised to incur expenditure "to the extent shown in the statement enclosed".It follows that the action of Harihar Prasad taken under the directions of Banerjee in drawing these bills much in excess of the allotted amount was in utter disregard of the Government order.The total expenditure under these three bills exceeded even the entire allotment of Rs. 51.250/-.Harihar Prasad drew three bills covering Rs. 2,38,200/-.At that time no amount was at all provided for expenditure under the head "Rural Housing" so that this entire amount was wholly unauthorised.This unauthorised action of Harihar Prasad had been approved by Banerjee.as advances in connection with contracts for construction of drains and pavements of village roads, as also for construction of causeways and culverts.the total funds allotted for expenditure for this purpose was Rs. 28.000/-only and this expenditure was also in excess of the Government allotment.(v) Harihar Prasad made further payments by way of final payments for construction of drains and pavements of village roads.The total expenditure in connection with the contracts for construction of drains and pavements amounted to Rs. 2.19.048-81 as against Rs. 28.000/-which had been allotted by the Government for expenditure under the head "Health and Rural Sanitation".In other words, he had paid out nearly Rs. 2.00,000/-in excess of his authority.1957 the total allotment of funds under the head "Communication" was Rs. 24,000/-.Harihar Prasad made advances for construction of causeways and culverts to the extent of Rs. 47.500/-.Thus he scent Rs. 40.000/-more than the authorised amount.On or about Feb.15.1958 the Addl.Deputy Development Commissioner had authorised the total expenditure of Rs. 1.09.500/-under the relevant heads.But this revised allotment was made long after the expenditure had already been incurred.The revised allotment was for Irrigation Rs. 50,000/-.for Health and Rural Sanitation Rs. 12,000/-.Communications Rupees 12,500/-and Rural Housing Rs. 35.000/-.There was no allotment for expenditure under the head "Rural Housing" in the previous allotment letters.It was argued that what had been really allotted for expenditure for the entire project was Rs. 27 lakhs and that was clear from the Government letter.in spite of the previous letter, to make allotment of the funds from time to time.If it were true that the entire amount of Rs. 27 lakhs had been allotted from the very beginning then such periodical allotments would have been unnecessary.In one of the allotment letters it was clearly stated that "The Project Executive Officers are authorised to incur expenditure to the extent shown in the statement enclosed".The next transaction to be considered was a set of three contracts which Harihar Prasad entered into under the orders of N.K. Banerjee for purchase of bullocks, seeds, implements etc. for the purpose of giving subsidy to 250 tribal families.In the original letter it was contemplated that subsidy should be given to 78 families every year.In the ad hoc programme hereinbefore mentioned it was stated that subsidy would be given to 114 families in the second year.The first order bearing the same date was passed by N.K. Banerjee and it made a reference to the said purported decision of the Block Advisory Committee.According to the order sheet subsidy of Rs. 500/-per family was to be given.N.K. Banerjee directed in this order that the Block Development Officer was to keep the list of families for grant of subsidy ready and to move the Development Commissioner for allotment of funds.The order was passed by N.K. Banerjee who directed, the Block Development Officer to take agreements from each contractor and to make him an advance payment to the extent of 75 per cent, of the total supply.The supply was to be completed within a fortnight of the advance.N.K. Banerjee further recorded that the order for supply of seeds and implements should be placed by the Block Development Officer.This was recorded by Harihar Prasad as follows:Record received.Agreement executed by the three contractors have been accepted and the payment orders for Rs. 36,375/-.(v) The notice (Ext. 61 was totally silent as to the number of bullocks and the price per pair at which they were to be purchased:(vi) The order-sheet and the agreements were totally silent as to the Quantity of seeds or the nature of implements which were to be purchased:(vii) A clause relating to transportation charges was added in each of these agreements in contravention of the tender notice (Ext. 61:(viii) The total advances amounting to Rs. 90,950/-exceeded even the amount mentioned in the ad hoc programme and far exceeded the allotment of Rs. 6.250/-received under the allotment letter.In Schedule II it was mentioned that the expenditure over this head for 1956-57 would be Rs. 46.200/-and the seven colonies consisting of six houses each should be completed at a cost of Rs. 1,100/-per house - total Rs. 46,200/-.The ad hoc programme provided expenditure of Rs. 2,50,000/-for phased programme.The revised programme mentioned that the expenditure to be incurred under this head in 1957-58 alone would be Rs. 3.27.000/-.It provided that the number of colonies to be constructed should be 28 and according to this scheme entire construction of the colonies should be completed in one year.The revised programme contemplated construction of.one unit at a cost of Rs. 1.950/-.It was the view of the High Court, with which, we agree, that the proceeding of the meeting, of which Ext. 7/1 purports to be a draft, far from being the correct record of the proceedings is in fact a fabricated document.The order-sheets in respect of contracts for construction of colonies by Kohili.Reference has been made to the decision of the Block Advisory Committee for construction of all the 28 colonies in a single year at a cost.of Rs. 1.950/-per unit.This was a false recital of facts in the order-sheets.These order-sheets further mention that necessary provision of fund has accordingly been made in the schematic programme and budget estimates.Kohili was given contract for construction of 2 colonies and Sahani and Jwala Prasad for 8 colonies each.The three contractors were advanced sums to the extent of 80% of the estimated cost.The reference to the statement in the order-sheet that provision had been made for funds in the schematic programme and budget estimate was false.There was a statement that Harihar Prasad had selected the contractors after a long per-suasion by the then Deputy Commissioner.It is clear that the selection of the three contractors had been made by Harihar Prasad at his own initiative and 85% of the proposed cost was advanced to each of them.All this was done when the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded on casual leave and the order-sheets could not have been out up before him.The advantage of the Deputy Commissioner's absence was taken and it was stated that Harihar Prasad had fixed up the contractors as advised by him.Moreover Harihar Prasad had gone a step further.He forwarded the proposal for making advance to the three contractors entirely on his own account without application from the contractors for such an advance.All these actions were taken by Harihar Prasad behind the back of the Deputy Commissioner.He was banking upon the Additional Collector N.K. Banerjee to approve of those actions.The truth was that all these actions were taken by Harihar Prasad of his own accord, since he knew fully well that it would have the full support of N.K. Banerjee whenever necessary.In respect of this matter of giving contracts for the construction of colonies the entire ceiling of Rs. 2.50.000 was being exceeded.The advance of 85% came to Rupees 2,38.000/-which was very near Rupees 2,50,000/-and N.K. Banerjee must have known that the total cost would amount to Rs. 2,80,000/-far in excess of the ceiling.an advance was paid of Rs. 39.780/-to Gobardhan Dubey for four colonies.This had also the approval of N.K. Banerjee.The reason for the conclusion is that Harihar Prasad N.K. Banerjee.Sahani and Jwala Prasad were all acting in league with one another and that there was a conspiracy to misappropriate Government money.This transaction alone appears to be sufficient to bring home the charge of criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of Government money.The next item of expenditure was in respect of construction of drains and paying of village roads.These contracts were given to Kohili alone.It says that the discussion with Mukhiyas had taken place.Then it gives the reasons why Kohili was being given the contract.It was stated that payments will be made to him on actual measurement.In both the cases.On the other hand he lost no time in drawing up bills for making payments for these words.Such payments exceeded the schematic programme.it was the ' Deputy Commissioner who had been delegated with the cowers of the Head of Department for the purpose of working such.Blocks and the Project Executive Officer was declared to be the drawing and disbursing officer in regard to his Block in respect of allotted funds placed at his disposal.The Additional Collector had absolutely no financial powers of any kind in relation to the working of the Block.He was not competent to give administrative approval or financial sanction with regard to any original work, nor was he competent to accept tenders for works.These powers were to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner except that in the matter of tenders the Project Executive Officer had powers to accept them upto Rs. 20.000/-.S.K. Sinha has given evidence that the Additional Collector N.K. Banerjee had no power (i) to accept scheme on behalf of Government: (ii) to call for tenders; (iii) to accept tenders: and (iv) to incur financial commitments regarding any block matters.During the Deputy Commissioner's absence on tour.N.K. Banerjee was expected to deal only with routine matters.Harihar Prasad was the drawing and disbursing officer but that power had to be exercised in respect of the funds placed at his disposal.In the allotment letter it was stated that the Block Development officers were not to exceed the ceiling limits prescribed in the schematic programme.N.K. Banerjee or Harihar Prasad had no power at all to accord administrative approval or financial sanction to any original work.Such power was vested in the Deputy Commissioner to the extent of Rs. 20.000/-subject to budget provision.The contract for causeways and culverts was given to two contractOrs.It was shown that between January 1957 and September 1957 Banerjee had drawn a total of Rs. 8.486-59 by way of his salary and travelling allowances.The net pay during this time drawn by Banerjee was about 600/-per month.The second statement of his account, which was a current account in the name of Banerjee, shows that all his pay and travelling allowance bills were credited to that account.There were no withdrawals from this account by cheque in April.May. June and November.It may.The remaining statements of account were such as do not call for any adverse comments.The High Court has further considered if .some of the money belonging to Banerjee was his brother's money.It is not necessary to go into the details of this matter.Next we turn to the bank accounts of B. P. Sinha.He had maintained seven accounts, some in his own name and some in the names of his wife or minor daughters.His total earnings from pay and travelling allowances from January 1957 to December 1957 amounted to about Rs. 1,307/-.He had a postal savings-bank account in the name of his wife Shanti Devi.Rupees 5,000/-were deposited in the said account.Among the accused persons Narendra Kumar Banerjee (also referred to as N.K. Banerjee).He then proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement.One Muhammed Usman Beg.was an overseer, and one Nand Kishore Prasad.was the Asstt.Engineer, attached to the Block.Among the contractors was Krishna Lal Sahani who was the appellant in Cri.now deceased, whose interests are being looked after by his son under an order of this Court, and Banarsi Lal Kohili.There remains the third contractor - appellant Jwala Prasad.Mahuadar is situated in the interior of Palamau a District in Chhota-Nagpur.It is the headquarters of a Block comprising about 106 villages.After some preliminaries, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Additional Collector to fix a date in early April.The Additional Collector.N.K. Banerjee.the Additional Collector.For the execution of the programme allotments of funds were made by the State Government from time to time.Out of this sum of Rs. 39.000/-were earmarked for subsidy to 78 families at Rs. 500/-each to be paid in kind and Rs. 15,500/-were surrendered.but this expenditure was for other heads and we are not concerned with that matter in this case.for Rs. 78.000/-.Out of this amount Mohd. Ayub paid Rs. 14.430/-to Kohili in four instalments.1957, Harihar Prasad drew a total amount of Rs. 90,950/-under three bills for giving advances to contractors for supply of bullocks, implements etc. for granting subsidy to 250 tribal families.(i) in favour of Sahani...Rs.(ii) in favour of Jwala Prasad ... Rs. 18.200/-(iii) in favour of Kohili...Rs.Jwala Prasad and Kohili respectively had been given contracts for supply of bullocks, implements and seeds for distribution to 100, 50 and 100 tribal families and this money was given by way of advance to the extent of 75 per cent, of the value of the contracts.1957, Harihar Prasad drew three more bills as follows:-(i) in favour of Kohili ... Rs. 79.400/-(iv) for Rs. 20.000/-in favour of Sahani as advance for construction of causeways:(v) for Rs. 3,500/-in favour of Sahani as advance for construction of culverts:(vi) for Rs. 14,690/-is favour of Sahani:(vii) for Rs. 14.690/-in favour of Kohili;The total came to Rs. 24,333/-.The first payment was in respect of advance to Jwala Prasad for construction of causeways: the second was for culverts: the third was towards making final payment for supplies of bullocks etc. The advances represented 90 per cent, of the value of the contracts.Harihar Prasad drew two bills both in favour of Kohili - (i) for Rs. 21.268-81 as final payment for the construction of drains.and another for Rs. 1.55.780/-in final payment for the paving of village roads.He apprehended serious irregularities in the Block and suggested thorough investigation.visited Mahuadar, and made some enquiries.He also noted certain irregularities.Further enquiries were made and ultimately the first information report was filed on August 7. 1958 by Sri R.C. Prasad.Additional Deputy Development Commissioner.In the first information report.Mohd. Ayub (P.W. 205) was also named as an accused.but as investigation proceeded it transpired that he was not in the same.Accordingly he was discharged.Investigation was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.Sanction for the prosecution of the Government servants was accorded on different dates in November.In all 701 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 22 on the side of the defence.There was a large mass of documentary evidence on both sides.Rule 75 of the Bihar Financial Rules.I. lays down that "sanction to any given expenditure becomes operative as soon as funds have been appropriated to meet the expenditure".Rule 497 lays down that before any Government money can be spent, two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) it must be sanctioned by competent authority: and (ii) funds must have been appropriated for it Rule 201 provides for the administrative approval at various stages.It further provides that if in the case, whether on grounds of urgency or otherwise, an executive officer is required by superior authority to carry out a work or incur a liability which involves any infringement of these financial rules, the orders of such authority should be conveyed in writing.In case of some emergency the officer may proceed to carry out the necessary work on his own responsibility, but he must immediately intimate to the Accountant General that he was incurring an unauthorised liability So far as the Blocks are concerned the allotments used to be made by the Development Commissioner.It is in evidence that no money could be spent by any Block or Project without allotment by the Government, i.e. by the Development Department.Only the Development Department can make allotments.Further evidence is that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent either to make allotment or re-appropriate for any work of a Project.Re-appropriation has been defined by the Rules which means "the transfer of funds from one unit of appropriation to another such unit".The only authority which could order re-appropriation was the Development Department of the State Government.From the Rules and the evidence in the case it is clear that the drawing and disbursing officer has no authority to draw any bill or to make any payment for an item for which no allotment of funds has been received by him from the concerned Government Department.Where a payment has to be made in excess of the allotment, he must first obtain an order of re-appropriation from the concerned Department of the Government.There is another set of rules of the Finance Department, which: for the purpose of this case, is relevant.Again out of Rs. 15.600/-a sum of Rs. 7.500/-was paid to Kohili under orders of Banerjee who had no power to order the payment and so this payment was also irregular.This shows that the State Government was insisting upon the expenditure to be limited to the extent of allotments made.N.K. Banerjee and Harihar Prasad must have known that the responsibility for allotting additional funds for the speedy implementation of the Project was that of the State Government, and it was not proper for them to proceed to incur the expenditure under the cover of speedy implementation of the Project.The excess expenditure under the various heads could not be justified as bona fide action on the part of N.K. Banerjee or Harihar Prasad.Another feature of this case is that not a single contract was entered into after reference to the Deputy Commissioner.upon a note in connection with the expenditure for Rs. 39,000/-.After this the matter was not placed before the Deputy Commissioner ever.From his tour diary it appears that he left Daltonganj at 2 P. M. on March 11. 1957 and returned to Daltongani at 7 p. m. in the evening.He went on tour again on March 12. 1957 at 10 a. m. and proceeded on inspection from where he returned to Daltongani at 3 p. m. but after a halt of about 4i hours he left for Latehar where he stayed until the morning of March 14. 1957 and returned to Daltongani at 8-30 a. m. In the meantime N.K. Banerjee placed orders with Kohili for supply of bullocks and gave him an advance of Rs. 23.400/-.P. W. 52 the Deputy Commissioner was absent in respect of all subsequent contracts.The records show that in most cases the transactions were entered into by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee on occasions when the Deputy Commissioner happened to be away from the headquarters.The tour diary shows that Sri.In the meantime two large transactions had been entered into by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee - one for placing a contract with Sahani.Kohili and Jwala Prasad for bullocks etc. for 250 families.In that connection total amount of Rs. 90,950/-was paid.In that connection Rupees 2,38.200/-were advanced to the contractOrs.During this short interval two more large transactions were entered into by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee.One for drains and pavements and the other for construction of causeways and culverts.It was also during this period that a further sum of Rs. 31.000/-odd was paid to these two contractors on account of final payments.During this period a further sum of Rs. 24,333/-was paid to Jwala Prasad.The act was deliberate.N.K. Banerjee in this connection, prepared the draft of a letter to be addressed to the Deputy Commissioner.1957 which is to be found in that letter was non-existent when the document was put up before him for signature.It appears that the information which P.W. 52 S.K. Sinha wanted was withheld from him by clever manipulation.Besides it was so-felt that by merely looking at the figure mentioned in Ext. 18/3 the Deputy Commissioner P.W. 52 could not possibly have got an inkling into the true manner in which the various transactions had been entered into by N.K. Banerjee or by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee.The relevant papers relating to the various transactions were not put up before P.W. 52 and he had.therefore, "no opportunity to scrutinise them in order to understand the real position relating to those transactions.It appears that certain monthly reports used to be submitted by the Block authorities.There has been said his counsel.which showed that in pursuance of the tender notice only three tenders were received, one from Kohili and two others from Sahani and Jwala Prasad.1957 shows that the three tenders were accepted as follows:Kohili's for 100 pairs:Sahani's for 100 pairs: and Jwala Prasad's for 50 pairs.Rs. 36,375/-and Rs. 18.200/-have been signed and bills made over to the contractOrs.Under the tender notice bullocks were to be specifically supplied at Mahuadar.but a clause was added in the agreement to the effect that transportation charges could be claimed for transport from Daltongani to Mahuadar.This was a contravention of the tender notice.The final payments of supplies of bullocks etc. were made to each of the three contractOrs.There were payments in favour of Sahani and Kohili respectively for Rs. 14.690/-and a further payment of Rs. 1.951/-to Kohili on account of transportation charges.This bill was encashed at Latehar Sub-Treasury.The total payments made to the contractors by way of advance and supply of bullocks came to Rs. 1.29.714/-.The total amount which could be spent for giving subsidy to 250 families was Rs. 12.500/-out of which Rs. 3,750/-were earmarked for purchase of manures.A considerable Dart of this expenditure of Rs. 1.29.714/-was totally unauthorised because no decision was actually taken at the Block Advisory Committee meeting held on April 9. 1957 for giving subsidy to 250 families.The rates of supply were inflated at the instance of Banerjee: he was acting on his own initiative and this led to an extra expenditure of Rs. 50.000/-without any justification whatsoever.Besides, the sum of Rs. 1,951/-which was paid to Kohili by way of transportation charges was totally unjustified.This payment had also been made under the orders of Banerjee.there should be no doubt 17 witnesses were called by the prosecution in the matter.holding different posts in the District.The High Court was of the view:All the witnesses, however, are unanimous on the point that no decision was taken at the meeting on these subjects.These witnesses bore no animosity towards N.K. Banerjee and many of those witnesses could not have combined together to give false evidence in this case.This Ext. 7/4 is not a reliable document.It did not bear the signature of the Commissioner who presided over the meeting.1957 he was not asked to sign the forwarding letter, although in the case of the ad hoc schematic programme the forwarding letter was signed by him.Prosecution suggests that this showed that the Deputy Commissioner was kept in dark as to the contents of the amended schematic programme.Exhibit 6 is the notice calling for tenders.It follows that the order contained in Ext. 6 for passing a copy on the Notice Board could not have been signed by Banerjee on 9th or 10th April.After considering all these matters the High Court was of the view:The authenticity of Ext. 6 as a notice calling for tenders is thus greatly in doubt, and the prosecution is.therefore, justified in urging that in truth, no such notice was issued and that Ext. 6 was a make-believe document, brought into existence subsequently in order to give the impression in that the contracts to Kohili.Sahani and Jwala were given after following the requirements relating to calling for tenders.1957 for giving contracts for seeds and implements were passed without calling for tenders and Harihar Prasad gave contracts for these items also to Kohili.Sahani and Jwala Prasad without calling for tenders.Banerjee had directed the Block Development Officer to make advance payment to the three contractOrs.He omitted to ask the contractor to furnish securities as required by the Financial Rules.Whether security would be taken or not when advance is given, was not a matter of discretion and this plea of Banerjee that it was a discretionary matter is untenable.The manner in which these three bills were encashed from the treasury has been styled by the High Court to be "extraordinary".It was observed that "there was.exhibition of hot haste not only in drawing these bills, but also in securing their encashment at the District treasury".but the order in the order-sheet (Ext. 4/11 was passed on 9-4-1957;Therefore, a substantial part of this expenditure was unauthorised:a date on which the Deputy Commissioner was on casual leave.if not more, was paid to the contractors for which there was no justification at all.The next item of expenditure related to the construction of rural housing.The Government scheme provided for a total expenditure of Rupees 2,50.000/-over rural housing during entire period of five years.Sahani and Jwala Prasad were completed by Harihar Prasad in a single day and in order to lend his full support to the actions of Harihar Prasad.N.K. Banerjee went out of his way to endorse approval to all his actions.Thus the advance made to the four contractors amounted to Rs. 2.78,100/-although the total ceiling fixed was Rs. 2.50.000/-.This action clearly shows that Harihar Prasad and N.K. Banerjee were acting in concert in the matter of grant of contracts.This was done without even complying with the formalities of calling for tenders.These order-sheets bore the approval of N.K. Banerjee.The fact that he had signed those order-sheets was proved by the evidence of the Deputy Commissioner.This evidence is supported by the Establishment Clerk Tapeshwari Prasad.Banerjee made a false denial and this fact lends support to the conclusion that he was acting in concert with Harihar Prasad in the matter of grant of contracts for the construction of colonies to the three contractOrs.With regard to Harihar Prasad there was no doubt that he was acting in concert with the contractOrs.These were purchased even before Harihar Prasad had recorded his first order in the order-sheets.This indicates that Harihar Prasad had privately arranged with Kohili, Sahani and Jwala Prasad for grant of contracts for construction of colonies and it was falsely mentioned in the order that he had had fixed up the contractors as advised by the Deputy Commissioner.In making the advances a point should be noted.Although the Rules provided that security should be taken from the contractOrs.Harihar Prasad was guilty of contravention of these Rules and his action could not be said to be bona fide.There is another aspect of the matter.When the original contract was given, the work of construction of houses proceeded at so slow a rate that the contractors asked for extension of time and ultimately when the work was stopped there was a total loss of at least Rupees 20,000/-.The total value of 12 houses not built, at Rs. 1,950/-per house, for which 85% had been advanced to the contractors, was about Rs. 20,000/-.This was wrongful gain to the contractOrs.In fact the loss to the Government was much more.According to the estimates made by the Executive Engineer the loss suffered by the Government was in the region of Rs. 60,000/-.There was another aspect of the case.There is evidence that quality of the construction was very poor and many of the houses so constructed fell.Taking into consideration these, circumstances, the High Court observed:The wrongful gain which Kohili'.Sahani and Jwala Prasad had thus made was the direct outcome of the actions of Harihar Prasad approved by N.K. Banerjee.in giving the contracts to them and making large advances to them in a reckless manner.We approve of these observations.In the original Government letter there is a provision for drains and for paving of village lanes.In the amended programme however the provision in 1957-58 for construction of drains was Rs. 36.000/-while that for paving of village lanes was Rupees 12,250/-only.The first order dated July 2. 1957, mentions about the decision of the District Co-ordination Committee for taking immediate steps for improvement of the roads.for discussing the problem.These applications were allowed, and on the same date bills were prepared in favour of Kohili.one for Rs. 17.500/-as advance for construction of drains and the other for Rs. 24,500/-as advance for the paving of roads.It is an application of Kohili asking for final measurement and early payment.An overseer was appointed to take the measurements of the drains and pavements.On the next day.the overseer so deputed had taken measurements and the value of the work done worked out at Rs. 51,691/-.whereas the allotment sanctioned in the budget during the entire schematic programme was Rs. 39.500/-.Similarly with regard to the.work for paving of village roads, the value worked out at Rs. 2,66.415/-and the balance payable to the contractor was Rs. 1.75.311/-.After interim payment, a bill was prepared in favour of Kohili for Rs. 1.55.780/-representing the final payment.therefore, appears that the total payments made to Kohili were as follows:Rs. 38,768-81 for construction of drains; and Rs. 1.80,280-00 for paving of village roads.It is clear that the action of Harihar Prasad was most improper and unjustifl-ed.The action of N.K. Banerjee in giving approval to the works was also not done in good faith.These contraventions were deliberately done.The Question arose whether Harihar Prasad had decided to give these contracts to Kohili from before.That Harihar Prasad had decided to give the contracts to Kohili from before also appears from the manner the Mukhiyas' meeting was held and it was recorded by Banerjee that the Mukhiyas and the local people were unwilling to take UP the works.On this aspect the High Court said:The hurried manner in which the contracts were given to Kohili.without even calling for tenders, indicates that Harihar Prasad had already come to some arrangement with Kohili before he gave the contracts to him.That seems to be the reasons why Harihar Prasad offered an unduly low Government subsidy to the Mukhiyas.He must have known that the Mukhiyas would not agree to take up the works on such low terms.Harihar Prasad manoeuvred to secure the contracts for Kohili.Harihar Prasad was responsible for the contravention of such limits and payments made by him to Kohili were wholly unauthorised and his action cannot be said to have been done in good faith.With regard to the drains and paving of lanes, the High Court made the following observations:-(vi) The bills... for advances were prepared and drawn from the Treasury without disclosing therein that they were in respect of advances and thus the Treasury Officer was defrauded into making payments without getting any inkling that the payments were by way of advances:(vii) The construction of drains and pavements were hastily made and the ceilings fixed in all the documents... were exceeded in an incredibly short time:(viii) Final payment for both the works were made to Kohili on the basis .(ix) The final bills... were drawn up by mentioning false figures in the column meant for showing the appropriation for the current year.Sahani and Jwala Prasad.There were order-sheets relating to the grant of contract for causeways to Jwala Prasad and similarly there were order-sheets for grant of contract for causeways to Sahani.The truth was that there was no such administrative sanction given by the Deputy Commissioner and it was only a fictitious document.By the next order four tenders, each one of Jwala Prasad. were accepted.Similarly eleven tenders each one of Sahani were accepted.the Additional Collector.N.K. Banerjee.recorded an order of approval.an advance of Rs. 17,000/-was made to Jwala Prasad.The total sum so advanced, namely.Rs. 64.5007-represented 90 per cent, of the total estimated cost of construction of causeways and culverts.Two roads were mentioned, but it was not mentioned in the order-sheet or in any other document about the actual spots where causeways were to be constructed on the two roads.Thus by splitting up one work into 15 items Harihar Prasad had accepted tenders for construction of causeways at a cost more than three times in excess of his powers.With regard to the construction of culverts the relevant order-sheets are both in the names of Jwala Prasad and Sahani.In the first order.The Additional Collector was aware that he had no power to give approval.Therefore, he knowingly acted beyond his powers.The case of N.K. Banerjee is that none of those order-sheets has been signed by him.Harihar Prasad on the other hand says that each of those order-sheets has been signed by N.K. Banerjee by way of approval of the work.S.K. Sinha deposed as follows:-I did not ever receive any of them till I was the D.C.I saw them for the first time during investigation.They have been signed by Harihar Babu and N.K. Banerjee.N.K. Banerjee made false denial of his signatures on the order-sheets.The High Court held that the tenders of Jwala Prasad and Sahani were really not submitted and this fact was fictitiously mentioned in the relevant orders on that date.Banerjee had satisfactorily accounted for a part.The explanation that the balance was given by his wife was not a sufficient explanation.Banerjee has failed to discharge the onus to explain the matter satisfactorily.There were also two other savings bank accounts standing in the names of his minor daughters.1957; Rs. 1.500/-, on.1957 with a cash balance of Rs. 1.451/-.1957 a significant date, there was another cash deposit of Rs. 2.550/-in this account.On June 25. 1958 a' sum of Rs. 3,990/-was withdrawn from this account, leaving a balance of Rs. 101/-.There was also a fixed deposit account which B. P. Sinha had opened in the name of his wife Shanti Devi in the Punjab.This account was later transferred to Daltongani.but maintained that the money was meant for payment to Jwala Prasad and he paid it to him subsequently.It may also be mentioned that Kohili asserted at the trial that he did make the deposit in B. P. Sinha's account, but it was not correct to say that he had given the money to him for payment to Jwala Pra-sad.He gave another reason for the deposit.The High Court held that at least a portion of the sum of Rs. 10.000/-which Kohili had deposited in the account of B. P. Sinha on March 8. 1958 was a payment by way of illegal gratification to B. P. Sinha.On a consideration of the evidence, we agree with this view.With regard to the remaining sum of Rs. 25,000/-it could not have been his own earnings out of his pay and travelling allowances.Sinha had therefore a duty to explain how such a large amount was acquired by him.B.P. Sinha tried to give many explanations but such explanations were unacceptable to the High Court.The High Court observed:But the evidence with regard to the properties of B. P. Sinha and his wife appear to me to be wholly insufficient to explain the significant spurt in his various accounts at the relevant period as already shown above...I am.and that lends considerable support to the prosecution case that he was a member of the conspiracy and had been actuated with dishonest intention in relation to the various transactions with which he : was associated, as already described above.Harihar Prasad had no bank account.Therefore, among the accused persons, who were public servants, only N.K. Banerjee and B.P. Sinha have been proved to have had bank accounts.Summing UP the position of misappropriation, the High Court observed as follows:The various ways in which various Government orders were contravened or disregarded and large sums of Government money were paid to the different contractors in the shape of wasteful expenditure and special solicitude was shown to them in making those payments, lead reasonably to the conclusion that a criminal conspiracy had been entered into in which Banerjee.Harihar Prasad.B.P. Sinha.Sahani and Jwala Prasad were participating.The object of the conspirators obviously was to misappropriate Government money under the pretext of speedily executing the project sanctioned for the block.The actual misappropriation of funds was made by the contractors, while facilities for making the misappropriations were afforded to them by the public servants concerned, namely.Harihar Prasad and B. P. Sinha and the conspirators" had .succeeded in achieving their objective in a large measure.We are in agreement with these observations.A considerable argument before this Court took place on the evidence of Mohd. Ayub.Mohd. Ayub was the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the Mahuadar Block.Later he became Head Clerk-cum-Cashier.He was subordinate to the Block Development Officer.He had deposed in respect of many matters.Two of them are important.at the bungalow of N.K. Banerjee at Daltongani.He said that on March.in the evening Harihar Prasad took him to the bungalow of N.K. Banerjee where B.P. Sinha.' Sahani Kohili, Jwala Prasad and Gobardhan Dubey were present.They were taking tea.There it was agreed that Kohili.Jwala Prasad and Gobardhan Dubey. would be given all contracts.This was followed by the preparation of a bill for Rs. 15.600/-.Briefly, this is the direct evidence of the conspiracy.The other incident which Mohd. Ayub has deposed is that Rupees 37.500/-were contributed by the contractors and given to Harihar Prasad.It also appears that the accused" persons had no objection to the trial taking place at both the places.All transactions, it was stated, were open.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Underlying structures are cut.Trachea fully cut and seperated.Right carotid artery and vein, superior venacava cut.Body of the 7th cervical vertbera is cut.Wound is filled with clotted blood.Injury No. (i), (ii) and (iii) were in healing process, hence object of the injuries can not be explained and duration of these injuries was within four days.Injury Nos. 4,5 and 6 were caused by sharp and cutting object.(Delivered on this Day of 25th May, 2018) Per Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment regarding the same incident, they have been heard and are being decided by this common judgment.Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005The present appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assail the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06/04/2005 passed in S.T. No. 65/2002 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and under Section 457 of IPC to undergo R.I for three years with fine of Rs. 250/- each.The appellants have been convicted for murder of deceased Ramniwas son of Sampatiya bai in an incident which took place on 22/04/2001 at about 3.30 pm.It is an admitted fact that co-accused Rajputa @ Pradeep and Kehri @ Khaihain have died in an police encounter.According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by Sampatiya mother of the deceased Ramniwas on 22/04/2001, that at about 3.30 pm the deceased Ramniwas was admitted at the Public Health Centre, Jaura as he had suffered injuries due to old enmity with the Brahmins of Narhela who had assaulted him.During that time, accused Rajputa, Kehri, Mukesh and Mithilesh (present appellants) armed with Axe, Barchi, Lathi and Gun came on the spot.All the four accused came shouting "ekj Mkyks lkys dks] cpus u ik;s \ Rajputa pushed Sampatiya and gave a blow by Axe to Ramniwas which resulted in injury on his chin.As Ramniwas shouted, Rajputa gave a second blow on his chest which resulted in his death.After the incident all the four accused fled away from the spot.Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005On lodging of F.I.R. by the complainant Sampatiyabai (P.W.4), criminal law was triggered and set into motion, investigation agency arrived at the spot, prepared the Panchnama of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem; recorded the statement of the witnesses; prepared the spot map; arrested the appellants and the weapons which were used for commission of the offence were recovered at the behest of the accused and also the blood stained clothes were seized and sent to chemical examination.After investigation was over, the charge sheet was submitted in the committal court, which in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was received by the trial court for its trial.The learned trial Court framed charges which were denied by the appellants, who claimed to be tried.Appellant Mukesh produced the witness Nandkishore in his defence whereas the appellant Mithilesh did not produce any evidence in support of his defence.The sessions Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced both the appellants under various counts as mentioned above.Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeals.Learned counsel for the appellants primarily contended that PW4 Sampatiya Bai and PW7 Bhuribai have been examined as eye-witnesses.From 4 Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005 perusal of her evidence, it appears that she is only a hearsay witness who cannot be relied upon.In pararagraph 2 of her examination-in-chief, she has stated that she had not seen Mukesh earlier but saw him on the date of incident.It is submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PW4 Sampatiya Bai vis-a-vis her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that PW3 Dr. Himanshu Sharma who conducted the post mortem found three old injuries over the body of the deceased which were not caused by sharp cutting object, which goes to show that deceased was of criminal bent of mind and was involved in various illegal activities.On behalf of appellant Mithilesh it is submitted that he had not actively participated in commisson of crime, as is apparent from the FIR.The allegation against him is that he was armed with a Gun, but no gunshot injury has been found on body of the deceased.It is submitted that the main accused is Rajputa who had caused the injury.The so called eye-witness PW4 Sampatiyabai is an interested witness having enmity with the family members of the appellant who are prosecution witnesses against her family members in a case under section 307, IPC.Test Identification Parade of the 5 Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005 appellant has not been conducted.There was darkness at the spot, as such it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to establish his presence on the spot with veracity.As such his conviction with aid of section 34 of the IPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside.Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and to the deposition of PW3 Dr. Himanshu Sharma, PW Sampatiya Bai and PW7 Bhuri Bai, to contend that all the four accused persons were involved in the commisson of offence, as a result of which multiple injuries were received by Ramniwas, as is evident from the post mortem report.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.Before adverting to the aspect of marshalling of evidence, it would be appropriate to delineate the injuries found on the body of the deceased.As per postmortem report (Ex.P/6) prepared by Dr. Himansh Sharma (P.W.3), following injuries were found on the body of the deceased 6 Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005 Ramniwas :-(i) Semi healed stitched 3.5 cm long wound over left frontal region of scalp.(ii) Semi healed stitched 1.5 cm long wound over lower 1/3rd of right arm (posteriorly) .(iii) Semi healed stitched wound 1.5 cm long over the medial surface of lower 1/3rd of right leg.(iv) Incised wound size 11 cm x 4.5 cm x 4 cm up to bone deep filled with blood extending from mid of the chin to 2 cm below the angle of mandible with left side of neck.All around the wound muscles and tissues are cut.Lower margin of mandible cut into multiple fragments.(v) Incised wound 9 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep extending from midline in front of the neck towards left side obliquely placed.(vi) Incised wound obliquely placed 12cm x 5.5 x 9 cm deep up to the body of the 7th cervical vertebra extending from middle of the supraclavicular fossa of right side cutting the sternomastoid muscle right and midline of the neck up to the left sternoclavicular joint (joint is cut).Death within 24 hrs.The injuries were anti mortem in nature.Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005 The post mortem report (Ex.P.16) reflecting the aforesaid injuries which stands proved by (P.W.3) Dr. Himanshu Sharma.PW4 Sampatiya Bai, who is the complainant as well as eye witness to the incident, in her examination-in-chief has categorically deposed that 3-4 days prior to the incident, Rajputa, Mukesh, Khairi and Mithlesh had assaulted her son Ramniwas with Lathis and sustaining injuries, Ramniwas had been admitted to hospital.At about 3-3.30 a.m., when she and PW7 Bhuri Bai were sitting in the hospital besides Ramniwas who was sleeping on a cot, co-accused Rajputa, Khairi and present appellants Mukesh and Mithilesh came there.Khairi was armed with Luhangi, Mukesh with a Bhala, Rajputa with an Axe and Mithilesh was armed with a Gun.All of them exhorted to kill Ramniwas and Rajputa dealt an Axe blow on his chin and another one on his chest.Blood started oozing.All of them pushed the complainant and fled from the spot.In paragraph 5, she has categorically deposed that an agricultural field had been purchased by her some 15-20 years back and from last 1-2 years the accused persons were demanding the same.They used to extort donation from the entire Village and lived like goons.In her cross- examination in paragraph 16 also, she has narrated about giving of Axe blow by co-accused Rajputa and further stated that Mukesh, Khehri and Rajputa had pushed her.In paragraph 17 of her cross-examination she has deposed that Bhuri Bai had not escorted her to the Police Station and was sleeping.Initially she deposed that Bhuri Bai had not seen 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005 the incident as she was sleeping, but in the very next breath she deposed that Bhuri Bai had awakened after a blow of Axe was given by the miscreants and she had also shouted, but could not stand as she is an old woman.PW7 Bhuri Bai in her examination-in-chief has deposed that appellant Mukesh was also present on the spot, who was armed with an Axe and had wielded two Axe blows on Ramniwas.In her cross-examination, she has deposed that she was not aware of the names of miscreants.In paragraph 6 of her cross-examination she has deposed that she awoke when the miscreants were fleeing after pushing Sampatiya.She saw them going out of the hospital and was informed by Sampatiya that the accused persons had killed Ramniwas.She further deposed that she had also seen the accused persons wielding Axe.In paragraph 8 she again reiterated that she had seen the miscreants fleeing from the spot and was informed by Sampatiya.PW3 Dr. Himanshu Sharma who conducted the post mortem examination has categorically deposed that injury nos. 1 to 3 were in healing process, therefore, it was not possible to ascertain the weapon of offence.He further deposed that injury nos. 4 to 6 were caused by sharp cutting object and were ante mortem injuries caused within 24 hours of post mortem examination.He found the death to be homicidal in nature.PW1 Dalit Khan who is Ward Boy, though has been 9 Criminal Appeal Nos. 287/2005 & Criminal Appeal No. 312/2005 declared hostile, yet has admitted that he had seen blood oozing from the neck of Ramniwas when he visited the room and two women were crying.Similar deposition has been given by PW2 Yashvant Shakya who was the Compounder.The other prosecution witnesses who have turned hostile, are not the material witnesses.Thus, from the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the presence of the appellants on the spot and their complicity in the offence is duly proved.PW4 Sampatiya Bai, who is the eye-witness and complainant, has been examined and cross-examined in detail.She has supported the prosecution version and categorically narrated the role of the appellants in commission of crime.Similarly Bhuri Bai has deposed about assault on deceased from right side, which is corroborated by medical evidence.The appeals fail and, are, accordingly dismissed.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land covered in Survey No.24/01, bearing Patta No.70, measuring an extent of 0.90.0 hectares (i.e.) 2.22 acres at Vedhanarayanapuram Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, by virtue of the settlement made by his wife in his favour bearing Doc.No.712 of 2010 dated 29.04.2010, which was originally in her name vide registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.2.Whileso, one Kathirvel and his sons, K.Tamilmani, who is the 5th respondent, K.Parthasarathy and K.Padmanabhan entered into criminal conspiracy and had committed fraud, cheating and grabbed the land to an extent of 2.22 acres.Since the said Kathirvel impersonated as Kathirvelu alias Sivaprakasam, son of Muthan alias Raji, had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his sons as if the land belongs to Kathirvel.The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram.Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.19 of 2010 was registered under Sections 120 (b), 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the said Kathirvel, Tamilmani and 2 others.Aggrieved by the final report, Tamilmani, the 5th respondent herein, had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.no.13607 of 2015 before this Court to quash the report and this Court, by order dated 03.07.2015 dismissed the quash petition.As the said representation is not yet disposed of, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to dispose of his representation.5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 sought sufficient time to consider the representation of the petitioner and to dispose of the same, after issuing notice to the 5th respondent.6.Considering the limited prayer, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.07.2018, after issuing notice to the 5th respondent, on the basis of the order dated 03.07.2015 made in Crl.O.P.No.13607 of 2015 and order dated 21.06.2018 made in Crl.O.P.No.951 of 2018, wherein a prima facie conclusion has been reached that the property in question originally belongs to Nindumathy and that Kathirvel and his sons created fabricated document to take possession.The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.7.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No costs.

['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to Sec.320 of CRPC the offence U/S 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. are not compoundable.Heard on admission.Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing First Information Report registered at Crime No.164 of 2019 by Police Station Bhitrwar, district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C with all consequential proceedings.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.9928/2019 under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent no.2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners-accused.The petition signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-50856-2019 2 (RAJESH BATHAM AND ORS.Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.) prayer to quash the FIR pertaining to the case as stated herein above with all consequential proceedings.The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar on 10.12.2019 stating that offences under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC are non-compoundable which is as under;"Parties have submitted copy of their Adhar cards and Voter Card regarding identification.Parties have filed joint I.A. No.9928/2019 for compromise alongwith affidavit of Complainant.Statement of Complainant/Respondent No.2 Bhagwan Singh and Accused/Petitioners (except petitioner No.3 Gulab) are recorded.Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.Statement of Balwant Batham has been recorded on behalf of minor Brajesh Batham aged about 17 years.After verifying from complainant/Respondent No.2 Bhagwan Singh and accused/petitioners and Balwant Batham (father of minor Brajesh) that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.The counsel for the State formally opposed the prayer.On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He is in jail for the last almost three months.Matter is heard through video conferencing.I.A. No. 3188/2020, application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Applicant has been arrested on 24/2/2020 in connection with Crime No. 166/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Morena, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B off the IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant Rajesh Bhaskar that the applicant has been falsely implicated.He has not committed any offence.There were two F.Ds.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.2 MCRC No.13935/2020Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the available record.3 MCRC No.13935/2020The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.The intimation regarding surrender of the applicant be furnished to this Court.In case of failure to comply the order, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled.4 MCRC No.13935/2020In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing the applicants, their Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if applicant is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for her/his treatment as per medical norms.If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.5 MCRC No.13935/2020This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The application is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file afresh application for regular bail after the period of 60 days, if so advised.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The State of M.P.) appearance of the appellant-Daulat Singh before the concerned CJM on 24/9/18 and on such further dates as may be fixed by him which shall be of frequency of not less than once a year.In case, the appellant-Daulat Singh is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned C.J.M. then the said C.J.M. shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.In addition to above, the appellant is also directed to render community service for eight(8) hours once a week of such nature as decided and allotted by the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of the district within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant resides.The work so allotted shall be in close vicinity to the residence of the appellant.as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge ojha Digitally signed by YOGENDRA OJHA Date: 2018.05.04 20:36:40 -07'00'This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 27/9/05 passed in S.T.No.26/04 passed by the Special Judge Datia whereby the appellant No.1- Daulat Singh has been convicted as under with default stipulation:I.A.No.958/18, 6th repeat application u/S. 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant No.1- Daulat Singh after rejection of earlier one which was dismissed in absence of any new ground, is taken up and considered.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 648/2005 (Daulat Singh & ors.The State of M.P.) However learned counsel for the appellant informs that counted from the date of the impugned judgment, appellant was released on bail by suspension of sentence by order dated 8/3/06 whereafter he absconded to be ultimately arrested sometime in January, 2016 and since then he is in custody which makes total period of custody undergone by the petitioner to be two years and seven months.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A.No.958/18 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant- Daulat Singh will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, for 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 648/2005 (Daulat Singh & ors.Compliance report qua this condition be submitted by the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of Jhansi district with the Registry of this Court.It is made clear that in case the applicant is found to be absent in rendering the community service, intimation in that regard shall be given by the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of the district of Jhansi to the SHO of the Police station concerned who in turn shall intimate the Registry of this Court.On receipt of any such compliant the matter shall be put up before the Bench as PUD by the Registry.Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of the district of Jhansi for compliance.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 648/2005 (Daulat Singh & ors.The State of M.P.) A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information C.c.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Sri Som Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 1 of 2019 dated 18.9.2019 and cognizance order dated 27.9.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 3900 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 466 of 2018, under Sections 420, 506 IPC, P.S. Kokhraj, District- Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.As per the allegations made in the first information report and the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, it is alleged that the marriage of son of opposite party no. 2 Manoj was settled by the applicants with their cousin sister Savita Devi daughter of Rameshwar Prasad.The sagai ceremony was held on 18.10.2017 and it was decided that the date of marriage shall be fixed later on, however, subsequently, one Parmesh Kumar brother in-law of Savita's sister, came at the house of the opposite party no. 2 and informed Manoj Kumar that Savita had fallen in love with him and asked not to marry her.When this fact was disclosed by Manoj Kumar to opposite party no. 2 and other family members, then a Panchayat of both the families was called on 10.12.2017 where father of girl Savita and applicant no. 1- Bablu refused to solemnize the said marriage and requested to return back gifted money, consequent to which in presence of the relatives of both sides a sum of Rs. 97,000/- was paid to Remeshwar Prasad father of girl Savita and it was agreed that both the parties are now free to marry anywhere else.Subsequently, on 17.12.2017, the applicants in connivance with each other lodged a first information report registered vide Case Crime No. 662 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kokhraj against Manoj, Nathan and opposite party no. 2- Vimla Devi and in the backdrop of said circumstances the present first information report has been lodged.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the aforesaid allegations made in the first information report and the statement of the witnesses, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the offence of cheating is made out against the applicants.Even according to the prosecution own case, a settlement was reached between the parties in the panchayat where relatives of both the sides was present it was agreed that the marriage of Savita would not be performed with son of opposite party no. 2 and pursuant to the said settlement a sum of Rs. 97,000/- was paid to Rameshwar Prasad father of Savita and in the said backdrop, there was absolutely no element of cheating on the part of the applicants.Even according to the prosecution own case, it is alleged that since a first information report was lodged by the applicants against opposite party no. 2 Vimla Devi, her son Manoj and father Nathan under Sections 504 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such the present criminal case has been instituted against the applicants just with an intention to harass them and to drag them in a criminal court to wreck vengeance and in the backdrop of said circumstances, there being no element of cheating, the offence, complained of, is not made out against the applicants, as such the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed.Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that a sum of Rs. 97,000/- was surreptitiously taken by the applicants, who later on even lodged the first information report against the opposite party no. 2, her husband and son and as such offence u/s 420, 506 IPC is made out against the applicant.Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire allegations made in the first information report as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. particularly the statement of Manoj with whom the marriage was fixed, the necessary ingredients required to constitute offence u/s 420 IPC is not made out at all.However, despite the said fact, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the applicants, on the basis of which the applicants are being prosecuted u/s 420, 506 IPC, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.The application is, accordingly, allowed.There shall be no order as to costs.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Gautam Pratap Navlakha 28.08.2018 Present:- Sh.Jagdamba Pandey, Ld. APP for the State.IO Assistant Police Inspector Sushil V. Bobde along with ACP Ganesh Gawade and DCP Bachan Singh.The background facts and the orders passed in this petition until 29th August 2018 have already been set out by this Court in a detailed order dated 29th August 2018 which reads as under:The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release from illegal W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 1 of 26 custody and questioning the legality of his arrest by the Maharashtra Police (Respondent No.3) on 28th August 2018 pursuant to FIR No.4/2018 registered at Police Station (PS) Vishrambagh, Pune.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 1 of 26This petition was mentioned before the Chief Justice of this Court yesterday, i.e. 28th August 2018, at 2:15 pm and was assigned to this Court, which is the Roster Bench dealing with habeas corpus petitions, and was taken up at around 2:20 pm yesterday.In para 2 of the petition, it is stated that originally the officials of Respondent No.3 came to the Petitioners house at Nehru Enclave, New Delhi but since the search warrant was not shown, they were not permitted to enter.Later, they came back with the warrant and search of the house was undertaken.It is further averred in para 4 that the said FIR did not contain the Petitioners name.The Petitioner claims that "he was not even present at the meeting".The petition notes that offences under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UAPA), particularly under Sections 30 and 18, have been added to the FIR which was originally under Sections 153A, 505, and 117 read with Section 34 IPC.When the matter was taken up at 2:25 pm yesterday, Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State of NCT of Delhi appeared.The Court then passed the following order at around 2:45 pm:The petition complains of the Petitioner and his companion Sehba Husain being restrained in his house by the Maharashtra Police pursuant to FIR No. 4/2018, registered at P.S. Vishrambagh, Pune.2. Notice.Mr. Rahul Mehra, who appears and accepts notice and informs that he will take some instructions.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 2 of 26This time, DCP Bachhan Singh and ACP Ganesh Gawade, officers of Respondent No.3, were present to instruct Mr. Mehra.They were also accompanied by ACP K.G. Tyagi of the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.The order passed by the Court at 4:30 pm reads as under:This order has to be read in continuation of the order passed by this Court earlier in the day at around 2.45 pm upon an urgent mentioning before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and upon his assigning the petition to this Bench.The Court had issued notice in the petition and kept it for further hearing at 4 pm.It had directed that no precipitate action of removing the Petitioner from Delhi be taken till then.The Court is also shown the documents produced before the learned CMM most of which (including FIR No. 4 of 2018 registered at Police Station Vishrambagh, Pune) are in Marathi language and only the application filed for transit remand before the learned CMM is in Hindi.However, it is not possible to make out from these W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 3 of 26 documents what precisely the case against the Petitioner is.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 3 of 26Since it is already 4.30 pm, the Court considers it appropriate to direct that pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2018 of the learned CMM, the Petitioner will not be taken away from Delhi and this case will be taken up as the first case tomorrow morning.Translations of all the documents produced before the CMM be provided to this Court tomorrow.The Petitioner shall, in the meanwhile, be kept at the same place from where he was picked up with two guards of the Special Cell, Delhi Police along with local Police that was originally here to arrest the Petitioner, outside the house.Barring his lawyers, and the ordinary residents of the house, the Petitioner shall not meet any other persons or step out of the premises till further orders.This morning, the case was called as the first case.He, however, stated that copies of the translation will be provided to counsel for the Petitioner positively by today.Recording this, the Court passed a short order listing the case at 2:15 pm today."Mr. Aman Lekhi learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Maharashtra Police informs the Court that translation of the documents in Marathi language, which was required to be produced before this Court is taking some more time.The bunch also includes the search and seizure form, the search panchnama, and the arrest memo, all of which are in Marathi.For some reason, these have not been translated as yet.Mr. Lekhi stated that some more time is required for this purpose.However, the Court did not consider it appropriate to give any further time for this purpose and proceeded to hear the petition on the core issues that arose.The papers also include the copy of transit remand application (in Hindi) which was presented before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, District Court, Saket (CMM) yesterday, i.e. 28th August 2018, at around 2.45 pm after the Petitioner was arrested from his residence at Nehru Enclave at 2:15 pm.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 4 of 26The said order reads as under:"FIR No.4/18 PS: Vishrambagh, Pune, Maharashtra U/s: 153A/505 (1) (B)/117/34 IPC & u/s 13/16/17/18/18B/20/30/40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act State Vs.Inspector Sanjay Gupta, PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.Accused Gautam Pratap Navlakha produced in Police custody.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 5 of 26Om Prakash, Ld.LAC for the accused.This is a handwritten application preferred by the IO Assistant Police Inspector Sushil V. Bobde seeking transit remand of two days the above noted accused persons.The identity of IO as a police officer of PS Vishrambagh, Pune, Maharashtra is established upto my satisfaction upon his having shown his identity card.Special Court, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra and therefore, his transit remand may be granted.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the IO and the learned APP for the State.As per the police papers, FIR No.4/18 has been registered under Sections 153A/505 (1) (B)/117/34 IPC and Sections 13/16/17/18/18B/ 20/39/40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act at Police Station Vishrambagh, Pune, Maharashtra wherein the accused is required.As per the arrest memo the accused namely Gautam Pratap Navlakha was arrested on 29.08.2018 at 2.15 at Kalkaji, Delhi.Information of arrest of accused has been given to his partner/friend.The accused be produced before the concerned Ld.Accused be got medically W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 6 of 26 examined as per rules and the directions of the Honble Supreme Court.A copy of this order be given dasti to the Investigating Officer.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 6 of 26List on 30th August 2018 at 2:15 pm."On the following day, i.e. 30th August 2018, the Court passed the following further order:The dictation of the order was then halted and this petition was adjourned by a day to peruse the order of the Supreme Court.The Court has today been shown a copy of W.P. (Crl) [Diary No. 32319/2018] (Romila Thapar & Ors.We order accordingly.The house arrest of Mr. Gautam Navalakha and W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 10 of 26 Ms. Sudha Bhardwaj may be extended in terms of our orders.W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 10 of 26Let the matter be listed on 6.9.2018."On 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court by a majority of 2:1 disposed of the writ petition and the applications filed in the said writ petition with liberty to the concerned accused to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law.It was further directed that the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 29th August 2018 (extracted hereinbefore as part of this Courts order on 30th August 2018), "shall continue for a period of four weeks to enable the accused to move the concerned Court".It was further clarified that "the said proceeding shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment, which is limited to W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 11 of 26 the reliefs claimed in this writ petition to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating agency and/or Court monitored investigation." It was further clarified that the Investigating Officer (IO) "is free to proceed against the concerned accused as per law".W.P. (Crl.) 2559/2018 Page 11 of 26This writ petition was listed for hearing today at 2:15 pm before this Court.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Deceased Aruna Pathak was residing in her own house with her brother in Gokulpeth, Locality in the city of Nagpur.She had no parents.Therefore, the brother and sister only were staying in their own house.Shri Sharad Pathak the real uncle of deceased Aruna Pathak who was at the relevant time serving in Central P.W.D., was residing in the locality known as Chatrapati Nagar.The brother of deceased Aruna viz. Arvind was an employee of Nagpur Improvement Trust.Deceased Aruna was a commerce graduate.Since the parents of deceased Aruna and Arvind were dead, it was the responsibility of their uncle Shri Sharad Pathak to arrange the marriage of Aruna.The respondents/accused Nos. 2 and 3. were staying in Surendra Nagar, Nagpur.Shri Sharad Pathak and one Shri Alone his relation, went to the house of accused No. 1 Madhusudan Mudke to open the negotiation about the marriage of Aruna and Madhusudan.The respondents/accused Nos. 2 and 3 informed Sharad Pathak that after the arrival of Madhusudan, they would intimate him the date of the programme to see the girl.On 6-4-1986, the negotiations of marriage were settled at the house of Aruna Pathak.All the accused had been to the house of Aruna to see the girl i.e. Aruna.Sharad Pathak specifically informed the accused that as Aruna had no parents, he could spend over the marriage to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- only.However thereafter the respondents/ accused suggested for registered marriage.Sharad Pathak, deceased Aruna Pathak and her brother Arvind Pathak acceded to the proposal of the respondents/accused.Accused No. 1 Madhusudan proposed to open two joint fixed deposit accounts of Rs. 10,000/- in the name of Aruna and himself, in two different Banks i.e. State Bank of India, Surendra Nagar Branch & Canara Bank.Similarly, accused proposed that 3 tolas of gold was to be purchased for Aruna and an amount of Rs. 3000/- be spent for the clothes of bride and bride-groom.Further, it was proposed that Rs. 2000/- be spent for dinner and about Rs. 2000/- for booking a hall for marriage ceremony and also about Rs. 1000/- be spent for religious ceremony.The proposals of the accused No. 1 were accepted by Sharad Pathak, deceased Aruna and her brother Arviad.The marriage negotiations were finalised between the accused No. 1 Madhusudan and deceased Aruna at the house of accused.The photographs of the ceremony were also taken.Accused also purchased same gold for preparing Mangalsutra from the same goldsmith.On 13-4-1986, Aruna and her brother Arvind were invited at the house of the accused for meal.The accused No. 1 gave a form for opening the fixed joint account.Accordingly, on 18-4-1986 a joint account was opened in the name of the accused No. 1 and deceased Aruna in the State Bank of India, Surendra Nagar, Branch Nagpur.The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be kept in fixed deposit in Canara Bank, Nagpur.During the negotiation itself Sharad Pathak specifically expressed that he could hardly spent Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- towards marriage expenses.Thereafter only the accused came with two proposals, one to sotemnise the marriage under the Special Marriage Act by registration and second to open two different accounts in the joint name of Aruna and Madhusudan, one in the State Bank of India Surandra Nagar Branch and another in Canara Bank, Nagpur.In each joint account, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- be deposited.In pursuance of the proposals, deceased Aruna opened a joint account in the State Bank of India, Surendra Nagar Branch, Nagpur.The F.D.R. form was brought by the respondent No. 1 Madhusudan duly signed and handed over to Aruna.This shows that the respondent/accused had an evil eye on money and therefore, the proposals were mooted.Only no direct demand in words, but directing Sharad Pathak, Aruna Pathak and her brother Arvind to open two different accounts of Rs. 10,000/- each in the joint name of Aruna and Madhusudan is a clear indication of demand of dowry.Further, the respondents/accused directed them to purchase 3 tolas of gold and to spend Rs. 3,000/- for clothes of bride and bride-groom.This demand was before the solemnisation of the marriage.Used indirect methods to secure money and articles from Sharad Pathak, Aruna and her brother Arvind.Now a days, the marriage of a girl is nothing but a headache due to demand of dowry in each community.Sharad Pathak Aruna Pathak and her brother Arvind Pathak become prey to the desire and demand of respondents/ accused.The mode of registered marriage was proposed by the bridegroom and his parents and accepted by the bride's side.For registered marriage certain formalities are to be complied with.It amply shows that deceased Aruna was interested to marry with deceased Madhusudan the accused No. 1 and, therefore, she informed her friends and Dr. Sakhare.The prosecution amply proved that at the time of negotiation the accused proposed to open two separate bank accounts in the joint name, each account of Rs. 10,000/-.One joint account was opened in the State Bank of India, Surendra Nagar, locality Nagpur where respondents/accused own house and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 where residing.Sharad Pathak expressed to incur the expenses to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-, But, different proposal of registration of marriage was mooted and the proposal of opening the fixed accounts were proposed.Though the accused Madhusudan alleged that he was defamed in the community, no evidence is led in defence to substantiate the fact that either Sharad Pathak or any one from his family any time told to any member of the community that they have paid Rs. 50,000/- to accused as dowry.It is the out-come of his furtile brain.He only put the allegations in the month of others and thereby tried to coerce them to give additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry.JUDGMENT B.U. Wahane, J.The appellant/State preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 19-4-1990 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in a Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1987 recording the findings of acquittal against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/State, the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the facts and circumstances, as also the legal provisions in true and correct perspective and, therefore, the findings are perverse and erroneous.The birth certificate was needed to be attached with the form to be submitted to the Ragistrar under the Special Marriage Act. The form was to be submitted a month before the registration of the Marriage.Accused No. 1 Madhusudan did not supply the birth certificate.As the marriage date was fixed on 2-6-1986, the hall was booked and Rs. 500/- were deposited as advance.According to the prosecution though the marriage was proposed to be a registered marriage under the Special Marriage Act, there were no activities on the part of the accused and, therefore, Sharad Pathak, the uncle of deceased Aruna became suspicious.The parents of Madhusudan were present.During the course of talk, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 remarked that the girl is mannerless and, therefore, they do not approve the said girl and marriage be treated as cancelled.Therefore, Sharad Pathak and his relations Shri Muddalwar went to Bhandak at the quarter of accused No. 1 During the talk between them, accused No. 1 Madhusudan accosted Sharad Pathak that the defamed him in the community alleging that he has taken Rs. 50,000/- as Dowry from them.Sharad Pathak and Muddalwar denied the allegations and tried to pursuade and satisfy him, but their pursuance bore no fruits.Sharad Pathak informed his niece deceased Aruna about the demand on the accused.She was shocked to hear the cancellation of her marriage.On 30-5-1986, Aruna committed suicide by burning herself pouring kerosene on her person.The report of the incident was lodged with Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur on 30-5-1986, The offence was registered against the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.After hearing the learned Counsel of the parties, additional charge was framed under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Because of the death of Aruna, her relations have falsely involved the respondents/accused.The respondents/accused examined Sidharath (D.W. 1) as defence witness.According to the defence, Sidharath was a room mate of accused No. 1 Madhusudan and at the relevant time when Sharad Pathak and Muddalwar had gone to Bhandak, he was present in the quarter and heard the talk between them.The learned trial Judge after scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence recorded the finding of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.A month notice by the prospective bride and bridegroom is needed to the registration of marriage together with the birth certificates of the bride and bridegroom.Madhusudhan (accused No. 1) had handed over the required form duly signed by him.However, birth certificate not being supplied, it was not presented before the Registrar of the marriages.The date of marriage was approaching and the respondent were delaying the matter.Therefore, Sharad Pathak alongwith his relation approached the parents of the accused No. 1 and thereafter they had gone to Bhandak to have negotiations with Madhusudan.At Bhandak, the accused No. 1 Madhusudan accosted them saying that they defened him alleging that they have given him Rs. 50,000/- as dowry.However, he told them that unless they paid Rs. 50,000/- to him, he is not going to marry with Aruna.Regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/- there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of Sharad Pathak by Shri Arunkumar Muddalwar (P.W. 9) who was also present with him.Subsequently this fact was conveyed to deceased Aruna Pathak, her brother Arvind and other relations.Arvind Pathak (P.W. 4) who is the brother of deceased Aruna also deposed that the demand of accused No. 1 Madhusudan was conveyed to him.Similarly, Shri Manohar Alone (P.W. 6) who is cousin brother of Sharad Pathak also deposed that Sharad Pathak told him that accused No. 1 made a demand of Rs. 50,000/-.Smt. Kusum wife of Harihar Alone (P.W. 3) also deposed that Sharad Pathak told her that accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 50,000/- and if not paid, the marriage contract would be broken.Chitra Taide (P.W. 8) who was the friend of deceased Aruna stated that Aruna told about the settlement of marriage date of marriage and also the fact of breakage of marriage due to demand of dowry from the boy side, to her.The immediate conduct of deceased Aruna is clear from her letter addressed to Dr. Seema Sakhare (P.W. 7) seeking her help.Deceased Aruna informed Dr. Sakhare that accused No. I Madhusudan has already entered into an agreement to marry with another girl and sought her help.Accused proposed that Rs. 10,000/- each be deposited in fixed deposit in the joint account of deceased Aruna and accused No. 1 Madhusudan in two different banks.Three tolar of gold was purchased as directed by accused.A hall to solemnise the marriage was also booked.However, as there was a delay on the part of the accused to produce the birth certificate Sharad Pathak alongwith his relation went to Bhandak where accused No. 1 Madhusudan demanded Rs. 50,000/- towards the dowry to perform the marriage with Aruna.In the instant case, the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and were tried at Nagpur, on the allegation that before the death of Aruna Pathak the demand of dowry was made to perform the marriage.This shows that the accused were greedy of money and therefore, they have proposed the another mode of marriage and to save the expenditure.Indirectly, the respondents demanded dowry firstly at the time of settlement and directed them to deposit money in two different banks.Consequent, one account was opened in the State Bank of India, Surendra Nagar Branch, Nagpur.Thus, the respondent No. 1 became one of the depositor, having right to withdraw.This is nothing but a consideration for the marriage which constitute dowry.P.W. 2 Sharad Pathak and P.W. 9 Arun Mudalwar who had been to Bhandak, deposed that accused Madhusudan demanded Rs. 50,000/-and specifically stated that he will not marry Aruna unless he is paid Rs. 50,000/-.The disclosed this fact to deceased Aruna Pathak and her brother Arvind immediately on return.Similarly, the prosecution led the evidence of Chitra Taide (P.W. 8) and Rekha Dhabe (P.W. 5) who were informed by deceased Aruna about the demand of dowry and breakage of marriage.It is admitted by Shri Sharad Pathak and Shri Aruna Muddalwar that when they opened the talk of marriage, the accused Madhusudan got enraged saying that they have defamed him in the community on the allegations that he took Rs. 50,000/- as dowry.This fact was denied by Sharad Pathak and Arun Muddalwar.Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused not only proposed but demanded and accepted the amount of dowry by opening the joint account in the State Bank of India, Surendra Nagar Branch, Nagpur.Exh. 36 is a xerox copy of F.D.R. receipt.Exh. 37 is another form bearing signature of accused No. 1 Madhusudan for deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in Canara Bank.Thus, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.In the result, the appeal filed by the State is partly allowed.The finding of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by the Trial Court is confirmed.The respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Two weeks time is granted to the respondents/accused to surrender to their bail bonds.Appeal partly allowed.

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

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF 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 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']

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

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.81/2017 registered at Police Station Tharet District Datia for the offences punishable under sections 326, 323, 452, 294 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicants, in short, are that owing to previous enmity, on 14/6/17, they came to the house of complainant armed with Lathis and started abusing him.On complainant's objection, they beat the complainant inside his house causing injuries on right elbow, temple, eyes and ribs.When complainant's sister-in-law came to his rescue, then applicant Ajay beat her with Lathis.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated.C.No.6861/2017 (Ajay Jat & another Vs.State of M.P.) submitted that, in fact, it was the complainant who was the aggressor, but report of applicants was not registered by the Police Authorities and they were told that the same would be registered after investigation.In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection contending that from the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.C.C. as per rules.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.The present petitioner/accused is a Nigerian national claiming to be in possession of a valid International passport issued by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.He claims bail, and asserts that he has to be released in terms of Sections 167(1) & (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC.).The brief facts necessary to decide this application are that the Petitioner was apprehended by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( "CBI," hereafter referred to as "the Respondent") on 25.9.2006, based on a complaint of one Sh.The raid was conducted at 120 D, Gokul Apartment, Krishna Nagar, Gali No. 5, Safdarjung Enclave, N.Delhi.It is averred that during the raid two passports, one in the name of the petitioner and another in the name of William George were seized along with some other incriminating documents.Vivek Ahlawat intimating it that a consignment of counterfeit bank drafts and postal orders of foreign currency were received by him.The Respondent, on receiving the complaint registered the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused, namely, M/s Joshua, Eubuoniwa and Joseph for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 489-A to 489-E of IPC.The Respondent raided premises of the Petitioner on suspicion that accused persons were in hiding, but none of them were found there.The Petitioner alleged that he and his three other friends, found at the premises were apprehended by the C.B.I and taken into custody for interrogation.The Petitioner alleges that he was produced before the concerned magistrate after expiry of 24 hours of his arrest i.e. on 27.09.06 and the magistrate sent him to judicial custody and since then he is in custody.He further alleges that even after the expiry of 90 days the Respondent failed to file a charge sheet or a challan against him in respect of the alleged offence for which he was arrested.It is alleged that a part charge sheet was filed against him for his over staying in India, after the expiry of his visa.The Petitioner states that on 10.10.2006, he applied for bail before the ACMM, which was rejected.The extracts of the order dated 13.10.2006 are as follows;in so far as the allegations against the accused are concerned, the record reveals that the accused is not a suspect but is an accused in the present case.The accused is a Nigerian national and has been residing in India without a valid passport and visa.His address is yet to be verified.The allegations are of preparation and circulation of fake instruments of foreign currency which has been wide spread international ramification and the accused is reported to be a part of this conspiracy.Keeping in view the allegations involved, no ground for bail is made out.The application is hereby dismissedThe extracts of the order dated 10.01.2007 are as follows;The Respondent in its reply has stated that a complaint by the Senior Security Specialist of Federal Express (Fed Ex) alleging that fake postal orders, drafts of foreign countries were being sent to various places through Federal Express, by Mr. Joshua and Mr. Eubouwman Nosa Victor was received by it.Thereafter a search was conducted on 25.9.2006 at 10.30 pm and it concluded on 26.9.2006 at 01.30 hrs.At that time Mr. Josha was not present at the premises but Mr. Nosa Victor was present along with four other Nigerian Nationals.It is alleged by the Respondent that the Petitioner was one amongst them.

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on this second application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Anil Soni in Crime No.80/2017 registered by P.S. Baihar, District Balaghat under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.His first application for the same relief had been dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.12.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.23255/2017 as withdrawn.By way of change in circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.09.2017 and has now undergone about a year in jail.Consequently, this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Anil Soni, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent, local sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case, for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for refraining from committing any more offence against the property during the pendency of the present case.

['Section 34 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.216 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A), 147, 294(b), 323 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Without any base, the third respondent police registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 147, 294(b), 323 of IPC and 4 of TNPWH Act, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 CRL.O.P.No.6677 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Considering the above submissions, the first respondent is directed to follow the procedures laid down under 588 A of Police Standing order and complete the investigation in Crime No.216 of 2019 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.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ubhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.6677 of 2020The Sub Inspector of Police, Arumbavur Police Station, Perambalur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.6677 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ub Crl.O.P.No.6677 of 2020 03.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In short the prosecution story is that on 14.10.1990, when injured complainant Ramlal, a Constable, was coming back from his duties near the police line, met with accused Laxmi Prasad who was his cousin.Accused/appellant started a quarrel with the complainant and suddenly he assaulted the complainant with a dagger (Chhura) causing him injury in his left elbow in hand and the dagger after perforating his skin also entered in the back of the left abdomen.In the meantime, Anand Pachori and Guddu Dhobi came to the spot and therefore the accused/appellant left the spot immediately.Complainant Ramlal 2 immediately rushed to the Police Station Kotwali, Damoh and lodged an FIR.He was taken to the hospital.Dr. Sachdev (P.W.1) found two penetrating wounds on the left elbow of the complainant.One was entry wound and another was exit wound whereas he found one entry wound in his left abdomen.He referred the complainant Ramlal for x-ray examination.Dr. O.P. Dubey (P.W.2) found that middle 1/3 rd of ulna was found broken.A charge sheet was submitted for offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506-B, 333 & 326 of IP.C.The appellant abjured his guilt and took defence before the trial Court that since the complainant was a Police Constable who was also a Court Moharir in the Court of CJM, Damoh, he had lodged a false FIR against the accused with the help of his seniors.Actually, he fell on an angle by which injuries were caused in his left elbow and abdomen.There was some dispute of land between both the parties and therefore, the accused was falsely implicated in the matter.In defence, accused has examined himself as a defence witness in the trial Court.Learned Additional Sessions Judge after due consideration of evidence adduced, acquitted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 294, 506 and 333 of I.P.C but, convicted him for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C and inflicted the aforesaid sentence.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at present appellant is not challenging findings of the Lower Court in toto but, he is challenging conviction under Section 326 of I.P.C because no grievous injury was proved to be caused by the appellant to the victim.He further submits that if assault is made by a dagger and it passes through the skin and muscles of elbow and also causes injury in the abdomen then it is 3 not possible that such blow will cause any bony injury.If dagger was dashed to a bone and it was broken, then it was not possible that the dagger could have crossed the bone causing through and through injury in the skin of elbow and also pierced in the abdomen.Secondly he submits that a grievous injury was not corresponding to the visible injuries caused by a dagger.As per MLC report Ex.P/1, incised wound was found on the elbow of left arm whereas Dr.Dubey (PW2) found a fracture in left ulna in middle one third.Therefore, fracture must be three to four inches away from that injury which was caused by the dagger.Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant seems to be acceptable.Complainant Ramlal (PW6) has lodged an FIR Ex.P/13 and he has not made any description regarding any injury to his bone in the FIR.Dr. Sachdeva found that there was a entry wound in left elbow of the complainant and there was an exit wound on the elbow of the complainant but, he did not mention that in between those two wounds the bone was found broken.Secondly if bone of that place was broken then it should be the lower 1/3 rd of ulna, whereas Dr. Dubey opined that middle 1/3 rd of ulna bone was found broken.Therefore, it is clear that fracture of ulna bone could not be caused by the alleged assault caused by the appellant therefore, Additional Sessions Judge has committed a mistake in holding that the appellant caused grievous injury to the complainant.It is nowhere proved that any of the stab injury caused to the complainant was grave.At present learned counsel for the appellant does not want to challenge the evidence regarding the incident and therefore, it is accepted that appellant caused three injuries to the complainant by one blow of the dagger which were simple in nature.Therefore, conviction under Section 326 of I.P.C cannot be sustained but, the appellant can be convicted for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C which is an inferior offence of similar nature with regard to offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. In 4 these circumstances, appeal of the appellant can be partly accepted and therefore, is accepted accordingly.His conviction for offence under Section 326 of I.P.C is quashed.He is acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. but, he is convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C under the same charge.As far as sentence is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is 20 years old, the appellant has no criminal past.He was cousin of the complainant.He remained in custody for more than 15 days and therefore, he should not be sent to jail for any further punishment.Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is acceptable.However, the blow given by the appellant was powerful which caused perforations in skin of the complainant on elbow and also caused a stab injury in the abdomen.However, he faced trial in this appeal for last 20 years and therefore, it would not be proper to send him again to jail but, appropriate sentence of fine would be sufficient in the interest of justice in addition to jail sentence, for a period which he has already undergone in the custody.Therefore, it is directed that the appellant is sentenced to jail sentence for a period which he has already undergone in custody during the trial and appeal with a fine in sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only); in default he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months.He is directed to deposit aforesaid fine within 3 months from today, otherwise the trial Court would be free to execute default sentence.The appeal is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence.The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE bina 5

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Nobody appears for the appellant.Mrs. Khan, learned Advocate is requested to appear as Amicus Curiae in the matter.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present:The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi And The Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj C.R.A. 447 of 2007 Nirmal Ch.It appears that the appellant has served out the sentence in the meantime.Hence, dispensing with the preparation of paper books, the appeal is taken up today for hearing.The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 17th March, 2007 and 19th March, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No.6(1)/2006 (Sessions Case No.138 of 2005) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that the family of the victim was a tenant under the appellant and on 8.7.2005 while the parents of the victim were away, the appellant came to her room, bolted the room from inside and committed rape on her by pressing her mouth.On the written complaint of the father of the convict, Ranjit Sutradhar, Alipurduar Police Station Case No.133 of 2005 dated 9.7.2005 under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant.The appellant was arrested and charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri for trial and disposal.Charge was framed under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in support of its case and exhibited number of documents.The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.It was the specific defence of the appellant that there was a dispute between him and the family of the victim over non-payment of rent and he was falsely implicated in the instant case.In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgement and order dated 17th March, 2007 and 19th March, 2007 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.Mrs. Khan, Amicus Curiae submitted that there was enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant over non-payment of rent.The evidence of the Doctor does not support the case of forcible rape.Hence, she prayed for acquittal of the appellant.Mr. Maiti learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Mrs. Das appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the victim is corroborated by other witnesses.Mere penetration without injury is sufficient to prove the offence of rape.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.The victim deposed that she was a student of Class IV at the time of occurrence.Her parents had been away.In the absence of her parents while she was playing with her younger brother, the appellant took her inside the room and bolted the door from inside.Thereafter, he misbehaved with her and she suffered irritation in her genital organs.She deposed that the appellant also touched her vagina at his penis.She identified the appellant.She made a statement before the Magistrate.The evidence of P.W.2 has been corroborated by her parents P.W.3 and P.W.5 respectively.P.W.5, her father also proved the First Information Report.He also proved the birth certificate of the victim.P.W.6, a Panchayat Member, was declared hostile.In cross-examination, he stated that there was a dispute relating to rent.P.W.10 examined the victim.He found the following injuries;He opined that in case of minor girl hymen may remain intact if there is only touch of penis.From the evidence on record, it appears that the version of the victim girl has been corroborated by her parents.In the light of the evidence of the Doctor it appears that there was slight penetration before ejaculation and therefore, there was no injury in her private parts.It is trite law that slight penetration is sufficient to prove rape.In view of the clear and consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I am unwilling to disbelieve the victim girl aged about 12 years on the stray statement of a hostile witness, P.W.6 that there was a rent dispute between her father and the appellant.For the aforesaid reason, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld.Accordingly, the appeal is, thus, dismissed.I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mrs. Zareen N. Khan, learned Advocate as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal.Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (AS)

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Matter is heard through video conferencing.Record of the trial Court is available.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.52532020, which is an application filed by the appellant/accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant bail to him.Appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, Section 354 (?k) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and Section 509 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.A s per prosecution case, on 09.10.2019, proseuctrix along with her mother and father lodged a report alleging that when she was doing work in her house then appellant was wandering in front of her house and followed her.Appellant used to say that he loves her and wants to marry her.Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to her parents and her parents exhorted not to do the same, but he continued to do so.Thereafter, a case has been registered against the present appellant for the alleged offences.Prosecutrix is above 18 years.Present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.There is no criminal antecedent against the present appellant.Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, jail sentence of accused/appellant has been suspended by the trial Court and has been released on bail till 18.04.2020, this appeal is of year 2020, final hearing of this appeal will take time due to Covid-19, but without commenting anything on the merit of the case, the said I.A. No.5253/2020 is allowed.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant/accused -Sonu @ Shashikant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial court on 21.09.2020 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing.List the matter for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.07.02 16:38:43 +05'30'

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Mohd.Afzal prays for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the propriety and validity of the order of detention dated 20 June 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority') under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the NSA') on being satisfied that the petitioner's detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Against the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the NSA.The case of the petitioner, along with his representation was placed before the Advisory Board, who opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.According to the grounds of detention, which are in the narrative form, the petitioner is an active, desperate, dangerous criminal and a bad character of Bundle/A of the area of Police Station Seelampur, Delhi.He started his criminal activities in the year 1990 at the age of about 19 years and was involved in 18 criminal cases, enlisted in the grounds, such as voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, riots, house-trespass, obstructing public servants from discharging their official duties, criminal conspiracy, criminal confinement, kidnapping, attempt to murder and murder.He was also involved in the offences punishable under the Arms Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Out of the said 18 criminal cases registered against him, the petitioner has been acquitted/discharged in most of the cases.In five cases, he is facing trial and three cases are stated to be under investigation.It is alleged that the prosecution witnesses against him are extremely afraid to depose against him in the Court, which is evident from his acquittal in the cases, where even the injured, the complainants and near relatives did not support the prosecution case and had turned hostile due to intimidation and terrorising tactics by the petitioner.He is stated to be so dangerous and desperate criminal that he has not spared even his father and police officials.Reference to the said 18 cases has been made in the grounds of detention with a view to show his past criminal record.Hence the impugned order of detention.We have heard Mr.Bahar U.Barqi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Moreover, even an application for cancellation of bail, granted to the petitioner, was not filed by the State.It is urged that instead of clamping the impugned order on the petitioner, the best course open to the respondents was to oppose the bail application or to move the higher forum to get it cancelled.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai made in S.C.No.42 of 2010 whereby the accused/appellants, seven in number, stood charged, tried and found guilty and awarded punishments as follows:AccusedChargesFindingsSentenceA-1Sections 148, 452, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.1 year R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.A-2 Sections 148, 452, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.A-3Sections 148, 452, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.A-4Sections 148, 452 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.A-5Sections 148, 452 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.A-6Sections 148, 452 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.(i) P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law and P.W.2 is the son of the deceased Silormani.They were residing at Door No.73, S.S.Puram Main Road, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai - 7 situate within the jurisdiction of the respondent police.P.Ws.3 and 7 are the sons and P.W.5 is the daughter of the deceased.On 20th of May, 2009 there was a quarrel between the deceased and one Neelavathy, mother of the first accused with respect to fetching of water from the public pipe, regarding which, they were on enimical terms and there was exchange of words between them.At the time of quarrel, Neelavathy gave out that she would see to the dispute after the arrival of her son.A1 broke the tube light with the help of iron rod.A3 was in possession of knife.A2, A4, A6 and A7 were in possession of wooden clubs.A3 with the use of knife, threatened them to cause death.A4, A5 and A7 broke the auto and it was questioned by the deceased Silormani.A4 to A7 assaulted P.Ws.3 and 4 with wooden clubs.When the deceased shouted, A1 to A3 questioned her as to why she was shouting and A1 with the use of iron rod, attacked on the head of the deceased and A2 kicked the deceased with leg.Thereafter, all of them ran away from the place of occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 2 took the deceased to the Government General Hospital, where she was medically examined by P.W.14 Doctor.P.Ws.3 and 4 also went to Government Hospital, Kilpauk and they were medically examined by P.W.13 doctor.P19 and P20 are the copies of accident registers.P28 is the first information report.He sent the copy of the first information report to the concerned higher officials and Court, which reached the court at about 6.30 a.m. Thereafter, at 2.45 a.m., he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P29 observation mahazar and Ex.P30 rough sketch.At about 4.00 a.m., P.W.19 seized M.O.12-blood stained cement floor and M.O.13  plain cement floor under seizure mahazar Ex.P31 in the presence of witnesses.At about 4.15 a.m., he seized M.O.9 series - broken glass pieces of front glass of auto under seizure mahazar Ex.P32 and at about 4.30 a.m., he seized M.O.8  broken glass pieces of television under Ex.(iii)Between 5.00 a.m. to 6.30 a.m., P.W.19 went to mortuary and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and Ex.P34 is the inquest report.P23 is the postmortem certificate issued by P.W.15 doctor and the doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries.(iv)Pending investigation, P.W.19 arrested A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 and their confessional statements were recorded.Admissible part of the confessional statement of A1 is marked as Ex.P37 and M.O.2  blood stained iron rod was recovered from him under the seizure mahazar Ex.Admissible part of the confessional statement of A2 is marked as Ex.P39 and M.O.3  wooden club was recovered under the seizure mahazar Ex.Admissible part of the confessional statement of A3 is marked as Ex.P41 and M.O.1  knife was recovered under the seizure mahazar Ex.Admissible part of the confessional statement of A4 is marked as Ex.P43 and M.O.4  wooden club was recovered under the seizure mahazar Ex.Admissible part of the confessional statement of A5 is marked as Ex.P45 and M.O.5  wooden club was recovered under the seizure mahazar Ex.Admissible part of the confessional statement of A7 is marked as Ex.P47 and M.O.6  wooden club was recovered under the seizure mahazar Ex.(v)P.W.19 brought A1 to A5 and A7 to the police station and they were sent for judicial remand.A6 was arrested on 04.06.2009 at 13.30 hours and he was sent for remand.Further investigation was taken up by P.W.20, who enquired the doctors and received Exs.P19 and P20, extracts of accident registers.1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.A-7 Sections 148, 452 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act r/w 149 I.P.C. and 506(ii)Guilty1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I.;Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.;1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months R.I.1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month R.I.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:On the basis of Ex.P1, he registered the case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 302 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and Ex.After completion of investigation and receipt of the postmortem certificate Ex.P23, P.W.20-investigating officer filed the final report against the accused under Sections 148, 147, 452 and 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 of T.N.P.P.D.L. Act, 302 and 506 (ii)(vi)The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined 20 Witnesses and relied on 52 exhibits and 15 material objects.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied them as false.On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and found the appellants guilty under the above said provisions and awarded punishments as referred to above.Hence, this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellants before this Court.3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel inter alia would submit, in the instant case, the occurrence has taken place at 11.30 p.m. on 23.05.2009 and the prosecution has relied on P.Ws. 1 to 8 as eye witnesses, out of which, P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to be the injured witnesses.The Trial Judge was not ready to believe the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 in respect of the charges levelled under Section 324 I.P.C. and acquitted the accused and hence the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 became shaky and unbelievable.P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law and P.W.2 is the son of the deceased.According to them, both of them took the deceased to the hospital and the deceased was medically examined by P.W.14 doctor.P.W.1 has categorically admitted that when she went to the hospital, accompanying her husband/P.W.2, she informed the doctor as to how the occurrence had taken place.A perusal of Ex.P21, accident register, would clearly indicate that the deceased was attacked by four unknown persons and while P.W.1 has accompanied her husband/ P.W.2 and taken the deceased to hospital, it is quite natural that she would have spoken about the assailants.Under such circumstances, when they came out with the earliest version that the assailants were unknown persons, then the version of P.W.1 that the deceased was attacked by known persons has got to be eschewed.4.Added further, learned counsel has candidly admitted that at the instance of A6, a case was registered by the respondent police in Crime No.447 of 2009 and the documents and material records were suppressed by the prosecution.Under such circumstances, the prosecution cannot vouch for the genuineness of the complaint registered against the accused and the trial Court was prevented from taking correct decision and medical opinion would not corroborate the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution.The trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and found the accused/appellants guilty and in the instant case, there is no evidence to show that there was unlawful assembly or common object for committing murder and the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.5.This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.6.It is not in controversy that the deceased, mother-in-law of P.W.1 and mother of P.W.2 was taken to the hospital and examined by P.W.14 and she was declared dead.Following the inquest made by the investigating officer, the dead body was subjected to postmortem.P.W.15 doctor conducted postmortem and gave her opinion in Ex.P.23 that the deceased died of injury on her head which is the subject matter of controversy before the trial Court.Hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in relying upon the medical opinion and finding the accused guilty.7.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants that they have constituted unlawful assembly and with the common object of causing murder, attacked P.Ws.3 and 4 and also the deceased and caused her death, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 as eye witnesses.P.Ws.3 and 4 came forward to specifically state that at the time of occurrence, they were attacked by the accused and they sustained injuries but the trial Court was not ready to believe the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and acquitted the accused in respect of the charge under Section 324 I.P.C.8.The Court is able to see that the occurrence took place on 23.05.2009 at 11.30 p.m. According to the investigator, he, on receipt of the intimation, registered a case and also recorded the statements of witnesses, in particular, the statements of P.Ws.1 to 8, who are the eye witnesses.Thereafter, the statements of the eye witnesses should have been sent to the Court at the earliest or within the reasonable time.This would raise a doubt whether P.Ws.2 to 8 would have been present at the place of occurrence at all.Further, when P.W.2 took his mother to the hospital and also informed the doctor P.W.14 that she was attacked by unknown persons, it would be clearly indicative of the fact that P.W.2 would not have been present in the place of occurrence and at this juncture, in view of the above information, it is highly doubtful whether the case of the prosecution in respect of A2 to A7 put forth before the trial Court can be accepted beyond reasonable doubt.It is unsafe to find that they have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and acted with a common object.9.On the other hand, the Court is able to see that the case insofar as A1 is concerned, prosecution has successfully produced cogent evidence before the trial court.According to P.W.1, she was in the house along with her mother-in-law, the deceased, at the time of quarrel.At the time of occurrence, A1 took the iron rod and attacked the deceased on her head and this accused along with the other accused caused damage to the auto as well as the television etc., and caused damages to the properties and thereafter he ran away from the place of occurrence.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants/ accused made a comment that P.W.1 accompanied P.W.2 and she should have made the same statement given by P.W.2 that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons to P.W.14 Doctor, who examined the deceased and declared her dead.In any event, the statement that the deceased was attacked by known persons was made by P.W.1 to P.W.14 Doctor, the statement given by P.W.2 that the deceased was assaulted by unknown persons cannot be taken as given by P.W.1 and thus the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was attacked on the head stood fully corroborated by the medical opinion marked through the evidence of P.W.15, who conducted autopsy on the dead body.Apart from that, in the considered opinion of the Court, there is consistent evidence for the prosecution.Added further, learned counsel for the appellants made a comment that the prosecution suppressed the counter case filed in Crime No.447 of 2009 before the trial Court, which cannot be countenanced at all.The investigator has candidly admitted that the case was registered and investigation was completed and the charge sheet was also laid before the Court.In a situation like this, when the case was registered and charge sheet was also laid, by no stretch of imagination, can it be commented as a suppression of materials by the investigating agency in respect of the other case, and also from the evidence available, it would be quite clear that it was A1, who attacked the deceased with iron rod on her head and due to the head injuries, she died and therefore, the factual position remained proved before the trial Court by the evidence adduced by the prosecution.Thereafter, there was another quarrel on 23.05.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. which is preceding to the occurrence.At the time of quarrel, A1 was not armed with any weapon and he attacked the deceased with iron rod on the head only once and this cannot be said to be premeditated or preconceived but it was only due to sudden quarrel, A1 attacked spontaneously.Hence under the circumstances, the act of A1 would attract the penal provision of 304 Part II I.P.C. and award of punishment of five years rigorous imprisonment.In the result, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the following terms:

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case in brief is that informant Ashok Kumar Shridhar Agarwal PW 1 is a resident of Rajgurunagar and is the real brother of the deceased Pushpa.On 25-2-1982, Pushpa is alleged to have been married to the appellant who is a resident of village Lohagaon.The marriage is alleged to have taken place in Rajgurunagar.After the marriage, Pushpa along with her husband, her husband's elder brother (acquitted accused Omprakash Hiralal Agarwal) two younger brothers and parents started living in Lohagaon.It is alleged that till the birth of her first child 'Amar' which took place on 18-12-1982, she was treated decently and thereafter, her existence became miserable.It is alleged that every now and then, she was asked to bring money from her parents' place and she was also beaten by her husband.The acquitted accused is alleged to be instigating this illtreatment of Pushpa.On 8-4-1985, the informant received a telegram sent by the appellant asking him to come immediately and on its receipt, the same day he, his elder brother Vinod and his brother-in-law Ramnarayan Uttamchand Agarwal P.W. 2 went to the house of the appellant at Lohagaon.On the informant's asking the appellant as to why he had been called, the appellant replied that he should ask this from his sister Pushpa.On the informant asking Pushpa, he was told by her that she was being beaten by the appellant.On 2-6-1986, the appellant came to Rajgurunagar and promised the informant that Pushpa would not be illtreated.Consequently, the informant permitted the appellant to take back Pushpa with him.As in September, every year, the informant used to celebrate the death anniversary of his father, so in September, 1986, he went to the house of the appellant, to invite Pushpa the appellant and his family members on the function of death anniversary of his father.it is alleged that on seeing the informant, Pushpa immediately started weeping.On the informant asking her as to why she was weeping, she replied that she was being blamed for committing theft and was also being illtreated because, the informant could not satisfy the demands of her husband (appellant) Pushpa also told the informant that inasmuch as the appellant had suffered heavy losses in business, he desperately wanted money.She also said that since money had not been arranged, she was being beaten by stuffing cloth in her month.Same day, the informant is alleged to have returned.It is alleged that immediately after the informant left the house of the appellant, on a scooter, the appellant and the acquitted accused came and told him at Shivajinagar that Pushpa was of loose character and was in the habit of committing theft.They also told him that he should accompany them to Lohagaon but the informant refused, saying that he would come to Lohagaon next day.Next day, along with the aforesaid persons he came to Lohagaon and there told the appellant in the presence of his brother, (acquitted accused) and his father that if they could not maintain Pushpa, they should permit him to take her back.They promised that they would treat Pushpa well in future and that they should not take her back.After this assurance, all of them came back.On 20-2-1987, one person alleging himself to be a resident of Lohagaon came and informed the informant that condition of his sister Pushpa and Pushpa's son 'Amar' was serious.The informant naturally in the background of the previous happennings, smell something fishy and asked the person to tell him whether the condition of Pushpa and son 'Amar' was only serious or something more had happened.Then, he was told that both of them had expired.The same night the informant, his brother-in-law Ramnarayan Agarwal PW 2, his brother Vinodkumar and his sister Indu came to Sasoon Hospital, Pune because, the corpses of Pushpa and 'Amar' were in the mortuary there.The police was also present there.An FIR of the incident, according to the informant Ashok kumar Shridhar Agarwal PW 1 was lodged next morning i.e. morning of 21-2-1987 and on its basis, P.I. Sahabrao Pralhad Deshmukh PW 8 of Yerwada police station registered Crime No. 51 of 1987 under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. against the appellant and acquitted accused Omprakash Agarwal.As the informant wanted fushpa's last rites to be performed by her husband, he allowed the appellant and his family members to take her dead body and that of 'Amar'.A perusal of the evidence of the informent shows that the dead bodies were handed to the appellant and his family members on 21-2-1987 at 1 p.m. By 5.30 p.m. same day, cremation was over.Thereafter, informant and others came back to Rajgurunagar.It may be mentioned that the dead bodies of Pushpa and 'Amar' were first sighted by one Prakash Eshwar Oval, PW 4 on 20-2-1987 at 10 a.m. lying in a well near Kasarwell.On seeing the dead bodies, he informed the police and with the help of fire brigade, the dead bodies were taken out and sent to the mortuary situate at Sasoon Hospital for autopsy.The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Pushpa was conducted on 20-2-1987 between 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. The autopsy surgeon found one external injury on her person that being an abrasion on the left elbow.The doctor did not give any opinion about the cause of death and preserved the viscera.After receiving the viscera report, he opined that Pushpa had died on account of asphyxia as a result of drowning.No external injury was found on his person.The premises of my hotel is 15 x 16 ft.I sell (Sic) chuda and tea there.The tailoring shop of my brother Vinodkumar admeasures about 5 x 5 ft.It is located at the distance of about 10-15 metres away from my hotel.He is having only one sewing machine."The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 285 of 1987, convicting him under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, and awarding him a composite sentence of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months R.I. has come up in appeal before me.Along with the appellant, his elder brother Omprakash Hiralal Agarwal was tried but, he was acquitted by the aforesaid order.Investigation of the case was conducted by PI Sahebrao Deshmukh PW 8 of Yervada police station.He collected Exhibit 27, which is the FIR lodged at the Lohagaon police chowky on 20-2-1987 (Sic) at 7.45 a.m. by the appellant.On 21-2-1987, he arrested the appellant and the acquitted accused Omprakash Agarwal.Ultimately, on 22-6-1987, he submitted a charge sheet against the appellant and the acquitted accused Omprakash Agarwal.The case was committed to the Court of Session in the usual course.In the Trial Court, charges under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C. were framed against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty, and charges under Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed against the acquitted accused Omprakash Agarwal.In the trial Court, as many as 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution which also tendered and proved various Exhibits.In defence, no witness was examined.After appraising the evidence adduced before him and hearing the counsel for both the sides, the learned Trial Judge acquitted Omprakash Agarwal and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above.I have heard Mrs. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. R. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra at a considerable length.I have also perused the statements of the witnesses recorded in the trial Court and various exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution in the trial Court.After giving my anxious consideration to the matter, I am of the opinion that this is a case in which the appellant deserves benefit of doubt.I now propose giving my reasons for giving the appellant benefit of doubt.In the first place.I find that the FIR in the instant has been lodged after an inordinate delay for which the prosecution has been unable to offer any plausible explanation.According to the prosecution on the evening of 20-2-1987, the informant Ashok Agarwal PW 1 learnt about the death of Pushpa and Amar at Rajgurunagar and immediately proceeded to Sasoon Hospital Pune where the corpses were lying in the mortuary awaiting autopsy.In my opinion, the informant should have lodged his FIR sometime on the night of 20-2-1987 because, the evidence is that the same night he came into contact with the police.At the fag end of para 1 of his statement recorded in the trial Court he has mentioned that same night (night of 20-2-1987) he found that police was present at the Sasoon hospital.In my opinion, as the informant had already smelt that there was something fishy about the deaths of Pushpa and Amar, he should have informed the police party who was present at the hospital.Again, I find that in para 8 the informant has said that same night, (night of 20-2-1987) two constables met him at the Sasoon Hospital who look him to police station Yerwada saying that he was called by the Inspector there.The informant admitted that he stayed at Police station, Yervada for 10-20 minutes.In my opinion, there was nothing which could have prevented him from lodging the FIR at that time.A perusal of the FIR shows that in it, it has been mentioned that at the time of funeral cremony of Pushpa and 'Amar' both the sides were present.In the trial Court, in para 2 of his statement, the informant stated that funeral was over by 5.30 p.m. The fallout of the aforesaid evidence is that the FIR could only have been lodged after 5.30 p.m. on 21-2-1987 and not in the morning of 21-2-1987 as professed to by the informant.I am not prepared to accept the explanation of the informant that portion marked A in the FIR (portion in which he has mentioned that both the sides were present at the time of funeral ceremony) was already written by the police when he came to Sasoon Hospital.The reason for my not believing this is that the aforesaid portion (A) is neither in the beginning of the FIR nor at the end of the FIR.In this connection, it is necessary to also refer to a case Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein, the Apex Court has observed thus :-Para 12 :"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of coroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial.The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of accused.The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of report to the police in respect of commission of offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstance in which crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.Naturally, on account of their inter se close relationships, I will evaluate their testimony with caution.A perusal of the statement of Ashok Agarwal, PW 1 shows that economically he and his brother Vinod were very weak.They used to find it difficult to carry on their existence."I am running the hotel at Rajgurunagar since last 4 years.Before it, I was working with my brother-in-law Ramnarayan Agarwal of Rajgurunagar.He was providing me our maintenance charges.In para 5, Ashok Agarwal has admitted that family of appellant used to help him.Para 5 of his statement was reads thus :-"Once the father of the accused has given me Rs. 500/- by way of help.Till, I did not return that amount, I sent letters to him.Whenever, I was taken (SIC) for any work from the accused persons, they used to help me.The accused No. 2 used to supply me spices if I required."The contention of Mrs. Anita Agarwal learned counsel for the appellant is that it is extremely improbable that the appellant and his family members in the teeth of the pitiful economic condition of the informant and his brother and on the face of the fact that they were helping them, would have demanded either any money from them or made any demands from them on account of non-fulfilment of which they would have illtreated Pushpa.I find considerable merit in this submission.I have also mentioned that PW 3 Sitaram has not stated either about any demands from the side of the appellant or about any illtreatment of Pushpa on account of non-fulfilment of the demand.On the converse, he has stated that Pushpa told him that she was living happily.In the above state of evidence of Ashok Agarwal, PW 1 and Sitaram PW 2 it would be extremely usafe, in the background of the fact that the FIR is inordinately belated and there is no documentary evidence either with regard to demand or with regard to illtreatment of Pushpa to accept the statement of Ramnarayan PW 2 the brother-in-law of PW 1 Ashok Kumar Agarwal.For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion it cannot be said that the prosecution allegations either with regard to illtreatment of Pushpa by appellant or with regard to any demand by the appellant and his family members from the brothers of Pushpa have been established beyond reasonable doubt.As said earlier, there has been such an inordinate delay in the lodging of FIR that the possibility of false insinuations and false accusations being made therein cannot be ruled out.In the result, this appeal succeeds.The conviction of appellant under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded to him thereunder, is set aside.His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged.Appeal allowed.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the appellant herein are relatives and they were residing in the same village.The brother of the accused person was married to the sister 2/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.He stopped visiting the accused and his mother and therefore, there was a misunderstanding between the parties.On 05.12.2013, at about 9.00 p.m., the accused person had abused the mother of the deceased (P.W.3) in filthy language.This was informed to the deceased and he went to the house of the accused person at about 10.15 p.m., and questioned the accused.The accused person is said to have attacked the deceased with a bill hook (M.O.1) by stating that he was responsible for his brother not visiting him and if he is alive, his brother will only listen to his words.The deceased sustained a grievous injury in the middle of his head and he was rushed to Senkottai Government Hospital by his wife (P.W.1).He was examined by P.W.19 and he was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, after recording in the Accident Register (Ex.P.21) and informing the same to the concerned police station (Ex.P.22).3/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017The Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.17) went to the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and reduced the same into a complaint (Ex.P.1).He thereafter registered FIR in Crime No.93 of 2013 at about 11.15 a.m., and prepared an express FIR, which was sent through the Head Constable (P.W.12) to the Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai.The express FIR reached the Court at about 1.00 p.m.The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) and he reached the scene of crime at about 12 noon and prepared an observation mahazer (Ex.P.18) and a rough Sketch (Ex.P.19) in the presence of witnesses(P.Ws. 8 &9).He also collected the material objects in the scene of crime (M.O.3 to M.O.5).He thereafter proceeded to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli and conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and completed the said process at 5.30 p.m., and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.20).The investigating officer handed over the body of the deceased along with the requisition for postmortem to P.W.13 and further directed him to hand over the body after the postmortem.4/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017 The investigating officer arrested the accused person on 06.12.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., and based on the confession made in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) recovered the bill hook (M.O.1) and thereafter, the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody.P.W.10, who is the postmortem Doctor has clearly spoken about the injuries found in the body of the deceased and the postmortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P.8 shows that the deceased died due to the cut injury in the head.The injuries recorded in the postmortem certificate is extracted hereunder:“The following ante mortem injuries were noted:1.Abrasion of size 3x2 cm seen in left knee.An oblique stapled cut injury of length 6 cm seen in left side of frontal region.Lower part of the injury lies, 8 cm above left eyebrow.Bladder: Contains 20 ml of Urine.Brain : Explained, C/S pale.Death would have occurred occurred to 24 -36 hours prior to autopsy.The material objects were handed over to the Court under Form 95 with a requisition to send the same for chemical analysis.The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and collected the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.8), chemical analysis report (Ex.P.10) and serological report (Ex.P.11).The case was committed to the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and the trial Court framed charges against the accused person for an offence under Section 294(b) and 5/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017 302 IPC.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Ex.P. 1 to Ex.The defence examined D.W.1 (wife of the accused person) and marked Ex.The trial Court had put all the incriminating materials that were collected against the accused person in the course of trial and questioned him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore proceeded to convict and sentence the accused person in the manner stated supra.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.6 are the main witnesses, who were examined on the side of the prosecution in order to prove the incident.He submitted that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, P.W.2 is the brother-in-law and P.W. 3 is the mother of the deceased.All these witnesses had parrotted 6/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017 the same version and there is contradiction in their evidence.The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.4, who was the neighbour, did not see the incident and he only speaks about what happened after the incident.The learned counsel submitted that there was admittedly a previous enmity between the parties and on the date of incident, it was the deceased, who was the aggressor and who entered into the house of the appellant and picked up a fight with the appellant.By pointing out to the evidence of the wife of the appellant (D.W.1), the learned counsel submitted that the deceased had attempted to attack the appellant with Aruval and in the said melee, the appellant had to react in order to save his own life and by way of private defence, the deceased sustained a cut injury in his head which ultimately resulted in his death.7/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017The learned counsel further submitted that even if this Court is not convinced with the defence taken by the appellant, there was admittedly a wordy quarrel and a melee and due to grave and sudden provocation, the deceased was attacked once by the appellant and therefore, the present case can be brought under Exception-1 to Section 300 of I.P.C.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the prosecution has cogently proved the entire incident and there is absolutely nothing to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the eyewitnesses.The learned counsel submitted that there was no delay in registering the FIR, the express FIR reaching the Magistrate Court, the investigating officer reaching the scene of crime and the statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., reaching the Court.After the incident, the deceased was taken in an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Senkottai and after first aid, he was referred to the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital for further treatment.The evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.20 (read along with Ex.P.21 to Ex.A(MD)No.488 of 2017This Court also does not find any unnecessary delay in the complaint recorded by P.W.17, who registered the FIR and the express FIR reaching the concerned Magistrate Court.On removal of stapler pins injury measures 6x1cmxbrain deep.On dissection of Head:Scalp contusion of size 20x10cm seen in frontal region.Cut injury of length 6 cm seen in left side of frontal bone and radiating crack fracture of length 6 cms extending from anterior end of the cut injury towards right side of frontal bone and 2cms extending from 10/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017 posterior end of the cut injury to fronto parietal suture.Sutural separation of length 6 cm seen in right side of fronto parietal suture.Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemarrhages seen in both temporal parietal and occipital regions.Cut injury of size 6x2x2cm seen in left frontal lobe of brain.Panline haemorrhage noted.Base of right anterior cranial fossa broken and found in multiple pieces.Other findings:Heart: Normal and coronary vessels pale.((NC).digested cooked rice particles, no specific smell and mucosa pale.Lungs, Liver, Spleen & Kidneys : Normal, C/S pale.11/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017 The postmortem Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of complications of cut injury to the head.”The chemical examination report (Ex.P.10) and serological report (Ex.P.11) clearly shows that the material objects contained human blood.The evidence of the investigating officer P.W.18 also clearly explains the manner in which the investigation had taken place and there is nothing to discredit the evidence of the investigating officer.The only defence that has been taken by the appellant is that he was forced to attack the deceased in exercise of his private defense.The evidence of D.W.1 is not clear as to how ultimately the final attack against the deceased took place.The plea of right of private defense cannot be based on surmises and speculation.Section 96 to 106 of IPC codifies the entire law relating to private defense of person and property including the extent of and limitation to exercise such right.An 12/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017 accused taking the plea of the right of the private defense can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself.The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit some offence.It is defensive and not a punitive or retributive right.In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 makes it very clear that it was the appellant, who had attacked the deceased with the weapon on his head and this attack has been made without there being any reasonable apprehension of danger to the life of the appellant.The appellant has reacted and caused more harm to the deceased, than was necessary, even assuming that such a private defense was permissible, under the facts of the present case.A(MD)No.488 of 2017A cumulative reading of the evidence available on record, clearly shows that there was a misunderstanding between the parties and the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant and there was a wordy quarrel, which ultimately ended in the appellant giving a single blow with M.O.1 on the head of the deceased.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh vs. State of M.P., reported in 1996 (10) SCC 668 has held, on the facts of that case, that when the death took place by the accused giving a single blow with a pharsa, as a result of a sudden fight, when the deceased objected to the gracing of the cattle and the assault took place without any premeditation, Exception-4 of Section 300 of I.P.C., will be attracted.In the present case, it is seen that there was a sudden fight between the parties which resulted in the appellant giving a single blow on the head of the deceased with M.O.1, due to grave and sudden provocation.A(MD)No.488 of 2017Going by the weapon and the part of the body in which the deceased sustained injury, it clearly brings the case within 304(i) IPC and the appellant is liable to be punished under the said provision.In the result, the Judgment of the trial Court is modified and the appellant is convicted and sentenced as follows:Offence under Sentence of Fine amount No. which Imprisonment convicted1. 294(b) IPC Three months .....Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the period of remand already undergone by the appellant is directed to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.488 of 2017Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The accused Nos.5 and 6 are his sons.The accused Nos.2 and 3 are the grandsons of the fourth accusedthrough his second daughter.The fourth accused had yet another grandson byname vellaithurai.Vellaithurai was employed in the State of Kerala.The deceased in this case was one Mr.His two sons were also employed in Kerala.Out of some quarrel between those two sons of thedeceased and the grandson of the fourth accused, A-4's grandsonMr.At that time, P.W.1 told himthat she was attacked by six known persons.It was a simple injury.P4 is theaccident register.(v) Before going to the hospital, P.W.1 went to Puliyarai PoliceStation.P.W.14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to PuliyaraiPolice Station was on duty.P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 448, 452,323, 294(b), 109 and 302 of I.P.C. He forwarded P.W.1 to the hospital fortreatment.Then he forwarded Ex.P1 and the F.I.R to Court and handed overthe case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.(vi)P.W.15 took up the case for investigation and proceeded to theplace of occurrence.He prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch inthe presence of P.W.3 and another witness.Then he recovered bloodstainedearth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar and onthe same day at 6.00 p.m., he conducted inquest on the dead body of thedeceased in the hospital.P.20 is the inquest report.He examined P.Ws.1to 3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.Then heforwarded the dead body for postmortem.Skull:About 300 ml of clotted blood seen below the skin of the scalp.An irregular fracture involving the Parreto-occipital function, righttemporal left temporal bone.(since about 15 cm) About 200 ml of blood seensub-durally.Stomach contains about 500 ml of undigested food particles &watery fluid.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhemorrhage due to injury to vital organs 12-14 hours prior to postmortem.(viii)Continuing the investigation, P.W.15 arrested the sixth accusedon 28.05.2007 at 8.00 a.m., near Kottaivasal Kovil.On such arrest, thesixth accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of witnesses.Inwhich, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the weapons.In pursuanceof the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.15 and witnesses to the saidplace and produced four aruvals and two wooden longs.PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedureagainst the judgment dated, 26.06.2009 inS.C.No.496/2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge,Tirunelveli and convict the respondents/accused.(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The State is the appellant in Crl.The respondents1 to 6 therein are the accused in S.C.No.496 of 2007 on the file of thelearned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.The trial Court framed asmany as four charges against the accused.By judgment dated 26.06.2009, the trial Court acquitted all theaccused.Challenging the said acquittal, the State has come up with thisCriminal Appeal.The defacto complainant in this case Mrs.Madathi, challenging thesaid acquittal, has come up with Crl.Since both these proceedings arise out of one single judgment, theywere heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:In the said murdercase, the two sons of the deceased are the accused and one Isakki was yetanother accused in this case.The dead body of the deceased Vellaithuraiwas brought to his native place (i.e) Angan Kaladi, Therku Medu.After therituals, the dead body was cremated in the same village.(ii) It is alleged that at the time when the dead body was cremated,all the accused took a vow that they should kill the persons, who wereresponsible for the killing of Vellaithurai.It is stated to be the motivefor the present occurrence.(iii) While so, on 26.05.2007, at 9.30 p.m., P.W1, the wife of thedeceased and the deceased were in their house.P.W.2 is the brother of thedeceased, who hails from a different village.It is further allegedthat at that time, all the six accused came in front of the house of thedeceased.They forced the door open and entered into the house of thedeceased.On finding P.W.1 inside the house, the fourth accused abused herand attacked her with wooden log on her back of the chest.The secondaccused attacked her with wooden log on the right hand.At that time, thedeceased was there.On seeing him, the sixth accused shouted that the oldman namely the deceased should be killed forthwith.On hearing the saidinducement, the first accused cut the deceased with an aruval on his neck.Then, they dragged the deceased outside the house (ie) to the street.It isfurther alleged that on the street, the accused No.1 cut the deceased on theneck.The accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 cut him by inflicting one blow each.Thedeceased sustained injuries and fell in a pool of blood and breathed hislast.P.W.1 had also sustained injuries.Therefore, P.W.1 went to theGovernment Headquarters Hospital at Tenkasi.(iv)P.W.4 ? Dr.(vii) P.W.6-Dr.Ramakrishnan, conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased.He found the following injuries:External injuries:1.A Stab injury of 5 cm X 5 cm, upto rib depth, in between 6th & 7thrib on the right side.Fracture right 6th & 7th rib present.2.A cut injury of size 10 cm X 5 cm over the dorsum of left wrist,cutting across 9th carpal bones.3.An oblique cut injury of size 12 cm X 5 cm upto cervical vertrebraeinter-vertrebral space in C2-C3 rib.Fracture C2 Vertrebrae and cut in thespinal card.4.A cut injury of size 5 cm X 5 cm X 5 cm over the left shoulder.5.A cut injury of size 10 cm X 5 cm upto muscle depth over the back ofthe right arm.6.A cut injury of 10 cm X 5cm upto bone depth(NC)Head of right humerouson the right shoulder.7.An Abrasion of 2 cm X 2 cm below right knee.8.Heart 90 gm pale, empty.Lungs right 450 gm pale lacerated in thelower lobe.Liver 1700 gm pale.Kidney each 90 gm pale.Spleen 90 gm pale.No fracture Pelvis.P.W.15 recovered sixmaterial objects under a mahazar and he forwarded the materials objects tothe Court.He made a request to Court to send the material objects forchemical examination.(ix) According to the chemical analysis report, in all the items,excluding the wooden log, human blood was noticed.But the result of thegrouping of the blood stains on the billhooks was inconclusive.Oncompleting the investigation on 06.06.2007, P.W.15 laid charge sheet againstthe accused.Based on the above police report, the trial Court framed charges asdetailed above and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case,on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited and 9 material objects were also marked.Out of thesaid witnesses, P.W.1 is an injured eye witness and P.W.2 is yet another eyewitness.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.3 is theson of P.W.2, who has spoken about the observation mahazar prepared and recovery of bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.Krishnan, has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.1 and P.W.5- Dr.Kulanthaivelu, has spoken about the fact that he declared the deceaseddead, when he was brought to the hospital.Ramakrishnan, has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion.P.W.7 is anAssistant of the Court, who has spoken about forwarding of material objectsfor chemical examination.P.W.8, is an Official from Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard, who has spoken about the fact that there was no electricity failure onthe occurrence place.P.W.10 is the Village Administrative Officer, who hasspoken about the fact that it was in his presence, the sixth accused wasarrested on whose disclosure statement, four aruvals and two wooden logs wererecovered.P.W.11, who was the then Head Constable and P.W.12, who was the Grade I constable, have spoken about carrying of the dead body forpostmortem and other facts and they are not very important witnesses.P.W.13, who was the then Circle Inspector at Kulathupuzha Police Station inKerala State, has stated that on 22.05.2007, Mr.Vellathurai was murdered,regarding which he has registered a case in Crime No.120 of 2007 atKulathupuzha Police Station.He has further stated that in that case therewere three accused and two of them are the sons of the deceased.P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.15 has spoken about theinvestigation done.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they didnot choose to examine any witness on their side, but marked the accidentregister copy for P.W.1 as Ex.Having considered the above materials,the trial Court acquitted all the accused.Aggrieved over the same, the Stateis on appeal and the defacto complaint is before this Court by way ofrevision.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing forthe State, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused and also perused therecords carefully.He would further submit that on the arrest of the sixthaccused, on his disclosure statement, four aruvals and two wooden logs wereseized and those weapons contained human bloodstains.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner wouldadopt the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also prayfor reversal of the judgment.In this case, P.W.2 claims that he had come to the house of P.W.1in a casual manner.This is to some extent highly unbelievable.Assumingthat P.W.2 was also present along with P.W.1 in the house, the next immediatequestion that arises for consideration is as to whether their version isbelievable.The trial Court had appreciated the evidence of these two witnessesand has come to the conclusion that these two witnesses are highlyunbelievable.Yet another reason to doubt the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 isthat P.Ws.1 and 2 have implicated almost all the male members of A4's family.As we have pointed out A-1 is the grandson through the first daughter of A-Thus, as rightlypointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, the entire menfolk in thefamily of A-4 have been arrayed as accused.P.Ws.1 and 2 are not onlyinterested witnesses and related to the deceased, but they are also inimicaltowards the accused, because of the earlier murder occurred on 22.05.2007 inwhich A-4's grandson Vellaithurai was murdered by the two sons of thedeceased.In those circumstances, their evidence require very closescrutiny.In other words, assuming that there are twoviews which are equally possible, one in favour of the accused and the otherin favour of the prosecution, the view taken by the trial Court in favour ofthe accused cannot be substituted by the view of the appellate Court infavour of the prosecution.For all these legal as well as factual positions, we find thatthere is no merit in the appeal as well as in the revision warrantinginterference at the hands of this Court.We fully agree with the finding ofthe trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges againstthe accused beyond reasonable doubts.In view of the foregoing conclusion, the Criminal Appeal(MD)No.144of 2010 and Criminal Revision Case No.43 of 2010 are dismissed and theacquittal of the accused is hereby confirmed.1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Inspector of Police, Shencottah Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Puliyarai Police Station3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.40909/2020 (Vinod s/o Late Phoolchand Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh AND VICTIM / PROSECUTRIX) Indore, Dated 06.11.2020 Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Chetan Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.They are heard.Perused case diary / challan papers.As per prosecution case, complainant lodged a report at Police Station Civil Lines, Dewas District Dewas (MP) to the effect that on 13.08.2020 prosecutrix went missing from her aunt's (Bua) house for which a search was made but all efforts were in vain.On the doubt that some unknown person might 2 have taken her / prosecutrix, for which an FIR has been registered offence under Section 363 of I.P.C.In the light of the alleged FIR, an investigation was carried out and on 09.09.2020 prosecutrix was recovered and her statements were recorded and she revealed that the applicant took her / prosecutrix to Gram Aypa.It was also alleged that he kept prosecutrix in a rented house where applicant committed rape upon her.Hence, the case has been registered against him.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.It is further submitted that earlier also on 04.12.2019, father of the prosecutrix lodged First Information Report against one Viju @ Baksa Gurjar at Police Station Industrial Area Dewas, District Dewas (MP), alleging that he abducted her minor daughter (i.e. prosecutrix) and on the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.883/2019 was registered for commission of offence under Section 363 of IPC.During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which she stated that she herself went with Viju @ Baksa Gurjar and also solemnized marriage with him.and during the court statement, the prosecutrix and her family members turned hostile, which clearly shows that the prosecutrix and her family members are in a habit of extracting money from the persons and lodge false complaint against them.It is further submitted that in the aforesaid case, the prosecutrix accepted in her cross examination that she is aged 19 years and documents (filed by the prosecution regarding her age as a proof of date of birth of the prosecutrix) were denied by the prosecutrix; and this document has also been produced by the prosecutrix before the Police regarding her age.All these circumstances clearly indicate that the prosecutrix has made a false complaint against the present applicant.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=dbcd6478673ed1cb472bfe4ff530b412bf73787574d3713fa86db0de124035d6, cn=Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2020.11.07 10:33:42 +05'30'

['Section 363 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 17.04.2013 in connection with Kharagpur (Local) P.S. Case No. 20/13 dated 14.01.2013 under Sections 395/397of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act In the matter of : Sushil Rana & Anr. ... petitioners Ms. Sreyashee Biswas Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta ... for the petitioners Mr. Saryati Dutta ... for the State.The petitioners are in custody for 39 days.On their behalf it is submitted that while the petitioner no. 1 is the owner of a jewellery shop, the petitioner no. 2 is his son.It is further submitted that they are in no way concerned with the offence of dacoity and only allegation against them is that they are the receiver of the stolen articles but the jewelleries recovered from their shop are lawfully belonging to them.No T.I. Parade in respect of those articles were held to prima facie show that the same are the jewelleries which were stolen from the house of the victim.Aforesaid fact has not been disputed from the side of the State.We have gone through the case diary and considering the nature of the allegations and the materials collected in support of the same and when no case has been made out from the side of the State that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are likely to abscond, we allow their prayer for bail.Let the petitioners be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.20,000/-each with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local.They shall not also tamper with the prosecution case or commit any offence, while on bail.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) ( Subal Baidya, J. )

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant had turned ascetic prior to 5 to 6 years of the incident and used to reside at Chitrakoot and Ayodhya etc.. His wife Munnibai used to reside with her parents.Few months back of the date of incident her father had left Munnibai with the father and brother of the accused-appellant and she was residing at village Kevatra.According to the prosecution case, the accused-appellant came to the village about 1 and 1/2 months prior to the incident and started living with his wife at village Kevatra.It was noticed that the accused-appellant's wife Munnibai was missing and a human skeleton was found in a nala, known as Magarvilla near village Kevatra.Nearby the human body one lady sari, bangles, hair and ear rings were found.The forensic science expert Dr. B.S. Badkul examined as PW-6 performed the post mortem on 20th of June, 1989 opined that the decomposed body is of that a woman who must have been in between 25 and 30 years of age, there were fractures caused by hard and blunt object over the parietal jaw region and the death took place in between 7 to 15 days of the examination of the body.According to the prosecution case, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Sunderlal (PW-1) at 7.10 am on 17th of June, 1989 which was recorded by Sub-Inspector K.K. Paharia (PW-5).From Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-1 wherein it was mentioned by Sunderlal that accused-appellant was his younger brother and was residing separately from the complainant prior to 7 days accused-appellant along with his wife and children had gone to his in-law's house to village Chukahta and came back along with his wife next day and left the children at in-law's house.On Tuesday the accused went out along with his wife took lathi and sickle (hansia) with him but did not return back.The complainant thought that the accused-appellant may have gone to his in-law's place.Yet another person of the village namely Chhota Kevat is married to the elder sister-in-law of the accused.Chhota came back on 16th of June, 1989 at 11.00a.m. and informed the complainant that the accused Jugla and his wife Munnibai did not reach village Chukahta.On the same day at about 12.00 a.m. Jugla came back to the house then an inquiry was made by Harchatva (PW-3) S/o Chhota Kevat but the accused did not disclose the whereabouts of his wife.Several persons of the village came but accused ran away and was caught at Mahatpurva, even then he did not disclose the whereabouts of Munnibai i.e., his wife.Thereafter complainant and Chhota Kevat went to village Kevatra and Hatoha and called the villagers.Ram Asre (PW-2) was also called, who rebuked the accused and asked the whereabouts of Munnibai then accused asked him to take him to Police Station Chandla and he would disclose at the Police Station.Ram Asre and others had caught his hand and Ram Asre again rebuked and asked about his wife then accused-appellant disclosed that he had killed his wife by Baku and Lathi and thrown her in Magarvilla Nala.The accused was caught hold taken to Magarvilla Nala then a human body was found and green colour Sari was found and bangles were also found near the dead body.He shall be released from jail, forthwith.It is also the prosecution case that Munnibai had administered poison prior to 4 years to the accused at her parental house due to that incident the accused had turned ascetic and was not residing with his wife and due to this enmity he has killed Munnibai.On the basis of the information furnished by Sunderlal (PW-1) an offence was registered at 0/89 under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, thereafter at PS Chandla at crime No. 28/89 the offence was registered on the basis of said Dehati Nalish.Sub-Inspector K.K. Paharia seized the dead body, lathi, green colour sari, bangles, hair etc.. Learned Magistrate committed the case on 22-8-1989 to the Court of Sessions for trial.In all the prosecution has examined six witnesses Sunderlal (PW-1) who is brother of the accused-appellant, Ram Asre (PW-2) to whom the extra judicial confession is said to have been made.Harchatva (PW-3) S/o Chhota Kevat, whose wife was sister of the deceased Munnibai, Kedar Prasad Nigam (PW-4), Patwari who prepared the spot map (Ex. P-2), K.K. Paharia (PW-5) Sub-Inspector of PS Chandla and Dr. B.S. Badkul (PW-6) who performed the autopsy.The accused had abjured the guilt and stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely implicated, poison was not administered by his wife to him.They were having no ill-will, he had turned ascetic on his own.He has retracted the extra judicial confession made to the villagers and stated that he made it to the Police that he was informed by the villagers that dead body of his wife was lying at Magarvilla Nala and you have killed her.He could not identify the sari of the deceased.He further stated in the defence that he has not killed his wife, he had gone to Chitrakoot and had left his wife at the residence and when he came back after three days, he did not find his wife in the house.The villagers enquired where he had gone then he replied that he had come back from Chitrakut and was going to Ayodhya.They asked the whereabouts of his wife, he told that he was not aware.Ram Asre came and all of them Caught hold of him, took to the place where one human skeleton was lying and they told that you have killed your wife, speak correctly otherwise you will be killed.He stated that he has not killed his wife and if he had to be killed then he would say whatever the villagers want but he should be spared.Then he was taken to the Police check-post and was asked to speak to Police that it was he who has murdered his wife.Due to this fear of death he stated that he has killed his wife.Learned trial Court relying upon the extra judicial confession and deposition of Sunderlal, Ram Asre, PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, convicted the accused for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.It is now aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed from jail by the accused himself.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari who was appointed as amicus curiae.It is not proved that he has made such confession voluntarily due to his own will, without any fear or pressure and there is discrepancy in the version of the said witnesses as to the confession made by the accused/appellant.The accused/appellant was put to fear of his life and was manhandled, hence in order to save himself from being killed he had made certain statements; the exact words are not proved and the oral version of the extra judicial confession does not tally with the medical evidence.It has also been submitted that it is not proved that the dead body was that of the deceased Munnibai.The evidence as to identification of skeleton is completely lacking, the articles have also not been identified in the Court, thus the conviction of the accused is wholly un-warranted and is bad in law.The case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant has rightly been convicted on the basis of the chain of circumstances indicating his implication in the offence in question, on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.The prosecution has been successful to bring home the guilt.Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Sunderlal (PW-1) who happens to be brother of the accused/appellant has stated that he had last seen the accused-appellant and Munnibai at their home when he went to Karigar he had left them at their house at village Kevatra.He has further deposed that he himself went-out on Tuesday and came back on Thursday and found that Jugla and Munni were not at the house and Chhota came back from the accused's in-laws house, and he also informed that Jugla and Munni were not there.Jugla came back on Friday to village Kevatra he inquired the whereabouts of Munnibai to Jugla but he did not disclose anything, thereafter villagers were called on being interrogated by them.The accused has disclosed that Munnibai has been murdered and thrown in Magarvilla Nala.On this information received from Jugla he was taken to Police check post Hinota, they told that the report has to be lodged at P.S. Chandla and clerk of Hinota took the villagers and the accused to the place where the dead body was lying.One bone structure was found at Nala, some broken bangles, a Dhoti and hair were also recovered.Allegedly they belonged to Munnibai.Thereafter, said Munshi of P.S. Hinota asked to lodge the report at Police Station Chandla then he had lodged the report (Ex. P-1).This witness has further stated that before 4-5 years he was informed by the accused and the villagers that Munni had administered poison to him.In the cross examination the witness has deposed that the accused did not want to live with Munni and he used to go-out whenever he came to the village he used to cook his own food.However, there were no immediate quarrels between Munnibai and the accused/appellant.The villagers had caught hold of the hands of the accused and threatened him while enquiring the whereabouts of Munnibai.He admitted that the accused was rebuked then he made extra judicial confession.The witness has further deposed that he did not go to Magarvilla Nala on the same day but on the next day he had gone to Magarvilla Nala alongwith Pradhanjee.Jugla did not inform in his presence that his wife bones were lying, it was only a skeleton.There was no lathi and he could not identify the skeleton that it belonged to Munnibai.Further from the hair only a doubt was raised from the bangles and dhoti also he had doubt that these may have been of Munnibai.It is thus clear from the deposition of the said witness that he had left the deceased and the accused at the house when he had gone out from the village.He had not seen the accused going with the deceased Munnibai for cutting grass himself.This witness has further admitted that villagers had caught hold of the hands of the accused and thereafter whereabouts of Munnibai was asked and the accused was also taken to the Police check post.The witness was not able to identify the skeleton to be of Munnibai, only a doubt was raised from the bangles and dhoti which were lying separately at a distance.Another witness PW-2 Ram Asre deposed that he is resident of village Hatoha and is an agriculturist, he has deposed that Sunderlal and Chhota came to him and told him that Jugla had come back alone and whereabouts of his wife were not known.On this, the said witness accompanied Sunderlal and Chhota Kevat and went to Kevathpura, on the way near Mahua tree he found Jugla encircled by 2 to 4 persons.The witnesses asked those persons not to harass the accused and told that the accused would disclose the truth as to the whereabouts of his wife, the accused told that he had left his wife at the village and it was not known to him where she was.The accused was re-asked to disclose the truth, thereafter, the accused stated that he has murdered his wife and thrown the body in Magarvilla Nala.Thereafter the accused was taken by these persons to check post of P.S. Hinota.The Police was informed by the accused that he has killed his wife and had thrown the dead body in Magarvilla Nala.Thereafter along with Police said witnesses with Jugla accused went to Magarvilla Nala, a skeleton was recovered and portion of jaw, bangles and sari was found nearby the skeleton.This witness has further deposed that the accused used to say that his wife had administered the poison to him due to which he turned ascetic.Thereafter, Munnibai was living with her parents and after about five years she came back to in-law's place and accused also come back and for 1 and 1/2 months they lived together.This witness has further deposed that no Hansia was seized in his presence, the mention in the seizure memo Ex. P-7 was not correct.The witness was not in a position to say that the skeleton was of whom.This witness has only stated with respect to the second part of the evidence led as to the extra judicial confession and the recovery of the skeleton and lady sari from the open area near shrub and was not able to identify himself the skeleton or articles and had not seen Munnibai at any earlier point of time.Harchatva (PW-3) is son of the sister of the deceased Munnibai, the deceased was his maternal aunt (Munni).He stated that he had not seen Munnibai and Jugla going together.The witness has deposed in his examination-in-chief, that for 3-4 days Baba (accused) had gone out and when he came back, Munnibai was not with him.On inquiry being made from Baba (accused) he informed that she had gone to her parental house.Thereafter on further inquiry being made he tried to run away and was caught hold of by villagers and thereafter this witness states that he called Ram Asre.On an inquiry being made by Ram Asre, accused confessed that he had inflicted two lathi blows to Munnibai and had left her in Magarvilla Nala and was not aware that whether she had died or survived.Thereafter the accused was taken to Police check post and then to Magarvilla Nala from where skeleton bangles, sari etc. were seized.He could not identify the sari of the deceased.The witness could not state how the accused-appellant turned ascetic and was not aware about the current relation of the accused with Munnibai.The other three witnesses are Patwari, Sub-Inspector and Doctor, PW-4, 5 and 6 respectively.In the instant case to prove the extra judicial confession three witnesses have been examined and all of them have given their different version with respect to confession made.Dehati Nalish mentions that accused has informed the clerk.I had killed her with Baka and lathi and have thrown her in Magarvilla Nala.This story has been totally changed, to accord with the medical evidence, Harchatva (PW-3) states that inflicting of two lathi blows along with the confession that the accused stated he was not aware whether she died or survived.The place where the accused allegedly has confessed are also different; PW-1 has not stated the exact words but has simply stated that accused informed that he killed Munnibai and had thrown her in Magarvilla Nala, similar is the statement of Ram Asre (PW-2).The version of the FIR that the accused confessed to kill the deceased by baka and lathi.Baka is sharp edged weapon; no sharp edged injury was found over the skeleton and V.S. Badkul (PW-6) Senior Medicolegal Expert of Medico-legal Institute, Bhopal has opined in paragraph No. 4 of his deposition that fracture were caused in the skull and jaw region by hard and blunt object.They have started living together is the only evidence which fall much short of creating the circumstances against the accused.In the instant case Chhota Kevat happens to be the husband of the sister of the deceased and he and Sunderlal had called Ram Asre but Chhota Kevat has not been examined.Ram Asre has deposed that he was called by Sunderlal and Chhota Kevat, whereas Harchatva has deposed that it was he who called Ram Asre and others.Harchatva (PW-3) is only other witness who has stated that the human skeleton was found near the Nala.Bangles, sari and hair were also found, sari could not be identified by him when shown to him, in his examination-in-chief.He has further deposed in the cross examination that it could not be stated by him that whether skeleton belongs to Munnibai.He has stated that the articles are same which were found from the spot but he has not stated that they belonged to the deceased Munnibai.It is mentioned that the accused had informed that the lathi was lying in the room of his house, whereas Ram Asre (PW-2) as to the seizure of lathi has stated that it was seized from open land, not from the room of the house of the accused.Ramhit and Bania Kevat have not been examined by the prosecution.The motive has also not been satisfactorily established.The prosecution has also failed to prove that the articles like bangles, sari, hair etc. belong to deceased Munni.In the absence of the evidence of the eye witness and even the evidence of last seen accused could not be held guilty and further in the absence of proving that the recovery having been made at the instance of the accused guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond the periphery of doubt.He is entitled for acquittal.In the instant case as deposed by Ram Asre (PW-2) the confession was of the result of inducement and element of fear could not be ruled-out.

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

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

The gist of the prosecution case as spelt out by the available materials could be stated as follows:P.W.1 Padma was residing at Door No. 18, B Block, M.S. Nagar, Waltax Road, Chennai, as a tenant under P.W.3 Mallika.The daughter of P.W.1 Premavathy, a child of 8 years old was doing her III Standard in the Corporation School at Kondithope.On the date of occurrence namely 20.1.1997 at about 18.00 hours, when she went outside for ablutions, she raised alarm uttering "help, help".On hearing this, P.Ws.1 and 3 rushed and witnessed the occurrence namely the appellant/accused causing sexual assault on the child.On the strength of the same, P.W.7 Pandian, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 116/97 under S. 376 of I.P.C. Ex.P7 Express F.I.R. was despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court.The Investigation Officer took up the investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection, prepared the observation mahazar, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Along with a medical memo, P.W.2 victim was sent for medical examination to Stanley Hospital.When the victim was enquired by P.W.5 Doctor, she informed that she was alleged to have been injured with the genital organs by some known person at 6.30 P.M. on 20.1.1997 near the address given by her namely her residence.The Investigation Officer recovered M.Os.At about 10.40 A.M. on 21.1.1997, the accused was arrested.His statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The accused was brought to the Police Station, where M.Os. 4 to 6, the clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence were recovered under Ex.P3 Mahazar.P.W.7 examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.For the purpose of medical examination, the accused was sent to the Stanley Hospital with a requisition under Ex.P.W.6 Dr. Gururaj, on receipt of the direction, medically examined the accused as to the potency.P.W.6 has given the medical examination certificate under Ex.P6 and has opined that there was nothing to suggest that the individual was impotent.On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet under S. 376(2) of the I.P.C. against the appellant/accused.In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 10 exhibits and 6 material objects.After the evidence of prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. as to that part of the evidence which is incriminating and prejudicial to his interest, and the accused denied the same as false.No defence witness was examined.After consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty under S. 376(2) of IPC and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Arguing for the appellant with vigour and vehemence, the learned Counsel Mr. K. Kannan raised the following points:P.Ws.1 and 2 have not identified the accused, but they have categorically spoken to the effect that they did not know the person who committed the offence.But, the lower Court has relied on the evidence of P.W.3 to find the accused guilty.A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.3 would indicate that she could not have seen the occurrence at all, since according to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 was in her house.P.W.3 has stated that she did not see the face of the accused, but the backside of the head.Apart from that, she has stated that she went over to inform to P.W.1 about the occurrence.Under such circumstances, she could not have seen the appellant at all.Barring her evidence, there is nothing available on the side of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime.P.W.2, the victim has stated that there was oozing of blood, and she removed the same by her clothes, but her clothes were not handed over to the police at that time.Though the occurrence has taken place at 6.00 P.M., according to the prosecution, the complaint was given at about 11.30 P.M. after nearly about 5 " hours delay, when the police station was situated very nearby.The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case, because according to the prosecution, the rape act was complete, but no external injuries were found on the vagina of the victim, according to the medical evidence.The investigation would reveal that it was a place where the lorry is used to be parked, but no independent witness was examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution, and thus, from the evidence adduced, there was nothing to indicate that it was the accused, who committed the offence or there was anything to make out nexus between the appellant and the crime.Added further, the learned Counsel that even assuming the prosecution has brought forth some evidence before the trial Court, that would make out a case under S. 376 r/w 511 IPC or 354 IPC and definitely not a case under S. 376 IPC, and hence, the appeal has got to be allowed.Countering to the above contentions of the appellant's side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. O. Srinath would urge that the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the accused guilty under S. 376(2) of IPC; that the lower Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied on the evidence of P.W.3; that a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.3 would clearly be pointing to the effect that she was present at the time of occurrence and she has seen the occurrence and the accused running from the place of occurrence and no doubt would arise in her evidence; that the clothes worn by the victim girl and the accused all were recovered in the presence of the witnesses procedurally and subjected to chemical analysis; that semen was detected in M.O.5 lungi worn by the accused at the time of occurrence, while in the clothes worn by the victim girl, blood was detected; that the potency test has been proved so far as the accused was concerned; that P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the sexual assault made; that it is true that the Doctor has opined that there was no external injury, but has given a clear report under Ex.P4 stating that there was vaginal discharge found present, and in such circumstances, even though external injuries were not found and the hymen should have been in tact, the definition of rape under S. 376 of I.P.C. does not require a complete act, but a penetration would be sufficient to constitute the offence; that the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the appellant/accused guilty under S. 376(2) of IPC, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be sustained.The case on hand relates to a sexual assault on a young girl of 8 years old doing III Standard.The appellant/accused was subjected to medical examination, and it found that he was aged 20 years, and thus, there is nothing to indicate that he was impotent.His potency was proved properly.All the three witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3 have clearly spoken as to the place of occurrence as near by their residence.It is pertinent to note that the observation mahazar and the rough sketch were not disputed by the appellant at any point of time.P.W.1 gave the complaint, on the basis of which the case was registered, while P.W.2 is the victim of sexual assault.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly reveal that they could not identify the accused, but they could clearly speak about the sexual assault.The fact of sexual assault committed on the person of P.W.2 has been clearly spoken to by her, and she was subjected to medical examination.The report as found under Ex.P4 would clearly reveal that though there was no external injuries, the vaginal discharge was found present, and the clothes worn by her were subjected to analysis and found to contain blood as per the report given.On hearing the alarm, according to P.W.3, she rushed to the place, which is not away, but nearby.She has categorically spoken that she witnessed the accused lying on the victim while committing the sexual assault, but she could not see the face, but the backside of the head, and at that time, when raising the voice, she found the accused running from the site of occurrence.A close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.3 would clearly reveal that she has seen the accused committing the sexual assault and further proceeding from the spot.In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant's side that P.W.3 could not have seen the occurrence has got to be rejected outright.Within a short point of time, the accused was arrested.His statement was recorded.That apart, he was subjected to medical test, and all the clothes were subjected to chemical analysis.The report under Ex.P10 would clearly indicate that M.O.5 lungi that was worn by the appellant/accused contained semen as well as blood also.This part of the chemical analysis coupled with the evidence brought forth by the prosecution would be indicative of the fact of sexual assault committed by the accused.Thus, by the available evidence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed sexual assault on the victim namely a girl of 8 years old.

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

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

The Original Application in O.A.No.1681 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.He received more than 25 rewards for his efficient service.His entire record is without any blemish except the present impugned order.On 09.07.2001, a Crime Meeting was organised by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy.He furnished the available particulars based on the records maintained in the police station at the said Crime Meeting.Further, the former Chief Minister (the present Chief Minister) was arrested on 29.06.2001 that created a serious law and order problem.He handled the situation that arose out of the arrest of the said VIP efficiently and there was no untoward incident in that area.3.While so, a charge memo dated 16.07.2001 was issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short "the Rules").The following charge is alleged against him. "Charge:- Reprehensible conduct in having failed to furnish a correct particulars about pending NBWs in Fort PS.Cr.No.1105/98, u/s. 307 IPC and also failed to scrutinize the case diaries of his station as well as gave a false reply that no NBW is pending is the above case to the Superior Officer during crime meeting on 09.07.2001."4.The crux of the allegation was that he failed to furnish correct particulars about the pending NBWs' in Fort Police Station Crime No.1105/98 under Section 307 IPC and failed to scrutinize the case diaries of his Station.The Ex.Chief Minister (the Present Chief Minister) was arrested on 29.06.2001 at Chennai and from that day onwards upto the date of the meeting, he was not able to peruse any station records.He furnished details as per the records maintained by the Subordinates of the station.The S.S.I. Mr.Panneerselvam, who was responsible for not making entries, has to be blamed for not furnishing the correct particulars about the NBWs'.Either Mr.Panneerselvam, SSI, or the earlier Inspector of Police in charge of the said Police Station are to be blamed.6.However, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort Range, Trichy City had submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Trichy City.Based on the said enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner, the impugned order dated 03.10.2001 was passed by the respondent, imposing the punishment of "Censure to be deferred for three months" from the date of the said order.7.The petitioner filed Original Application in 1681 of 2002 (W.P.No.9538 of 2007) praying to quash the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2001 of the respondent.8.Heard Ms.Furthermore, when the Assistant Commissioner Police recorded a finding of guilt, he simply recorded without examination of witnesses and without any documents being marked as Exhibits.When he acted as an Enquiry Officer, he should have followed the minimum requirement of a valid enquiry.In these circumstances, the impugned order suffers from the serious infirmity and is liable to be interfered with.14.For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.No costs.13.10.2009Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / Noogy/tk ToThe Deputy Commissioner of Police,Law & Order,Trichy City.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

W. No.167/2001 titled as Sarjeet Singh Crl.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 3 of 9On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State filed a status report stating therein that the petitioner has been found to be involved in various nature of crimes since 1987 including hurt, criminal intimidation, cheating etc and for this reason his name was entered in clause (b) of Part II of the register maintained under Rule 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules and a history sheet was also opened on 07.12.2006 vide History Sheet No.23 Bundle 'A' vide order of worthy DCP/NW.The status report filed on behalf of the State further indicates that the conduct of the petitioner was verified and during this process it revealed that the petitioner has been named in FIR No.907/15 under Section 448/511/506/34 of IPC, Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer District, Delhi.He has potential to become extortionist.Apart from those cases, recently the petitioner has been named in FIR No. 907/2015 under Section 448/511/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer District, Delhi.P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order passed by the Competent Officer of Police Station Sultan Puri, whereby the name of the petitioner was entered in Part II (Clause (b) of Surveillance Register maintained under Rule 23.4(3) of the Punjab Police Rules.The petitioner also seeks deletion of his name from the history sheet opened under Rule 23.9(2) of the Punjab Police Rules.In brief, the facts of the case are that a case under Section Crl.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 1 of 9 308/323/506/120B/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.1071/2006 in Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi.Vide order dated 21.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1 (Outer), Rohini Courts, Delhi, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges framed against him in the said case.The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in 9 different cases registered vide separate FIRs in different Police Stations and despite being acquitted or discharged in all the said 9 cases, the competent officer of Police Station Sultanpuri has entered the name of the petitioner in Part II (Clause (b) of Surveillance register maintained under Rule 23.4(3) of the Punjab Police Rules.That's why the petitioner has filed the instant petition for seeking deletion of his name from the Surveillance register.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 1 of 93. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the names of only those persons are required to be entered in Surveillance registered, who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property.It is further contended that the mandate of Rule 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules comes with a rider which is explained in Rule 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, according to which, prior to entering the name of any person in Part II of the Surveillance register, a history sheet is required to be opened and if for the entries in the history sheet, the Superintendent is of the opinion that such person should be subjected to surveillance, only then his name is required to be entered in that register.The names of the persons, who have never been convicted or placed on security for good behavior Crl.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 2 of 9 shall not be entered until the Superintendant has recorded definite reasons for doing so.It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the cases pending against him and the name of the petitioner is entered in Surveillance register, without recording any definite reasons thereof.It enjoins a duty upon the police officer to construe the Rule strictly and confine the entries in the surveillance register to the class of persons mentioned in the rule.Similarly, Rule 23.7 demands that there should be no illegal interference in the guise of surveillance, which has to be unobtrusive and within bounds.Lastly, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Punjab Police Rules in respect of entering the name of the petitioner in the surveillance register has been flagrantly misused by the police in his case, therefore the name of the petitioner is required to be deleted from the Surveillance Register.In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.The anticipatory bail filed in the said case was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2016 and the petitioner was arrested on 26.04.2016 by the staff of Police Station Shahbad Dairy.It is further stated in the status report that in compliance of the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2015, History Sheet of the petitioner was reviewed and considering the gravity of offences committed by the petitioner and his addiction to crime, the surveillance of the petitioner was ordered to be continued for prevention of crime and to maintain peace and tranquility in the area.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 4 of 9I have heard the submission made by both the sides and also gone through the contents of the petition and the material placed on record.This court also does not find any material on record to show that the petitioner had ever visited the competent authority for review of entry made in Surveillance register or has shown any fact regarding his improvement.As far as review by the competent authority is concerned, this court is informed that the petitioner has been named in FIR No. 907/2015 registered in Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer District, Delhi, which in the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court.As per the latest status report filed on behalf of the State, it is informed that in compliance of the directions passed by this court on 03.12.2015, History sheet of the petitioner was reviewed and considering the gravity of offences Crl.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 8 of 9 committed by the petitioner and his addiction to crime, the surveillance of the petitioner was continued for prevention of crime and to maintain peace and tranquility in the area.Resultantly, the present petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 10, 2016 pkb Crl.M.C.No.4330/2013 Page 9 of 9

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. of petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.499/2019 registered at Police Station - Pithampur, District-Dhar under Section 420 & 468 of IPC.The petitioner has following criminal records:-No. Crime No. Offence Police Station 1 111/2017 294, 323, 506 Churhat, District-of IPC and Sidhi of Dowry Prohibition Act 1 43/2018 294, 323, 506 Churhat, District-and 34 of IPC Sidhi 2 502/2019 420, 468 of Pithampur, District-After arguing the matter at length, in the wake of CCTV footage and identification in T.I.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the present petition.Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

Heard on I.A. No.5628/2015, which is first application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant- Pintu S/o Ranjeet Bhil.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9-B(II) of the I. E. Act. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 326/323/307/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 25/35 of the Arms Act and Section 9-B(II) of the I. E. Act and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Suri Birbhum for trial and disposal.Charges were framed against the appellant and eight other accused persons under section 148, 149, 326, 307 IPC.Charge was also framed under section 120 B IPC against the accused persons except the appellant and one Binod Chandra Biswas.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses to establish its case and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants were one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by judgment and order dated 18.12.2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.On the other hand, other accused persons were acquitted of charges levelled against them.Appellant was not named in the FIR.T.I parade was not held during investigation.Independent witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.Hence, the appeal ought to be allowed.Evidence of P.W 13, the doctor who treated the victim also supports their ocular version.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.P.W 1 is the defacto complainant of this case and the son of the victim.He claimed that he was present at the place of occurrence.He deposed that when the victim Sadananda was trying to board the bus from Gita Bhavan Bus stand, the appellant fired at him and he sustained injury.A person threw a bomb which did not burst.The miscreant attempted to hurl another bomb.P.W 2 caught hold of the said person.Unfortunately, the bomb burst in his bag.P.W 2 as well as the 4 assailant sustained severe injuries.Immediately one unknown person reached there in a motor cycle and the miscreants fled away on the said motor cycle.P.W 2 Haradhan Mondal the injured witness and P.W.10 an independent witness and have corroborated the evidence of P.W 1 P.W 13 is the medical officer attached to Suri Sadar Hospital who treated the victim.He deposed that at the time of examination, patient stated to him that he received bullet injury.On examination he found the following injuries:1) One penetrating injury caused by bullet on right flank the wound of entry of the bullet was at posterior aspect the wound of exit on anterior aspect on right lateral wall of the abdomen;2) One fracture wound on right illac crest.The victim died in the hospital on 4.9.2003 due to another bullet injury.From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that initially the assailant had not been identified.Hence his name did not transpire in the FIR.However, the witnesses particularly the injured witness P.W 2 identified the appellant in court.The graphic description of the incident by the injured witness, P.W 2 is supported by the evidence of P.W 1 and the independent witness, P.WThat apart, the injuries found on the victim as evident from Ext. 4 corroborates the ocular version of the witnesses.The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon them in terms of section 428 Cr.P.C.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once.Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) tkm/as

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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']

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

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Manjit Kaur is a resident of Village Abada Barana, Distt.Una, H.P. She is a house wife.On 30.6.2003 at about 5.45 p.m. she and her sister-in-law Nirmala Devi were watching television in their house and their children were playing outside, while her husband Gurdial Singh had gone to Kuthar to bring medicines.In the meantime daughter of her sister-in-law aged about 13 years named Poonam came there and told that some persons were uprooting creepers from their field.On this they both came out and saw that the above named accused were doing the same and on seeing the complainant and Page 0268 her sister-in-law the accused came towards the house of the complainant and challenged them that they would set their house on fire.The accused Balbir Singh, Baldev Singh, Jai Gopal and Radhey Shayam were carrying 'Mashals' in their hands and with the help of those Mashals they lit their thatched house on fire from three sides.When the complainant and her sister-in-law tried to take out their articles from the house, the accused threatened them to throw in the fire.On this, the complainant got frightened and she along with her sister-in-law and children rushed towards Kuthar Kalan while raising cries.On listening their cries Santosh Kumari W/o Jog Raj and Yash Pal S/o Bihari Lal, both resident of Kuthar Kalan, reached at the spot.JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Refusal to grant leave to question judgment, of acquittal in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.According to the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, the one line order "Dismissed" of the Himachal Pradesh High Court without assigning reasons therefore does not meet the requirement of law.Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 436, 447, 427, 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').Thereafter the complainant went to Kuthar Kalan and told about this incident to her husband who informed the fire brigade and police The police reached at the spot and recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW-1/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') upon which FIR Ex.PW-12/A was recorded against the accused.During investigation the police prepared the photographs of the spot and obtained demarcation of the land over which the house in question was situated.After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the accused persons faced trial.Thirteen persons were examined as witnesses.1 and 4 apart from others were stated to be eye-witnesses.The High Court found that there was some delay in lodging the FIR and though large number of people were claimed to have gathered at the spot, the witnesses could not have seen the accused persons.The High Court also found that there was some dispute between the parties and, therefore, the prosecution version was suspect.Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted.The appellant-State filed an application for grant of leave.High Court disposed of the application in the following manner:The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or otherwise of the accused.It has failed to do so.The questions involved were not trivial.

['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

DATE : 16th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT(Per B.H.Marlapalle,J.):This petition has been placed before us on account of the Referral Order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge and the following two issues have been referred for consideration by the Division Bench:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 :::He was issued similar orders and the last of them was dated 23.05.2007 which appointed him likewise, but for a period of two years.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 :::The Division Bench held that such appointment was purely ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 ::: 7 wp-2554-09.sxw contractual and there was no pay scale prescribed and the Government Pleader or the Public Prosecutors do not hold a post so as to describe them as the Government servants.The issue as to whether the Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors are public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act did not fall for consideration in the case of Govindrao Shirsat (supra) and, therefore, the reliance on the said decision by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 :::11 The Maharashtra Law Officers Rules, 1984 govern the appointment of Law Officers viz., the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors as well as Special Public Prosecutors.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 :::However, the appointees under the said Rules do perform public duties and they receive their fees as prescribed under the Rules.They are not allowed to appear against the State Government or its officers unless a specific ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 ::: 11 wp-2554-09.sxw permission in writing is obtained.To conduct prosecution on behalf of the State is nothing short of a public duty and that too when so appointed for a fixed tenure and not for a fixed case, under the Maharashtra Law Officers Rule.16 Petition be listed before the appropriate Bench for final disposal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:22 :::

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Passed on 23/ 01/2020) Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") against the judgment dated 11/09/2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, District West Nimar in S.T No.118/2011, whereby the the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, of IPC, 1860 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo 10 years, 2 years and 1 year R.I. with fine and usual default stipulation.Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that in the month of October, 2009 the appellant enticed away the victim and performed marriage with her.Thereafter he and his family members persistently demanded cash, golden chain, ring, Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 23/01/2020 17:08:46 Cr.A. No.1342/2013 2 motorcycle, T.V etc and harassed her to fulfill their demand due to which she committed suicide by hanging.On 24/03/2011 dead body of the victim was brought to the District Hospital, Khargone.On receiving the information regarding the unnatural death of the deceased the Police registered merg No.057/11 (Ex.P/11) under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.Cr.A. No.1342/2013 2During merg enquiry police prepared lash panchnama and the dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital for postmortem.Police also visited the spot and drawn spot map, statement of the witnesses were recorded.Accused persons-Pawan, Mamtabai and Godavaribai were arrested.After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khargone, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar and ultimately the case was transferred to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone.Appellant and other accused persons abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and examined Kishore Gole & Gajanand Soni in defence.Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant and other accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, of IPC, 1860 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo 10 years, 2 years and 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.3000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 23/01/2020 17:08:46 Cr.A. No.1342/2013 3 and usual default stipulation.All the sentence were ordered to run concurrently.Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him for aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 23/01/2020 17:08:46 Cr.A. No.1342/2013 4 especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.1342/2013 is partly allowed.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 23/01/2020 17:08:46

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

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

Chief Judicial Magistrate shall ensure that after furnishing bail, the bail papers are sent to the Court concerned.In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for his treatment as per medical norms.If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.Matter is heard through video conferencing.The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 31/10/2019 by Police Station Rampurkala Distt.Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.89/2019 registered for offence under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.52393/2019 and liberty was granted to file fresh application after recording of important prosecution witnesses.It is further submitted that after rejection of previous bail application, 9 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, out of them, 7 witnesses who are main witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and remaining 2 witnesses are Government servants, one is Doctor and another is Police constable.Applicant is ready to abide by any stringent condition which may be imposed by this Court.Hence, prays 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11863/2020 (Vicky @ Vikas Garg Vs.State of M.P.) for grant of bail looking to the evidence of aforesaid independent witnesses.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Learned State counsel opposed the prayer and has submitted that though only 9 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date but total number of prosecution witnesses is 25 as per list.It is further submitted that offence is registered under Section 302, 120B, 34 of IPC and earlier application was rejected on merits.Hence, prayed to reject the bail application of the applicant.At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that only 4 witnesses out of the total prosecution witnesses are remained to be examined before the trial Court and remaining other witnesses have been given up by the prosecution.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11863/2020 (Vicky @ Vikas Garg Vs.State of M.P.) him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.The applicant shall enroll himself with the SDM Sabalgarh as "COVID-19 Warrior" by entering his name in a Register named as COVID-19 WARRIOR REGISTER.The SDM Sabalgarh is directed to intimate this Court in case condition No.8 is not complied with and on receipt of any such intimation, Registry is directed to list the matter before appropriate Bench as PUD.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.

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

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

The house of Harbhej Singh (A-1) is situated adjoining the house of Hardev Singh (P.W.2).Harbhej Singh (A-1) and Sohan Singh (A-5) are cousins.Suba Singh, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1988 is the son of Harbhajan Singh (since deceased), whereas criminal Appeal No. 557 of 1988 is filed by Hardev Singh, the brother of Baldev Singh (since deceased).It is alleged by the prosecution that Hardev Singh (P.W.2) was doing some construction work at his house.On 23rd May, 1985 at about 7.30 p.m. when he was sitting in his house" alongwith Jaswant Singh and their father Chanan Singh, Harbhajan Singh (since deceased) and Suba Singh (P.W. 3) came to his house with a view to help him in the construction work.At that time all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons reached the house of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2).Harbhej Singh (A-1) was armed with a. 12 bore double barrel gun, Gurbhej Singh (A-2) with a Gandhali, Sohan Singh (A-5) with a Kirpan, and Amrik Singh (A-3), Gurmej Singh (A-4) and Mohan Singh (A-6) were carrying Gandasas ' with them.They trespassed into the house of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and a lalkara was given to teach a lesson to him and others for causing injuries to Harbhej Singh (A-1).Immediately all these accused persons started assaulting Suba Singh (P.W. 3) on his chest.In the meantime Harbhej Singh (A-1) fired a shot from his gun hitting on the right dorsal and the pitarm of Harbhajan Singh causing a bleeding injury upon which he fell down.Amrik Singh (A-2) then inflicted blows from the sharp side of the gandasa on his shoulder and right dorsal while he was lying on the ground, Gurmej Singh (A-3) gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side on his right thigh; Mohan Singh (A-6) did not lag behind and also gave a gandasa blow on his right ankle.Harbhej Singh (A-1) fired one more shot from his gun but it did not hit anybody.A roula was raised whereupon all the accused persons fled away with their weapons.Coming to the second part of the incident of the same transaction, it is alleged by the prosecution that when the accused persons were running away they raised a lalkara to finish Baldev Singh.Apprehending danger to the life of Baldev Singh, Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Jaswant Singh hurriedly went in the direction where Baldev Singh had gone to take fodder, to inform him about the first incident and also to caution him.At that point of time Baldev Singh was coining back after taking fodder in the tractor trolley.When he reached in front of the house of A-1, he was surrounded by the accused persons.Baldev Singh stopped the tractor and tried to escape from the back side of the trolley but in the meantime Sohan Singh (A-5) gave a kirpan blow chopping off his right arm.He fell on the barseen fodder lying in the trolley.Harbhej Singh (A-1) raised an alarm whereupon Amrik Singh (A-3) climbed upon the trolley and chopped off his leg with a gandasa whereas Gurmej Singh (A-4) gave two three blows with a gandasa on his left arm.Mohan Singh (A-6) also gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side on his chest.Due to murderous assault Baldev Singh fell in the trolley with bleeding injuries.Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) then contacted Rajinder Singh, the Sarpanch and informed him about the assault on Harbhajan Singh, Baldev Singh and Suba Singh.The three injured persons were then taken to the hospital in a trolley.The two injured persons, namely, Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh while being carried to the hospital, succumbed to their injuries.On reaching the hospital at Mamdot, the doctor on seeing the serious condition of Suba Singh (P.W. 3) advised that he be taken to the hospital at Ferozpur for medical treatment.Hardev Singh (P. W.2) then went to the Police Station, Mamdot and lodged a report, Ex-PK at 10.50 p.m. on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex-PK/1 was recorded.SI Puran Singh then went to the hospital at Mamdot but for want of light he could hold the inquest on the dead bodies.He then went to Ferozepur hospital but there he was told by the doctor that Suba Singh (P.W. 3) was unfit to make any statement.He then returned back to civil hospital at Mamdot and held inquest viz. Ex.PC and PF respectively on the dead bodies of Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh and sent them to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur for post-mortem examination vide his two ruqqas dated 23.5.85 exhibits PB and PF.He thereafter went to the house of Chanan Singh and during the investigation collected blood stained earth from the place of occurrence vide Ex.A pair of shoes, Ex.P5/l-2 was also taken into possession therefrom vide memo Ex.Two empty cartridges recovered from the spot were taken into possession vide memo Ex.A rough site plan Ex.PV was then prepared.P.12 to 16; a licence Ex.P.JJ and a gandasa Ex.All these articles were taken into possession vide Ex.These two Criminal Appeals on obtaining Special Leave have been filed by the appellants challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated January 28, 1988 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.The prosecution had put in the challan before the Judge, Special Court Firozepur on 14.8.1985 for trial of six accused-respondents herein on the following allegations:Baldev Singh (since deceased) was the younger brother of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Jaswant Singh (P.W. 1).Harbhej Singh (A-1), Gurbhej Singh (A-2), Amrik Singh (A-3) and Gurmej Singh (A-4), the respondents herein, are the real brothers whereas Sohan Singh (A-5) and Mohan Singh (A-6), the respondents herein, are the real brothers.He then recorded the statements of various persons.During the course of investigation on 28.5.1985, SI Puran Singh arrested Amrik Singh (A-3), Gurbhej Singh (A-2), Gurmej Singh (A-4) and Sohan Singh (A-5) who were produced by Sadha Singh, the Ex-Sarpanch.Harbhej Singh (A-1) and Mohan Singh (A-6) were arrested on 31.5.1985 and during the investigation they also made disclosure statements which led to the recovery of a gun Ex.P. 11 along with five cartridges Ex.PKK and PLL respectively.The seized articles were then sent to Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Director, Chandigarh for examination and reports.After completing the investigation all the six respondents herein were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 449, 324/149 IPC.A-1 was further charged for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.The defence of the accused is that of total denial.According to them they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.They also denied to have made any statement which led to the recovery of any incriminating article.The accused pleaded that they are innocent and be acquitted.The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses of whom two are witnesses of facts besides the formal witnesses.the Consulting Scientist Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.The Learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record by his Judgment and order dated 20th September, 1986 convicted Harbhej Singh (A-1), Amrik Singh (A' 3), Gurmej Singh (A-4) and Sohan Singh (A-5) on three counts viz. (i) 449 IPC; (ii) 302/34 IPC; and (iii) 324/34 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on first count; life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for these months on second count for causing murders of Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh; and rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing injuries to Suba Singh on the third count.Harbhej Singh (A-1) was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.While acquitting Gurbhej Singh (A-2) and Mohan Singh (A-6) learned Sessions Judge held that the role attributed to both of them was very minor inasmuch as A-2 alleged to have caused a simple injury to Suba Singh (P.W. 3) and no overtact was attributed to him.As regards Mohan Singh (A-6), he found that he alleged to have caused one injury on non-vital part of the body of Harbhajan Singh and one simple injury to Baldev Singh.The injuries caused by both these accused could have been caused to them by other co-accused.No motive was alleged against them and, therefore, their false implication cannot be ruled out.The four convicted accused (A-1), (A-3), (A-4) and (A-5) aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 553 DB/86 whereas the State of Punjab preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 198-DBA/87 against the two acquitted accused (A-2) and (A-6) to the High Court.Both the criminal appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of the High Court and the learned Division Bench by its judgment and order dated January 28, 1988 allowed Criminal Appeal No.553 DB/86 filed by the four convicts and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and acquitted them all.The appeal filed by the State of Punjab came to be dismissed confirming the order or acquittal.Appellant Hardev Singh, the brother of Baldev Singh (since deceased) on obtaining Special Leave has filed Criminal Appeal No.557 of 1988 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1988 is filed by Suba Singh, the son of Harbhajan Singh (since deceased) in this Court.Since impugned judgment is common, both these criminal appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.Mr. R.L. Kohli and Mr. Som Datta, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of these two Criminal appeals assailed the impugned Judgment on various grounds.It was contended that the High Court had totally misread the direct evidence and other materials on record.It was urged that the evidence on record clearly establishes that Harbhajan Singh was assaulted in front of the house of Chanan Singh.This fact finds corroboration from various circumstances.No sustainable reasons were given by the High Court while rejecting the evidence of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and the injured witness Suba Singh (P.W. 3).The High Court was wholly wrong in holding that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report.Both the eye witnesses were disbelieved on flimsy ground that they were unable to explain the second fire arm injury on Harbhajan Singh.It was then submitted that the Learned Sessions Judge was equally wrong in acquitting A-2 and A-6 which order was confirmed by the High Court.There is unimpeachable material on record to prove that they were members of an unlawful assembly having a common object to lay murderous assault on the victims.The trial court as also the High Court had completely misread the scope and true meaning of Section 149 IPC.The High Court ought to have allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the order of acquittal of A-2 and A-6 and they should have been convicted for the offences for which they were charge-sheeted.It may be stated that the State of Punjab did not file any appeal in this Court against the impugned order of acquittal passed by the High Court.Mr. R.S. Sodhi, the Learned Counsel for the respondents (accused) supported the impugned judgment of acquittal.Both the appeals are devoid of any merit and be dismissed.We have given our careful thought to the contentions raised before us.(i) Delay in lodging the FIR.(ii) Non examination of independent witnesses of facts.(vi) The deceased were men of desperate character and had many enemies and the respondents (accused) were named as culprits primarily on suspicion.(vii) The case against the respondents (accused) was framed in the village after enquiries by the police.(viii) DDR entry 34 dated 23.5.1985 did not disclose the names of eye witnesses, place of occurrence or the weapons.(ix) Medical evidence does not support the ocular account since injury No. 6 found on the dead body of Harbhajan Singh remained wholly unexplained.(x) The victim (Harbhajan Singh) must have been fired at from a. very close range and not from the distance of 25 ft.as shown in the site plan.After going through the ocular evidence and other materials on record we are of the considered view that every finding recorded by the High Court is patently wrong and unsustainable.The High Court has completely misread the evidence on record.Coming to the finding as regards the non-examination of independent eye witnesses who saw the incident in question we must hasten to add that it is completely erroneous and unmerited.The prosecution has examined Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and an injured witness Suba Singh (P.W. 3), although some other villagers did come at the place of incident but in our opinion merely because other independent witnesses were not examined could not be a ground to discredit the evidence of these two eye witnesses.This Court time and again has emphasised that the evidence of close relations who testified the facts relating to the occurrence be not rejected merely on the ground that they happened to be the relatives.All that this Court has ruled is that the evidence of such witnesses be scrutinised very carefully.We have very carefully gone through the evidence of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Suba Singh (P.W. 3) who were consistent in their evidence as regards the details of assault caused by the respondents (accused).Both the witnesses have given minute details in regard to the weapons used by each of the accused and the manner in which they have assaulted Harbhajan Singh in front of the house of Chanan Singh.They also stated that A-1 fired from his gun at Harbhajan Singh causing him bleeding injuries.They further stated that the second shot fired by A-1 missed the target.It is true that the medical evidence does indicate two gun shot injuries.In the facts and circumstances of the case non explanation of the gun shot injury No.6 by these two eye witnesses would neither dilute their evidence nor their presence could be doubted.It is the positive case of both the witnesses that Harbhajan Singh had come to the house of Chanan Singh to help him in the construction work.There is nothing in their evidence which can persuade us to disbelieve the story narrated as regards the assault on Harbhajan Singh.Coming to the assault on Baldev Singh caused by the respondents (accused), Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Suba Singh (P.W. 3) had stated that Baldev Singh, on noticing that the respondents (accused) were coming towards him, left the driver's seat and went to the trolley to escape himself from the probably attack by the accused.Harbhej Singh (A-1) gave a lalkara and thereupon Amrik Singh (A-3) climbed up the trolley and chopped off the leg of Baldev Singh with gandasa.Gurmej Singh (A-4) also climbed up the trolley and gave 2-3 blows on his left arm from the sharp side of gandasa.Mohan Singh (A-5) also gave a gandasa blow from the sharp side on his chest.After inflicting injuries to Baldev Singh the accused fled away.Both these witnesses were searchingly cross-examined by the defence but there is hardly any material brought on record to discredit their evidence.The evidence of both these witnesses in our considered view unmistakably proves that the respondents (accused) who were the members of the unlawful assembly having a common object to cause the murders of Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh did cause such bodily injuries to them as a result thereof they met with homicidal deaths.The evidence of both these witnesses find corroboration from the fact that the blood stained earth seized from the first site of occurrence contained the human blood.The trolley tractor was also stained with human blood.In these circumstances we have no manner of doubt that the respondents (accused) formed an unlawful assembly and its object was to cause murderous assault on Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh.Both the witnesses have also testified that the respondents (accused) came together with deadly weapons in their hands with the common object to cause such assault.Coming to the next ground of acquittal viz., non intervention of the relatives of the deceased including the eye witnesses during the assault on the victims to protect them, in our opinion is wholly unsustainable.Since the respondents (accused) were armed with deadly weapons as against this the victims and their relatives were totally unarmed and in such a situation it was absurd to expect any intervention and if they were to do so it would have led to some more casualties.The incident took place at 7.30 p.m. on 23rd May, 1985 and the witnesses have emphatically asserted that there was enough light to identify the accused.Moreover the respondents (accused) were know to the eye witnesses since their houses were adjacent to the house of Chanan Singh.This finding, therefore, is totally imaginary without any material on record.The next finding of the High Court that the deceased were desperate criminals having many enemies and the respondents (accused) were roped in on mere suspicion is again unsustainable.Except the ipse dixit of the respondents there is no material brought on record to support this assertion.This finding of the High Court is based on no evidence and thus illegal and cannot be sustained.The further ground in support of acquittal recorded by the High Court that the case against the respondents (accused) was framed in the village with the connivance of the police, is based on mere surmise.The very fact that the FIR was lodged within three hours of the occurrence naming the accused with all details unmistakably proved the involvement of the accused in the present crime.Therefore, this ground is figment of imagination on the part of the High Court.There was hardly any time to concoct any false story against the respondents (accused).The High Court had again committed a grave error in relying upon the DDR entry No. 34 dated 23rd May, 1985 wherein the names of the eye witnesses, place of occurrence and the weapons of offence were not mentioned to corroborate the FIR and ocular evidence.The finding of the High Court that A-1 must have fired from a close range and not from a distance of 25 ft.as deposed to by Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Suba Singh (P.W. 3) is not correct.To sustain this reasoning the High Court relied upon the evidence of Dr. Maan (P.W. ).In a sudden assault of this nature it was difficult for an eye witness to describe the correct distance from where the gun was fired.This minor discrepancy in our opinion would not justify to disbelieve the two eye witnesses.Coming to the injuries inflicted on Suba Singh (P.W. 3), who had stated in his evidence that he had sustained the injuries on his person during the assault caused by the respondents (accused), it need be noticed that he was treated at Ferozepur Hospital.His evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of Dr. A.S. Mann (P.W. 1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur who testified to these injuries.It is true that the same were superficial.The evidence of Suba Singh also finds corroboration from the evidence of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2).In view of this evidence we see no hesitation to conclude that the respondents who were members of an unlawful assembly caused injuries to Suba Singh and committed an.offence punishable under Sections 324/149 IPC.The defence has examined Dr. H.L. Bhami (D.W. 1) who claimes to be the Consulting Forensic Scientist New Delhi.We have gone through the evidence and the same in our opinion is tailor made to suit the defence.After going through the reports of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PNN and the FSL Ex. PQQ produced by the prosecution and the evidence of Dr. H.L. Bhami (D.W. 1) we are satisfied that the reports of the Chemical Examiner and FSL are more credible and we accept the same and reject the evidence of Dr. H.L. Bahmi (D.W. 1).It also needs to be mentioned that the learned trial judge in paragraph 44 of his judgment has referred to various recoveries at the instance of some of the respondents and in particular recovery of 12 bore gun (Ex.P11) from Harbhej Singh (A-1).The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence in respect of these recoveries and held that these various recoveries corroborated the evidence of two eye witnesses.Surprisingly, the High Court had not touched this evidence at all which in our opinion is a serious error on its part.We accept the evidence of various recoveries made during the course of investigation, which in unmistakable terms, corroborates the evidence of two eye witnesses.Coming to the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 6 by the trial court against which the State of Punjab had filed an appeal to the High Court and the same was dismissed-in our opinion the learned Sessions Judge had completely misunderstood the scope of Section 149 IPC.The only reason given by the learned trial Judge was that there was no material on the record to prove that they caused any serious injuries to the two victims.It was further observed that no specific role was attributed to these two accused.In our opinion this finding is against contrary to the evidence on record in as much as both these accused were the members of the unlawful assembly and did have the common object as it was implicit in their action i.e. they were armed with deadly weapons; came along with other accused and participated in the murderous assault on both the victims.The trial court and the High Court had erred in law in not holding both these accused guilty with the aid of Section 149 IPC for the substantive offences punishable under Section 302 IPC.The order of acquittal passed by the trial court and on appeal affirmed by the High Court thus cannot be sustained for the reasons recorded hereinabove.In the result the Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1988 is allowed.The order of acquittal passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court in respect of A-2 and A-6 is quashed and set aside.The order of acquittal passed by the High Court in respect of Harbhej Singh (A-1), Amrik Singh (A-3), Gurmej Singh (A-4) and Sohan Singh (A-5) is also quashed and set aside and all the respondents (A-1 to A-6) are held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of Harbhajan Singh and Baldev Singh and each one of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on two counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months.Respondents (A-1 to A-6) are also convicted under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them is sentenced to suffer RI for five years.Respondents (A-1 to A-6) are also convicted under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Suba Singh and each one is sentenced to suffer RI for one year.The respondents (A-1 to A-6) who are on bail shall surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve out the remainder of their sentences.In view of our order passed in Criminal Appeal No.558 of 1988 no separate order is called for in Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 1988, which stands disposed of.

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

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

Umar Khalid had allegedly delivered hate speeches in different places.He had appealed to persons to come and obstruct public roads, in order to lead people to believe internationally that minorities in India were being oppressed.He alleged that as a part of the controversy, women and children were called to protest at different places in Delhi and weapons like firearms, petrol bomb, acid bottles were collected at Chand Bagh, Gokul Puri, CRL.M.C. 1697/2020 Page 2 of 24 Shiv Vihar and other areas.It was alleged that responsibility for assembling the mobs from other outside areas was assigned to one Danish.Umar Khalid and Danish were the only two persons named in the FIR.The learned ASJ also extended the period of detention of the accused persons, including the petitioner, till the said date.The said FIR was registered by SI Arvind Kumar of Crime Branch, Delhi Police.He had reported that one of his informers had informed him that the riots which had taken place in Delhi on 23rd, 24th and 25th of February 2020, were a result of a pre-planned conspiracy.He alleged that the conspiracy for spreading these riots was hatched by one Umar Khalid, a student of Jawahar Lal Nehru University and his accomplices from different organizations.M.C. 1697/2020 Page 2 of 24Thereafter, on 19.04.2020, offences under Sections 13/16/17 & 18 of UAPA were also included.The respondent also sought judicial custody of three other accused persons for a further period of thirty days.M.C. 1697/2020 Page 3 of 24However, the copy of the said application was not provided to the petitioner as according to the State, the same was not necessary.By an order dated 10.08.2020, the learned Court issued notice to the petitioner for a hearing scheduled on 11.08.2020, without any directions that the copy of the application be supplied to the petitioner.On 11.08.2020, arguments on the said application were partly heard.In compliance with the said order, the CRL.M.C. 1697/2020 Page 4 of 24 petitioner filed a written synopsis of the arguments and opposed the said application seeking extension of time for completion of investigation and for seeking extension of the petitioner's custody.The said application was allowed by the order dated 13.08.2020, which is impugned herein.[italicized for emphasis]The Court had also granted opportunity to the accused to file written submissions.The requirements of providing the petitioner a notice as well as an opportunity to be heard in opposition of the application for extension of time for completion of the investigation were complied with by the learned Court.A report indicating the progress of investigation including specific reasons for detaining the accused beyond the specified period was furnished.The learned Court had perused the same as well as examined the case diaries and had recorded its satisfaction in this regard.The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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.

Through: Respondent in person.It is stated that the officer continued to send abusive, vulgar and threatening messages (SMSs) repeatedly and also misbehaved with junior staff and their family members who were residing in W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 2 of 78 the campus of the Gurgaon training institute.In this background, she appears to have complained against sexual harassment by one Sh.Sunil Uke, Joint Secretary, her immediate superior.One Ms. Shashi Prabha, a female officer in the department was nominated as Chairperson.Eventually, after a series of incidents, the UOI invoked its power under Rule 135 of the 1975 Rules.Documents have been provided by the applicant, being excerpts and newspaper clippings, giving details of its officers.It is captioned as Raw Deal rather pregnant with meaning.The international intercourse may be complex.This was unfair.These two reports were placed before the Disciplinary Authority, Government of India, which approved them, and opined that there is not enough evidence to act against Shri Ashok Chaturvedi and Shri Sunil Uke and no further action is required to be taken against these two officers.She was also interacting with the Electronic and Print Media thereby disclosing her identity and position in the organization.In order to attract the attention of the media, the applicant attempted to commit suicide in front of Prime Minister's Office on 19.08.2008 by consuming rat poison, when she was not granted permission to meet the Prime Minister.This incident was widely covered by the Print and Electronic Media not only in India but also in Pakistan, Dubai and other countries and also on the internet.This incident exposed the identity of the applicant as an Officer of Intelligence organization (R&AW), besides disclosing other confidential transfer orders.Secretary (Trg.), abused and threatened him and also started tearing/ removing her clothes in the presence of the staff of the Training Institute.She repeated the same thing on 27.07.2009, when she came out of the Court room in the Supreme Court of India and started shouting, abusing and removed her clothes in the corridor, when she was immediately removed by the security staff.This incident was widely reported in the print media, again disclosing her identity as an officer of the Intelligence organization (R&AW).She again repeated the same thing in the Central Administrative Tribunal by removing her clothes and attempted to jump from the second floor, when she was prevented by the lawyers.Even this incident was covered in the print media giving the details of the applicant.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 15 of 78W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 16 of 78It was argued by Mr. Patwalia that the applicant had sent abusive and bizarre SMSes (short message service texts) which harassed the Joint Secretary and the Additional Secretary.Her conduct in threatening to strip naked in front of her superior officers, of attempting suicide in front of the Prime Ministers Office (PMO) and further abnormal conduct in attempting to commit suicide by jumping from the CAT building, rendered her service in the R&AW untenable.Contesting the UOIs claim that they conducted the enquiry into W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 34 of 78 the Applicants complaint (referred to in this Press Release) despite the fact that she withdrew her complaint, it is argued that through this enquiry, the Union was actually trying to develop a case against her - to propagate that she had complained against of sexual harassment because she was a mentally unstable person.It is emphasized that this Press Release conveniently concealed the fact that the applicant had complained against the Chief of her department - Shri Ashok Chaturvedi.This went on for too long and far too often.There were many officers junior to the applicant and were relatives of former Secretary (R), Shri G.S. Bajpai.One of these is Ms. Anjali Pandey of 1988 batch (followed, in a further junior batch, by Shri Anurag Goel).Ms. Anjali Pandey is a relative of Mr. Bajpai.Relatives of Shri G.S. Bajpai were recruited in unprecedented large numbers through misuse of power and authority by him.Whenever these relatives are due for promotion, it is common that game plans were initiated months before - sometimes a couple of years before - for competent officers senior to these relatives to be removed from the promotion scene - through enquiries or spoiling of ACRs etc. That the department witnessed such incidents in the case of Shri G.S. Bajpais son; who was forced to leave the R&AW in 2006 amidst allegations that he was involved in a spy scandal.ACRs of many officers senior/more competent than him are believed to have been spoilt around that time to facilitate Shri Tripathis promotion.It is because of such manoeuvrings that Shri Tripathi got his promotion to the rank of Joint Secretary in a record period of 19 years.In 2006, Shri Tripathi was in charge of Personnel Division when with the help of the then Director (Pers), Shri P.K. Mathur, he W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 37 of 78 changed the entire cadre structure of the R&AW so that he could get his promotion to the rank of Special Secretary.But for this massive and painstaking cadre review in the R&AW, Shri G.S. Bajpais son-in-law, Shri S.K. Tripathi would not have got his promotion as the second most senior officer in the department.Other allegations of manipulations by serving and senior officials of the department have been made by the applicant.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 37 of 78Analysis and conclusionsDuring the course of hearing the UOI had produced all the relevant records, including the records of proceedings of the two committees inquiring into allegations of sexual harassment.For the sake of convenience, the following tabular statement would explain chronologically, the necessary facts:26.10.2007 Representation was made by Ms. Bhatia to the PMO on the subject "sexual exploitation of women employees in the R&AW - Indifference & Involvement of former secretary (R), Shri Ashok Chaturvedi") 01-11-2007 The Shashi Prabha Committee was constituted to consider the complaints against Mr. Uke 19-05-2008 The above committee made and submitted its report, stating that the applicant did not co-operate with it.She appeared on 04.07.09 for hearing before the court but created an unruly scene) 22.09.2008 Proposal for invoking the provision of Rule 135 of R&AW (RC&S) Rules, 1975 against the applicant by Ashok Chaturvedi, Secretary (R) W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 38 of 78 30.09.2008 Complaints Committee was constituted by the Central Government 12.11.2008 In CWP No. 7971/2008, a petition before this court by Ms. Bhatia making Secretary (Coord) Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi as the respondent, she sought copies of the enquiry report conducted with R&AW which was completed on 19.05.2008 (Shashi Prabha Committee), and also enquiry report of the High-Level committee appointed by the Cabinet Secretariat (Main) 15.12.2008 An application was made by the applicant against the backdrop of alleged sexual harassment by the former Secretary and a JS requesting forW.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 38 of 78a) Restoring post, salary and perksb) Allowing her entry into the officec) Releasing her belongings alleged to have been sealed 30.01.2009 The committee (the Rati Vinay Jha Committee) submitted its report in 23rd Jan 2009 and a submission note in this regard on 30.01.2009 30.01.2009 KM Chandashekhar, cabinet secretary submitted a note dated 30.01.2009 for the information of the PM following the submission of a report by the Jha committee on the allegations made by the applicant against Chaturvedi and Mr. Sunil Uke 06.02.2009 The PMO directed that the cabinet secretary may issue strict instructions to all ministries/ departments to ensure that the complaint mechanisms not just exist but are also functional to reach out to women who face harassment.04.04.2009 Ms. Bhatia wrote a letter to the Ajit Seth [Secretary (PG & Cood)] with respect to her apprehension with regard to alleged recommendation by former secretary Ashok Chaturvedi to dismiss her without enquiry, under Article 311 W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 39 of 78 of the Constitution of India 18.04.2009 In Case no. 1/109/27/2009- TS, K S Achar (Director) sent a proposal for invoking Rule 135 against Ms.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 39 of 7809.06.2009 Response to the clarification sought by the PMO vide letter dated 09.06.2009 was given by the department.16.06.2009 Opinion of Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and and Justice was given, pursuant to query in this regard.04.08.2009 20.06.2009 A reply was sent to PMO stating that it would not be advisable to precipitate the action at this stage, lest it could be construed as overreach by the High Court/CAT 15.07.2009 Opinion of the Solicitor General of India was given on and 11.08.2009 to the ID Note of K M Chandrashekhar, Cabinet 21.07.2009 Secretary concurring with the proposed measure.27.07.2009 Hearing in the Supreme Court on Ms. Bhatia's application before the Bench comprising Justices HS Bedi and JM Panchal.According to the file, she tore her clothes and was taken away by the police 11.08.2009 ID Note of K M Chandrashekhar, cabinet secretary 28.08.2009 KC Verma requested to renew the proposal (for compulsory retirement).W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 40 of 7827.11.2009 After dismissal of the case by CAT, the applicant resumed her duties 07.12.2009 Letter by KC Verma to the PMO's office requesting for an early decision on the proposal of invoking provisions of Rule 135 16.12.2009 PMO communicated the approval by the Prime Minister to the recommendation for the compulsory retirement of Ms Bhatia under the provisions of Rule 135 as recommended by the cabinet secretariat in the note dated 13.05.2009 18.12.2009 Order issued by Cabinet Secretariat passed in the name of the President, signed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, compulsorily retiring her from government service with immediate effect W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 41 of 78 Discussion about the file notings relied upon by the Union of IndiaW.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 41 of 78This letter, stated:(i) As far as the allegation of sexual harassment is concerned, the committee has concluded that in the absence of any proof of such unwanted action or unwarranted comments amounting to unwelcome sexually determined behavior, it was not possible to establish a case of an act of sexual harassment by Chaturvedi against Ms. Bhatia(ii) The committee commented on the attitude of Chaturvedi in connection with the complaint, the committee recorded that Chaturvedi should have taken serious and immediate note of the complaint of Bhatia.(iii) The report further stated that the approach adopted by the officer concerned/ in charge led to series of avoidable circumstances which have caused immense stress to the complainant.(iv) The committee flagged that certain violations of the Vishaka guidelines had been noted.Mr. KC Verma, Secretary (R), in a letter dated 11.05.2009 requested for an expeditious decision on the proposal for compulsory retirement under Rule 135 which was pending for over 7 months on the basis of the following: (a) information about the stream of SMS sent to various officers like former Secretary, Mr. Chaturvedi and other senior officers; (b) the meeting held by NSA on 05.05.2009 to discuss the proposal of R&AW for compulsory retirement of NPB under Rule 135, a letter dated 11.05.2009 was received sent by Secretary, R&AW; (c) the Secretary stated that the proposal to retire is based on the fact the she has become unemployable in the organization.She was sending messages since 2007 and making multiple phone calls to senior officers.The SMSes were reported to provocative and abusive; (d)she has also alleged criminal intimidation by NK Sharma Joint Secretary (Training) R&AW who in turn has also sent several complaints regarding undesirable activities of Bhatia.The terminal benefits which accrue to an officer were:W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 52 of 78(i) Pension based on emoluments that he/she would have drawn had he/she superannuated at the normal age and earned all non-selection upgradation(ii) Family pension and DCRG as admissible under the prevailing rules(iii) In addition, the officer could be given Resettlement grant upto 12 times the monthly pay drawn by her immediately before her retirement(iv) The head of R&AW, at his discretion, could also permit the officer concerned to exchange the entire pension due to him/her for a lump sum equal to the commuted value of that amount admissible to a person retiring on attaining the normal age of superannuation.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 53 of 78The initial six member committee was constituted on 01.11.2007, headed by Smt. Shashi Prabha.The report records that the complaint was made by Ms. Bhatia against Sh.Sunil Uke, former JS and Sh.Ashok Chaturvedi, Secretary(R), and falls within the purview of the Supreme Court's definition as "a demand or request for sexual favours" and "any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature".However, as per para 12(2) of the SC guidelines, the Committee is not empowered to look into the complaint against Sh.Ashok Chaturvedi, since he was holding a position senior to that of the Chairperson of the Committee.Proceedings of the Complaints Committee:In response to this, a letter dated 19.12.2007 was received from Ms. Bhatia, wherein she alleged that the Complaints Committee received incomplete documents, and the same, along with her resignation letter, could be obtained from the JS (SA).On 20.12.2007, the Committee received Ms. Bhatia's resignation letter and her request dated 20.12.2007 to keep her resignation pending for one month, from the JS (SA)'s Office.(2) The first meeting of the Committee was held on 19.12.2007, wherein a perusal of documents received from the JS(SA) revealed that Ms. Bhatia alleged the following incidents to have taken place with her immediate superior- Mr. Sunil Uke (repatriated on 30.08.2007 at Ms. Bhatia's request) W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 54 of 78 (3) According to Ms. Bhatia's complaint letter dated 07.08.2007, on 06.07.2008, in a conversation in Mr. Uke's office, he told Ms. Bhatia "to have all the fun in 5 star hotels and that he will give her the money to enjoy".This statement of Ms. Bhatia's was unsubstantiated.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 54 of 78However, on 24.12.2007, the Committee received a letter from her stating that she was withdrawing her allegations of sexual harassment.(5) On 31.12.2007, the Committee decided to meet and close the probe in view of Ms. Bhatia's letter dated 24.12.2007, and the same was communicated to the JS (SA).(6).In lieu of this direction, the Committee, on 17.04.2008, sent notices to Ms. Bhatia and Mr. Uke to appear on 22.04.2008 and 28.04.2008, respectively.On 22.04.2008, all the 6 members of the staff recorded their written statements; however, Ms. Bhatia sent a letter expressing her inability to appear, stating W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 55 of 78 that the Cabinet Secretariat was also conducting an enquiry, and the Complaints Committee had not been constituted legally.After examining the matter, Ms. Bhatia was sent a notice to appear on 28.04.2008, stating that this would be the last chance for her to defend herself.(8) Ms. Bhatia did not appear on 28.04.2008, citing that she was satisfied with the ongoing enquiry in the Cabinet Secretariat and had no faith in this departmental enquiry.This letter by Ms. Bhatia dated 25.04.2008 expressed no indication of her appearing before the Committee in the future, and therefore, the Committee decided to examine the contentions of her letter ex parte.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 55 of 78(9) Mr. Uke appeared before the Committee on 28.04.2008, and gave a CD and two written statements.(10) On 02.05.2008, the Committee decided to give another opportunity to Ms. Bhatia, and sent her a notice to appear on 05.05.2008, also informing her of the induction of Ms Tara Katha.In response, Ms. Bhatia rang up the Chairperson and also sent a letter dated 05.05.2008, informing the Committee that she had no intention to appear on 05.05.2008, as the Committee did not include three members from NGOs/bodies outside of the department.On consideration of the letter, the Committee concluded that it had been constituted as per the Supreme Court guidelines, and could therefore continue with the brief.(11) On 09.05.2008, the Committee was informed that Ms. Tara Kartha had also gone through the written statements and tapes on record.Ms. Bhatia responded saying she was tied up on 14.05.2008, and when asked to appear on 19.05.2008, she said that "she will not come and they should not waste paper".W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 56 of 78(12) Mr Uke denied any sexually coloured conversation with Ms. Bhatia or being alone with her in the room, in his deposition.The Committee found that the amount of Rs.30,000 in question was drawn by the PE on 06.07.2008 for a specific purpose and was kept in the custody of the concerned DS, and moreover it was returned unspent on 22.07.2008 as the meeting did not take place.(13) The Committee concluded that there was lack of evidence to substantiate Ms. Bhatia's allegations, since she failed to appear on numerous occasions.However, it recorded that the statements of the 6 officers indicate strained relations between Ms. Bhatia and Mr. Uke, and by the latter's own submission, his bias against Ms. Bhatia based on hearsay about her reputation was clear.The situation must have been certainly awkward for her as she no longer had the powers and perquisites enjoyed by her in her earlier stint as Director (Trg).W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 1 of 78The officer was recruited in 1987 and deployed to the Research and Analysis Wing, (R&AW) a unit under the Cabinet Secretariat that deals with sensitive and highly classified issues concerning the national security.The petitioner (hereafter "Union" or "UOI") explains that officers and employees of R&AW are expected to maintain a heightened sense of discipline as compared with other public employees who are not privy to secret and sensitive information concerning national security.It also highlights that after the 50th Amendment to the Indian Constitution and pursuant to Article 33, the Intelligence Organizations (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985 was enacted that prohibited members of intelligence organizations from associating in any manner with political associations, trade union or public etc. It is further explained that the restrictions have assumed critical importance in view of the developments in and around the country and the organization has given special significance to insulate its personnel from the media because of potential irreparable damage to national security needs of the country.The officer joined in 1987 as a directly recruited employee.In July 2004, she was posted and joined as Director, Training Institute, Gurgaon.It is stated that thereafter, she requested for some specific postings in the organization and starting filing complaints against senior officers.This became subject matter of challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed and set aside that order of compulsory retirement.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 2 of 78The order of compulsory retirement, under Rule 135, was impugned before CAT, in OA 50/2010 ("the application").By its order dated 16.03.2010 the tribunal allowed the application and directed the officers reinstatement.The CATs findings, inter alia, are as follows:We had gone through the materials that had been placed by the parties.Two paragraphs from the article could be extracted below:The more acceptable version indeed comes from the pleadings in the OA, namely, that after about 10 to 12 years of assignments, around the world, any persons Indian or foreigner interested in the intelligence work come to know who is who, if they are worth their salt.Therefore, a summary discharge on such an empty plea really amounts to self denial.The provision may be remaining in the statute book rather as a relic of outdated theories.She was rushed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital from where she subsequently absconded.Eventually, the order of 18.12.2009 was issued.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 12 of 78Apparently, the PMO informed the Police and an FIR NO.151/2008 dated 19.08.2008 under Section 309 IPC was registered at PS Parliament Street, New Delhi.The applicant was rushed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital from where she absconded.According to information, the applicant was been acquitted in this case for lack of evidence and as per the report of the FSL regarding the substance consumed by her not being poison.In view of the wide publicity of this incident, the PMO had to issue a "Press Note - Fact sheet on Suicide Attempt by Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia".Later, on 17.04.2009, the applicant went to the room of Jt.All materials including the relevant facts, which occurred between September 2008 and December 2009 were considered.This was made known to her at the earliest opportunity when she joined the R&AW.That order is as follows:"We find that the said prayer is basically on the issue of validity of Rule 135 of the R&AW (RC&S) Rules.It is common ground that insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, an order for compulsory retirement in her case was passed.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 32 of 78It was argued by Ms. Bhatia that the overall facts shown to CAT and this court reveal that the basis of the order of compulsory retirement in her case, were the attempt at self-immolation on 19 August 2008 and the consequent "exposure" in the press; the filing of a police complaint on 10 December, 2008; the incidents that occurred in court, revealing her alleged disturbed state of mind; her alleged attempt to commit suicide, by jumping off the CAT building.Her repeated attempts to have this investigated, through complaints to her superior officials and repeated efforts to secure justice at the departmental level met with deaf ears.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 34 of 78Ms. Bhatia submitted that the basis for almost 50 odd press clippings filed in the writ petition and allegations against her by the UOI lay in this Press Release.The Applicant moved applications, under the RTI Act, 2005, with the R&AW and the AIIMS hospital to obtain documents on the basis of which the Petitioners had issued the said Press Release.The responses to these RTI applications indicated that barring the 3 descriptive statements in this Press Release, all other 6 statements were incorrect.Therefore, the applicant filed a Criminal Complaint Case (No.25/09) of defamation in the district court at Dwarka against the former Chief of R&AW, Shri Ashok Chaturvedi - one of the main accused in her representation on sexual harassment.What they tried to do first was to criminally intimidate her by getting her arrested from her government accommodation at the R&AW Training institute in Gurgaon in the early hours of 08.12.09 and confining her to Bhondsi Jail; Haryana.The arrest was organized to be widely publicised in the media through the propaganda/psychological wing W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 35 of 78 of the R&AW.The UOI it is alleged, was disappointed that the applicant, rather than falling at their feet, quietly went and sat in jail.Following her release on bail the next day, she resumed her responsibilities as Director (Language Training School) as if nothing had happened.It is submitted that having failed to bring the applicant down through criminal intimidation, the Unions hit at her financial support base by compulsorily retiring her from service on 18.12.09 - three days before the trial court was scheduled to issue its adverse order against Shri Ashok Chaturvedi.The Applicant was compulsorily retired from service in December 2009 and in February/March 2010 - when her case against her compulsory retirement was still under consideration before the CAT.Ms. Anjali Pandeys case for promotion was taken up and cleared at a record pace- a whole one year before she was actually due for promotion W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 36 of 78W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 36 of 7803.10.2009 KC Verma by letters dated 03.10.2009 and 13.10.2009 and addressed to the Chandrashekar requesting for early 13.10.2009 invoking Rule 135 of RAW (RC&S) against Ms. Bhatia in continuation of her erratic behaviour.18.10.2009 A criminal complaint was filed by Ms Bhatia under section 306 of IPC for initiation of proceedings and penal action against Sh.SK Goel and Sh.Ashok Chaturvedi 30.10.2009 FIR was registered against Ms Bhatia for harassment of her colleagues, illegal trespass and damage to the government property in the training institute campus.(she was arrested by the police, after a medical examination, she was produced before the JM, Gurgaon and was sent to Judicial custody for 14 days and thereafter was transferred to Bhondsi Jail, Gurgaon) 13.11.2009 Letter sent by Mr. KC Verma to Mr. Chandrashekar informing that in addition to sending SMSs , the applicant had repeatedly trespassed the house of another Director in the training institute and vandalised a govt car.26.11.2009 CAT case filed by Ms Bhatia was disposed of.The applicant made allegations of sexual harassment against one Sunil Uke who was posted on deputation as Joint Secretary in R&AW at the relevant point of time.She has made certain complaints against Shri Ashok Chaturvedi, who was the former Secretary of R&AW.The Complaints Committee was initially headed by Ms. Shashi Prabha but since Shashi Prabha was not sufficiently empowered, a committee headed by Rathi Vinay Jha looked into the complaint.The said Complaints Committee concluded that the allegations made by the petitioner against Ashok Chaturvedi were unsubstantiated.However, the committee made certain observations about the lack of sensitivity on the part of the head of the department.The petitioner had filed a petition before this court on 15.10.2008, (WP (C) 7971/2008) in which an order dated 12th Nov 2008 was made, requiring the committee to conclude the matter as early as possible.In the meanwhile, it appears that on 22.09.2008 a proposal was submitted, for invoking the provision of Rule 135 of R&AW (RC&S) Rules, 1975 against Nisha Priya Bhatia by Ashok Chaturvedi, Secretary (R) in the light of the suicide attempt by her, in August, 2008.The proposal sent by the former Secretary referred, inter alia, to:W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 42 of 78(i) The complaint of sexual harassment filed by Ms. Bhatia "against her Joint secretary, Shri Sunil Uke;(ii) The erratic behavior of the officer sending SMSs with sexual intonations, ventilating personal and administrative grievances and threatening to commit suicide with threats of destroying the organization and ruining the careers of officers(iii) Attempted suicide in front of the PMO on 19.08.2008 following which she was arrested, a criminal case filed against her, she was admitted to the hospital from where she absconded;The next relevant material is the proposal- dated 18.04.2009 for invoking the provision of Rule 135 against the applicant.With reference to the earlier proposal (dated 22.09.2008 to the Cabinet secretary recommending immediate retirement of Ms. Bhatia from the organization under Rule 135) this note relied on the report of the Jha committee, which found that:- R&AWs attempts at drawing authority from the AIIMS, in a PIB statement of 19.08.2008 was factually incorrect- Even though there was a recommendation from an earlier committee, the Departmental committee headed by female Joint Secretary, that counselling may benefit her, there was no evidence of any action taken by R&AW for counselling of the officer as required by the Vishakha guidelines- Para (h)(pg 27, of the report) observed of the adverse/ hostile work environment which Ms Bhatia was put to, and it was only the extreme step W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 43 of 78 taken by Ms Bhatia which led the government to set up an appropriate grievance redressal mechanism.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 43 of 78On its receipt the PMO sought clarification.By a secret note dated 11.05.2009, to the PMO by the Cabinet Secretariat on 13.05.2009 it was suggested that compulsory retirement of Ms. Bhatia under Rule 135 may be considered.In this regard, the PMO sought clarification on (a) procedure under the above rule (b) whether that has been followed (c) bearing on the various court cases on the suggested move of compulsory retirement.In this regard, a reply was sent to PMO on 20.06.2009 stating that it would not be advisable to precipitate the action at this stage, lest it could be construed as overreach by the High Court/CAT.Further, he made it clear that this does not preclude any action which the government may consider under rule 135 against Ms. Bhatia, if necessary.By a letter dated 21.07.2009, the Solicitor General of India to Ajit Seth, Secretary (R), (in reference to the Contempt case No. 449/2009 in WP (C) 7971/ 2008, specially Mr. Justice Sanghis order) it was suggested that the way forward is to take a decision in the matter in relation to the conduct of Ashok Chaturvedi in the light of the observations made by the Jha committee against Chaturvedi.The final view it was stated, must be incorporated in the form of an order of the government which should be communicated to the applicant; he also advised that before taking the hard W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 44 of 78 line, efforts to access her peacefully and bring her to state of calmness and dialogue should be attempted.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 44 of 78It was also stated that the disciplinary committee has to take a decision on the action to be taken on the basis of the report of the complaints committee.The ID Note of K M Chandrashekhar, Cabinet secretary dated 11.08.2009, records that there was no ground to initiate disciplinary action against Chaturvedi after his retirement.It said that it could not be said that Chaturvedi, on receipt of the complaint, took no action at all.When the W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 45 of 78 complainant persisted, a Complaints committee was constituted.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 45 of 78On 28 August 2009, Mr. K.C. Verma , Secretary (R) requested that the proposal to invoke Rule 135 be renewed.In reference to his predecessors letter dated 22.09.2008 forwarding a proposal for invoking Rule 135, it was stated that the decision was still awaited; he requested to renew the request to Chandrashekar (the Cabinet Secretary).He also mentioned the list of cases Ms Bhatia is involved in.The following cases she is involved in: WP No. W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 46 of 78 449/ 2009 - seeking copies of high-level committee report and Shashi Prabha enquiry report; OA No. 1687/2008 dated 15.12.2008 before CAT seeking restoration of the applicants post, salary and perks etc. The case at the court of the magistrate at Dwarka Delhi(No. 25/09) alleging the press release dated 19.08.2008, allegedly issued the behest of Chaturvedi, former Secretary had harmed Ms. Bhatias reputation.Furthermore, the note also mentioned the RTI application seeking documents from the R&AW through the CIC relating to her complaint of sexual harassment and the departmental committee reports.W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 46 of 78In the meanwhile it appears that Shri KM Chandrashekhar, Cabinet Secretary submitted a note dated 30.01.2009 for the information of the PM following the submission of a report by the Jha committee on the allegations made by the applicant against Chaturvedi and Sunil Uke.(e) She has W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 51 of 78 stopped attending office since 19.08.2008 and visited the institute occasionally.(f) Ms. Bhatia was involved in avoidable litigation against the R&AW in CAT, High Court and Dwarka Courts; she had alleged also that all actions taken against her were malafide; (g)the Delhi Police has filed a charge sheet against Ms. Bhatia on November 18, 2008 under Section 309 IPC for attempt to commit suicide on August 19, 2008 in front of the PMO;W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 51 of 78On 31.08.2009- Dr. Sarangi, Additional secretary, in reference to Note No. G-3(4)/ 2008- NGO dated 22.05.2009 and 03.07.2009 informed that with respect to invocation of Rule 135 and its being followed in the present case, Secretary (R) has informed that there was no procedure prescribed in the following case.The rule could be invoked when the Head of the Department was satisfied that the officer became unemployable in the organization due to his being exposed as an intelligence officer, for reasons of security or disability or injuries received by him in the performance of his duties.The Committee recorded that this prejudiced attitude itself was a violation of gender equality.This Committee was constituted with the approval of the Prime Minister of India on 26.09.2008 to enquire into the complaints of sexual harassment made against the officers of the level of Secretary, Additional Secretary and equivalent in the Ministries.Though the findings with respect to various allegations were found to be unsubstantiated, interestingly, it W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 57 of 78 made certain adverse observations against the conduct of Shri Ashok Chaturvedi, Secretary (R) in the following terms :W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 57 of 78"The Complaints Committee noted the remarks made on file by Shri Ashok Chaturvedi, Secretary (R) and therefore, looked into the enquiry report against Shri Sunil Uke.The following facts came to light from the report cited:-When this letter addressed to the JS(SA) was put up to Shri Ashok Chaturvedi, Special Secretary (R), the following comment was recorded by him."Please call both the concerned officials and sort out the problem.I don't wish to be disturbed on such issues".In April 2008, she sent two notes to indicate that since the Cabinet Secretariat was inquiring into the matter, she was satisfied with this action.However, as per the admission of one of its members, Ms Anjali Pandey, everyone in the office knew about this incident.The order was revised vide order No. 4/SPS/2007(2)-884 dated 16th November 2007 to cancel the posting of Shri S.S. Mahapatra as Director (PR).So the exchange of charges, as envisaged in the first order dated 8.11.2007, was not effected.Undoubtedly, the Prime Ministers Office put out a press statement.As far as other press articles are concerned, this court cannot hold conclusively that all of them were W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 69 of 78 published at the behest of the UOI - or that - at the behest of the applicant.Her complaint against Mr. Chaturvedi had not been taken seriously at all.However, its mandate did not cover the complaints against Mr. Ashok Chaturvedi, a Secretary level officer - instead it could consider the complaints against Mr. Uke.Its report was made on 19.05.2008 W.P.(C) 2735/2010 Page 70 of 78 and that the applicant had not co-operated with it.Nevertheless, its reports were not given to the applicant.It was in these circumstances that on 19.08.2008, the applicant attempted suicide and was subsequently charged for committing the offence under Section 309 IPC.Since the applicant was denied the copies of the Shashi Prabha Committee report, she applied to the court by filing a writ petition (i.e. W.P.(C)No.7971/2008).However, invoking Rule 135 was seen as the only option.In this background, on 07.12.2009, the Secretary (R) wrote to the PMO requesting for an early decision.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crl.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.02.2019 the deceased Ramalingam raised objections against the Dawah work as poor and back-trodden people were forced to convert Islam.The deceased took offensive of the conversion programme of the accused.During the protest and altercation, the deceased removed the skullcap of one of the muslim in Dawah programme and worn by him and applied sacred ashes on the forehead of the muslim and recorded the same in his mobile and uploaded in the social media.Thereby the deceased exhibited his protest by defending the rights of the Hindus.Irked by the protest against their Dawah work and subsequent altercation with the 2/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 deceased, A1 to A5, A17 & A18 along with other accused belonging to Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political organisation Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) had conspired to wage Jihad against the deceased, who is a non-Muslim.3.At about 08.30 p.m, A1 to A5, A17 & A18 conspired with each other near Periyapalli/Mosque at Thirubuvanam in person and over phone to commit the crime so as to create terror in the minds of the particular section of people as well as general public.In pursuant to the conspiracy, A1 to A8, A11 & A13 had joined together at Periyapalli/Mosque at about 11.00 a.m. A12, A15 to A18 had conspired at PFI Office, Kumbakonam at about 11.30 a.m. In furtherance to the conspiracy at about 12.30 p.m., A1, A5 to A8, A11 to A16 again assembled near Periyapalli Mosque.In pursuant to which, A11, A12 and A16 deputed A6 and A7 to carry out reconnaissance in their motorcycles bearing numbers TN 68 H 9786-Yamaha FZS and TN 68 E 9354-Hero Splendor Pro respectively.4.As early planned, A6 and A7 informed about the locations and movements of the deceased to the assailants A8 and A13 to A15, who travelled in Maruti Swift Dzire Car and intercepted the deceased, who was coming in his vehicle (Mini-lorry) at New Muslim Street at about 11.15 p.m. All the four accused got down from the Swife Dzire Car with big knife/Machet and bill hook (Aruval), questioned the deceased about the altercation with PFI Dawah team in the morning and abused the deceased with obscene language.The deceased is said to have stated that he already spoken about the problem to one Rasudeen, and he would speak next day morning.At that time, A8 stated that “if we leave you, you will indulge in similar activities”.Then, A8 took Chilly Powder, threw on the face of the deceased, who screamed and tried to open the door of the Mini-lorry using his left hand.At that time with the intention to kill the deceased, A13 and A15 caught hold of the right hand of the deceased and A8 inflicted heavy cut injury on the right elbow by using big knife and again he inflicted another cut injury on his left palm.Thereby, the deceased sustained deep injuries in tissues, muscles, vessels, nerves and bone.5.The accused pulled out the deceased from the vehicle, surrounded and attacked him with deadly weapons in order to kill him.At that time, A13 shouted and said that “don't leave him, kill him”.Immediately, A14 inflicted a blow on 4/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 the deceased by using a bill hook.The deceased blocked the attack with his left hand and he sustained cut injury on his left palm.On seeing a vehicle entering into the Muslim street, the assailants escaped from the scene in their car.Thereby the accused committed the terrorist act of lethally attacking and killing the deceased, with the intention of striking terror amongst a section of people.A10 in this case had harboured the assailants and reconnaissance accused at Karaikal in furtherance to the conspiracy.6.The son of the deceased Shiyam Sundar lodged a complaint before Thiruvidaimarudur Police Station, Thanjavur, which was registered in Crime No.17 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 of IPC on 06.02.2019 by the Sub Inspector of Police against four identifiable known persons, F.I.R in Crime No.17 of 2019 was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam.7.During the course of investigation based on the statements of the witnesses and considering the after effects of the crime as well as the terror intention created by the accused and the consequent impact of the incident on the minds of the particular section of the people, on 06.02.2019 the Inspector of Police filed an alteration report before the concerned Court to incorporate Section 15 r/w 16, 18, 18(b), 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and handed over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law and Order), Thanjavur.8.During the course of investigation the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur arrested A1 to A5 on 06.02.2019, A6 to A8 on 09.02.2019, A9 and A10 on 10.02.2019 and 12.02.2019 respectively.All of them were produced before the concerned Court and remanded to Judicial custody.9.Considering the gravity of the offence and other factors involved in this case, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division, North Block, New Delhi vide order No.11011/08/2019/NIA dated 05.03.2019 as per provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 r/w Section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008 entrusted the investigation to the National Investigation Agency.Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing registration number TN 48 L 1280 was provided by A9 to the assailants/A8, A13, A14 and A15, who had collected weapons viz., Matchet (big knife), big hook (Aruval), Chilly powder and waited to attack the deceased.Thereby the accused persons A1 to A18 had constituted themselves formed a terrorist gang with an intention of attacking the deceased and creating terror in the minds of a section of people.3/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019The medical officer of Thanjavur Medical College Hospital declared the deceased was brought dead.Thereafter the Sub Inspector of Police altered the Section 302 of IPC.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimarudur Police Station took up the investigation, conducted inquest, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch in the scene of crime.5/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019The entire case was submitted before the NIA Special Court, Poonamallee, Chennai.Thereafter A17 and A18 were arrested by the National Investigation Agency on 10.05.2019 and 26.06.2019 respectively.A11 to A16 along with other unidentified accused have been absconding ever since the incident.On the strength of warrant issued by the learned Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonammallee, the National Investigation Agency searched the accused at various places, including their house on 02.05.2019 and seized the incriminating materials/documents related to this case.All the seized documents and the material objects were produced before the Special Court along with search lists.The seized digital devices had been forwarded to CDAC, Thiruvananthapuram for analysis.The mirror images of the seized digital devices were obtained from CDAC, Thiruvananthapuram and on scrutiny it is found that the accused were in close association among themselves for the crime, as well as with PFI and SDPI is established.7/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 201911.The National Investigation Agency conducted the investigation and took up 11 accused persons viz., A1 to A10 and A17 into police custody for further investigation.On investigation it reveals that A1 to A5 were present at Pakku Vinayakam Thoppu, Village along with A17 and A18 and had hatched criminal conspiracy at Pakku Vinayakan Thoppu just after the verbal altercation took place between the deceased and the Dawah workers.They had also participated along with other accused in conspiracy meeting that took place near Periyapalli/Mosque Thirubhuvanam and other places after the altercation.In furtherance to the criminal conspiracy, the assailants and the conspirators had collected vehicles, weapons, chilly powder, arranged hideouts etc and they planned and decided to commit the terrorist act as part of doing jihad by chopping the hand of the deceased and thereby murdering him, acting themselves as a terrorist gang.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam to issue search warrant to produce her husband from illegal custody of the police.On 07.02.2019 the 9/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 same was taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.587 of 2019 and the learned Magistrate issued notice to the Inspector of Police, Thiruvadaimudur.Thereafter, the Inspector of Police produced the appellants before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam on 07.02.2019 at about 05.00 p.m. The appellants made a complaint against the police officers ill-treatment and torturing them.14.It is stated that the investigating agency by illegal manner, tortured the appellants and taken forcible confession statements and recorded the same.The trial Court failed to consider these factual aspects while passing the order.15.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the respondent has not recovered or seized any banned or objectional materials.Further mere possession of literature, pamphlets and other articles without actual execution of the ideas continued therein would not amount to any offence.The names of the appellants are not even mentioned in the FIR though they hail from the same place.The case in Crime No.17 of 2019 was registered at about 01.00 a.m on 06.02.2019 and the offence was altered by two subsequent alteration reports by adding the offence relating to the provision of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, within the short span of 15 minutes between two alteration reports.The trial Court failed to consider the fact that the 10/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 investigating agency invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for a murder case by giving terrorist colour with prefix mind within a short span of time without any materials.The lower Court has not followed the settled position of law denying rights of appellants to be enlarged on bail, on the other hand on mere allegations and alleged confessions, dismiss their bail applications.16.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the appellants have been in incarceration for more than 211 days.17.The lower Court failed to consider the accusations against the appellants under chapter IV and VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 based on case diary or materials gathered by the Investigating Officer.Hence, the lower Court without application of mind had mechanically dismissed 11/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 the bail petition of the appellants.It is noticed in the police report that the appellants had gathered at the place of occurrence at about 08.30 a.m made Dawah.It is for the Court considering the application for bail to assess the material/evidence presented by the Investigating Agency along with the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the named accused is prima facie true or otherwise.”22.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials this Court finds that the charge sheet is now filed in this case, after filing of the charge sheet the lower Court has to necessarily look into the materials under Section 173 of Cr.P.C and thereafter only decide the bail application on merits by 15/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 considering the contentions of the appellants with case diary, report u/s.173 of Cr.P.C/Charge sheet and materials available.23.In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, with liberty to the appellants to approach the trial Court by filing a fresh petition.The trial Court on considering the materials including the charge sheet, independently decide the bail application of the petitioner, uninfluenced by the dismissal order in the above appeal.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.16/17http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 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 seeking to quash the First InformationReport in Crime No. 202 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent, pursuantto the amicable settlement effected between the parties.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that theFirst Information Report in Crime No.202 of 2018 was registered against thepetitioner/Accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 IPC.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defactocomplainant admits that the matter has been compromised between the parties.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated18.04.2018, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matter pending.Therefore, the First Information Reportin Crime No. 202 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent in respect ofthe petitioner/accused alone, is hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basisof the compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 18.04.2018 shall form part of this order.The petitioner is directed topay the cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the Tamil NaduMediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench, under the head ofthe Infrastructure Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.1.The Inspector of Police,Sankarankovil Town Police Station,Sankarankovil,Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madras.

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

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

Item No. 18And In the matter of: Akbar Dowan & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Sankrail Police Station Case No. 440 of 2013 dated 05.07.2013 under sections 341/448/323/325/354/326/511/506/34 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.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with SI Ajay Kumar, Cyber Cell, Crime Branch.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALBy way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 95/2017 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at P.S Crime Branch, Delhi.Status report is on record.Brief facts of the present case as reflected in the FIR are that a complaint was lodged on 23.06.2017 by one Shrikant Achary who alleged that he received a call from one Tanya on behalf of ClickJob (job consultancy) who offered him a job through the said consultancy on the payment of a consideration of Rs.18,000/-; that on the said offer, the complainant made a payment of Rs.18,000/- through net banking; that thereafter the complainant received BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 1 of 5 several calls on behalf of ClickJob, from different numbers and he was made to pay a total consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- to ClickJob on the false assurance of securing him a job; that despite paying the entire amount charged by ClickJob, the complainant was neither given the job nor was the amount charged from him refunded; that that the said consultancy has since then avoiding the calls made by the complainant and hence the present complaint has been lodged.BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 1 of 5Mr. Kunal Madan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the present complaint has been lodged against ClickJob-a unit of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner has been arrested merely on the statement of the main accused Sanjeet Singh who is the director of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd.; that the petitioner's firm M/s ARV Busines Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has entered into a contract with M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. for providing telecalling services to ClickJob; that the petitioner's firms was merely a BPO centre providing telemarketing services on the instructions of ClickJob to inform its customers about the services offered by clickjob.com; that the obligation to provide the services offered by clickjob.com was completely of its own and the petitioner's firm was not liable for commitments made by the company ClickJob; that after initial interactions with the customers, the payments charged from the customers was directly paid to clickjob.com and the petitioner's firm was not a beneficiary BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 2 of 5 whatsoever in the said transactions; that the petitioner's firm is merely providing services to ClickJob, for which it is being paid by M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; that the entire amount as alleged in the FIR has already been paid to the complainant; that the main accused Sanjeet Kumat Singh has already been enlarged on regular bail and the other co-accused persons i.e. Ms. Barkha and Ms. Pooja, have been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court; that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody for a prolonged period and hence he be released on regular bail as prayed for.BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 2 of 5Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a Director of M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which has entered into a contract with ClickJob and both these entities are persuading people with false job assurances; that similar other complaints have also been lodged against the present petitioner alleging the same offence; that investigation in the present case is ongoing and hence the petition be dismissed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.Perusal of the record reveals that, as per the agreement dated 04.01.2016 entered into between M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd./ firm owned by main accused and M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd./petitioner's firm, the latter is engaged by the former to market and sell the product namely Resume Services through the website clickjob.com.which is a unit of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd.BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 3 of 5Therefore the ultimate beneficiaries in the said transactions M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. that is owned by the main accused Sanjeet Singh.As per records, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was charged from the complainant on the false assurance of providing him a job, out of which a sum of Rs.62,000/- was alleged to have been paid by him on the call made on behalf of the petitioner's firm.However the entire amount as charged from the complainant has been refunded back to him by the main accused Sanjeet Singh.Hence no recovery is yet to be effected from the present petitioner.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 4 of 5i) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of Trial Court concerned;ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required;Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case during trial.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 20, 2017 //gr BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 5 of 5BAIL APPLN.1961/2017 Page 5 of 5

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

I.A. No.6122/2021, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Heard on I.A.No.6123/2021, first application under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of the petitioners.This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 11.1.2021 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge in the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, District Guna (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.380/2015 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Guna in Criminal Case No.344/2011 by which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC (three counts) and has been sentenced to undergo six months RI, under section 324/34 of IPC sentenced to undergo eight months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, section 325/34 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.1,200/- with default stipulations.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted by the appellate Court as well as by the trial Court.It is further submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and has deposited the fine amount.Hence, prays to suspend the jail sentence of the petitioner.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed to reject the application for suspension of sentence.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits of the case, the application (I.A. No.6123/2021) is allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the petitioner is hereby suspended.It is hereby directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of 03 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.No. 554/2021 ( Ram Govind Vs.State of MP) Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.The petitioner is further directed to mark his appearance before the Office of this Court on 23.3.2021 and on subsequent dates given by the Office in this regard, till final disposal of this revision.In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing the petitioner, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if it is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the petitioner to his house, and if the test is found positive then the petitioner shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for her/his treatment as per medical norms.If the petitioner is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the petitioner has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued 04 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.No. 554/2021 ( Ram Govind Vs.State of MP) by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take them in custody and would send them to the same jail from where they were released.The petitioner is further directed to inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E- copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.List the case for final hearing in due course.E- copy of this order be sent to the Court below concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 1 of 5No child has been born out of the said wedlock.On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and mother- in-law.The salient terms and conditions of the settlement as enshrined in the said Settlement Agreement are as follows:-It is agreed between the parties that husband shall pay to the wife a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- as full and final settlement (against stridhan and dowry, maintenance of wife and children towards past, present and future maintenance, education etc.) and after the payment of the Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 2 of 5 entire settled amount nothing shall remain due against the husband or his family members qua this marriage.permanent alimony, stridhan, dowry articles, maintenance past, present and future etc. against the petitioners.Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement between the parties to the union, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been received by respondent no.2 (wife).The balance sum of Rs. 75,000/- has Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 3 of 5 been brought to the Court in the shape of a Demand Draft dated 25th January, 2016 bearing No. 694936 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Shastri Nagar, Delhi in favour of Neha Gupta, respondent no. 2(wife) herein.The latter acknowledges receipt thereof subject to its encashment.Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 3 of 5In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 5th January, 2016 has already been obtained by the parties from the concerned Family Court.Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. SI Rahul Malik, Police Station- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.Through Ms. Richa Kapoor, Addl.Standing Counsel (Crl.) SI Rahul Malik, PS Sarai Rohilla Mr. Durgesh Rao and Ms. Rama Yadav, Advocates for Resp.No. 2/complainant along with Complainant CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) Crl.MA No. 3620/2016 (Exemption)Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 1 of 5 quashing of FIR No. 385/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.The settled amount shall be paid in 3 installments.Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 2 of 5It is further agreed between the parties that the husband will pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the wife out of the total settlement amount at the time of recording of the statement in first motion divorce petition.It is further agreed between the parties that the husband will pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the wife out of the total settlement amount at the time of recording of the statement in second motion divorce petition.In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the union that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- towards all her claims vis.a vis.Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 4th June, 2015, without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent on 5th January, 2016; and the settlement between the parties Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 4 of 5 is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 4 of 5Resultantly, the FIR No. 385/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua both the petitioners subject to their paying further a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in aggregate to the complainant (wife) within a period of four weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 29, 2016 sd Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 5 of 5Writ Petition (Crl.) 656/2016 Page 5 of 5

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

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

It is directed that till disposal of I.A. No.7049/2017 and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on payment of fine, they shall be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 13.12.2017, and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as fixed by the Registry in this regard.C.C.as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)Learned counsel for the State submits that acknowledgment of service of notice on the complainant is still awaited.He is directed to serve notice in respect of pendency of the appeal as well as I.A. No.7049/2017 on the complainant and submit acknowledgment in that respect.Heard on point of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appellants were convicted under Section 323/34 (5 counts) of IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment each and under Section 3(1)(10) (5 counts) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and further sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment each by way of default stipulation respectively.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugesh @ Murugesan, son of Velayutham, aged about 24 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1178/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 6.9.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail respectively in Crl.M.P.No.9217/2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Cr.No.714/2013 under Sections 341, 294[b], 336, 353, 427, 307 and 506[ii] IPC and in Crl.O.P.No.27958/2013 on the file of the High Court, Chennai, in Cr.No.1512/2013 under Section 302 IPC.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The evidence disclosed those facts :- Deceased Ganesan is the maternal uncle of the appellant Gomu.They are residents of Veerasingamani village.P.W. 7 Avudaiammal is the wife of deceased Ganesan.Her mother in law wanted to gift away their house to her daughter who is the mother of the appellant Gomu.Ganesan was demanding his mother to give one third share to him in this house.On account of this Gomu used to quarrel frequently with Ganesan.Two days prior to the occurrence Gomu and their parents objected to Ganesan and P.W. 7 Avudaiammal living near the house of Ganesan's mother.On 7-8-1984 at about 9 a.m. Ganesan took coffee in the tea shop of P.W. 2 Gomathi Devan near Veerasigamani Bus Stand came out and stood there.At the time the appellant - Gomu, came there and saying that Ganesan was always causing hindrance to his family and he could be done away with stabbed on the stomach of Ganesan with a knife and ran towards east.Ganesan fell down.P.W. 1 Murugaiya who was coming to the Bus Stand saw blood oozing from the wound of Genesan.He immediately took his towel and placed the same on the wound and prevented blood coming out.P.W. 4 Murugesan was driving his taxi along that way.P.W. 2 Gomathi Devar and others sent Ganesan and P.W. 1 Murugaiya in that car.On reaching the Police Station P.W. 9 Grade I constable came to the car and recorded Ex. P. 1 complaint given by Ganesan.He also obtained L.T.I. of Ganesan in that complaint.Ganesan also produced M.O. 1 blood stained towel.Ganesan was in a position to talk well at that time.P.W. 13 constable was was entrusted with Exs.P. 1 and P. 11 at 10.15 a.m. handed over the same to Judicial Second Class Magistrate at 5.50 p.m. on that day.Then P.W. 9 Grade I Constable sent Ganesan to Government Hospital Sankaran Koil with Ex. P. 2 requisition through P.W. 12 constable.At 10.50 a.m. P.W. 5 Doctor examined Ganesan at Government Hospital Sankaran-Koil and found that he was dead.So he sent Ex. P. 3 death intimation to Police.Stomach is 8 1/2 ozs.of coffee coloured fluid present.Rectum and urinary, bladder are empty.Other organs are pale.Cause of death; is shock and haemorrhage due to injury sustained on the abdomen.Ex. P. 5 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the Doctor.In his opinion death would have occurred 3 to 12 hours prior to the post-mortem.He further states that he had wrongly written in Ex. P. 5 post-mortem certificate that death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem.The external injury and the corresponding internal injury are necessarily fatal.After the post-mortem P.W. 12 constable removed M.O. 5 blood stained Saram, M.O. 6 blood stained Underwear, M.O. 7 blood stained towel, M.O. 8 Banian and M.O. 9 Waist cord from the dead body and handed over the same in the Police Station.On 18-8-1984 at 10.45 a.m. P.W. 14 Inspector arrested the appellant near Kalladi Anmen Temple.Pursuant to the same he took him and P.W. 9 Thalaiyari to the dilapidated well in the village produced M.O. 3 knife with M.O. 4 cover.JUDGMENT Thangamani, J.The appeal against he conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under S. 302, I.P.C. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 49 of 1985 on his file.The case of the prosecution is that on 7-8-1984 at about 9 a.m. in front of the shop of P.W. 2 Gomathi Devar in Veerasigamani village the appellant Gomu caused the death of the Ganesan by stabbing him with a knife.The prosecution examined 14 witnesses filed 18 Exhibits and Marked 9 Material Objects.Of the witness examined P.W. 1 Murugaiya and P.W. 3 Kailsamoopanar turned hostile.On receipt of the same P.W. 10 Head Constable altered the crime to one under S. 302, I.P.C. and prepared Ex. P. 12 express F.I.R. He sent Ex. P. 12 to Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court.On receipt of the message P.W. 14 Inspector took up investigation of the case.He proceeded to Veerasigamani village visited the scene place and at 11.45 a.m. prepared Ex. P. 6 observation mahazar and Ex. P. 18 rough sketch.He recovered M.O. 2 blood stained earth from the scene place under Ex. P. 7 mahazar.P.W. 8 Thalaiyari who was present then attested Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 7 mahazars.P.W. 10 constable came to the scene place and handed over Ex. P. 12 express report to P.W. 14 Inspector.There upon the Inspector went to Government Hospital Sankaran Koil from 1.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m., he held inquest over the dead body of Ganesan.Ex. P. 8 is the inquest report.Then he handed over the dead body to P.W. 12 constable with Ex. P. 4 requisition for post-mortem.On the same day at 4.30 p.m. P.W. 6 Doctor commenced the post-mortem in Government Hospital, Sankarankoil.Rigor Mortis was present in all the four limbs.The doctor found a stab incised injury of 1-1/2" x 1" x depth up to abdominal cavity present 1/2" to the left of umblicus.The injury is obliquely present from outwards to in wards.One foot of small intenstine came out through the injury.The intestine is pinkish in colour.The muscles and peritoneum under the injury are pierced.The superior mesentric artery is divided at its centre, 1-1/2 litres of blood present in the abdominal cavity.Heart chambers empty.and 1-1/2 ozs.The Inspector seized the same under Ex. P. 10 mahazar.On 19-8-1984 P.W. 14 Inspector sent Ex. P. 13 requisition to Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court to send the blood stained article for chemical examination P.W. 11 Head Clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court arranged to send them for chemical examination under the original of Ex. P. 14 covering letter.P. 15 and P. 16 of the reports of the chemical Examiner and Serologist.8A. When the appellant was examined under S. 313, Criminal Procedure Code he denied the allegations against him.After the trial the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty convicted and sentenced him as indicated earlier.Thiru M. Ravindran and learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased Ganesan, was not in a position to give such a lengthy statement as that in Ex. P. 1 and in view of the medical evidence it is highly doubtful whether the deceased is the author of this complaint.This complaint is purported to have been given at 9.30 a.m. on 7-8-1984 by Ganesan in the Police Station.This constitutes a dying declaration also.P.W. 1 Murugaiya an attestor to this complainant has turned hostile.He then states in this complaint that on 7-8-1984 at 9 a.m. while he was standing in front of the tea shop of P.W. 2 Gomathi Devar the appellant Gomu came there with a knife and stabbed in his stomach saying that Ganesan was always causing trouble to his family.The learned counsel for the appellant next argued that there has been undue delay in this complaint reaching the Court and hence it should not be given any weight.This has been recorded at 9.30 a.m. by P.W. 9 Grade I Constable.Ex. P. 11 the printed F.I.R. and this complaint were entrusted with P.W. 13 constable at 10.15 a.m. The Police Station in Senthamaram is 3 Kms.away from the bus stand of Veerasingamani which is the place of occurrence.And it is the evidence of P.W. 13 constable that he handed over the copy of F.I.R. to the Inspector.The Inspector directed him to deliver the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.So he went to Ambasamuthiram and furnished the copy of Ex. P. 11 to Deputy Superintendent of Police at 2 p.m. He boarded the bus at 2.30 at Ambasamuthiram and and reached Sankaran Koil.Since Judicial Second Class Magistrate was not available in the Court he went to his house and handed over the complaint at 5.50 p.m. No doubt in Ex. P. 7 pass port of the constable there is no endorsement that the copies of the F.I.R. issued to the Inspector of Alankulam and Deputy Superintendent of Police Ambasamuthiram were handed over to him and on the reverse of Ex. P. 11 there is correction in the time of handing over of the copy of Ex. P. 11 to Deputy Superintendent of Police.However, considering the facts that the complaint of Ex. P. 1 was originally registered only under S. 307, I.P.C. and that Sankaran Koil is at a distance of 1.15 hours bus journey from Senthamaram Police Station, we do not think that there has been any undue delay in the complaint reaching the Court.The recital in Ex. P. 1 is to the effect that the deceased was brought to the Police Station in a car.This version gets support from the evidence of P.W. 4 Taxi Driver who speaks about his taking the injured to the Police Station and from there to the Police Station and there to the Hospital.He is an independent witness and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to improbablise his version.The mere fact that his trip sheet has not been produced does not by itself make his evidence unreliable.Further, P.W. 9 Grade I Constable also mentions in his evidence about bringing the deceased in the car to the Police Station.This also corroborates the narration in Ex. P. 1 complaint.P.W. 2 Gomathi Devar is stated to be an eye-witness to the occurrence.Though he swears in his Chief Examination that at 9.00 a.m. on 7-8-84 while deceased was standing in front of his tea shop Ganesan came there and stabbed on his stomach, in his cross-examination he admits that as he was inside the tea shop and looking after his business he did not witness the occurrence directly.So the evidence of this witness is of not much help to the prosecution.However, it is helpful to the limited extent of holding that the deceased was sent in a car to hospital from the place in front of his tea shop.Though the entire prosecution version is based on Ex. P. 1 dying declaration, we find corroboration of the centents of the same from the evidence of P.W. 4 Taxi Driver as well as medical evidence.P.W. 6 Doctor has found a stab incised injury in the abdomen cavity.He is of opinion that the deceased would have been in a position to talk well at least for one hour after his sustaining the injury.He admits in cross-examination that there was a possibility of the injured becoming unconscious on account of loss of one-third of the blood.But he does not completely rule out the deceased remaining conscious for some time after the occurrence.Further as per the evidence of P.W. 14 Inspector and P.W. 8 Thalaiyari, pursuant to the confession statement the appellant had produced M.O. 3 knife.The admissible portion of the confession statement Ex. P. 9 reads that if he is taken he would show the place and produce the knife.And Ex. P. 16 serologist report reveals that M.O. 3 knife, M.O. 1 shirt.M.O. 5 Lungi and M.O. 7 Towel contained the same AB Group of human blood.So we have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant had inflicted the injury found on the deceased.The trial Court has taken the view that the offence committed by the appellant is punishable under S. 30, I.P.C. But it is seen that though the deceased was standing unarmed in front of the tea shop of P.W. 2 Gomathi devar the appellant had inflicted only one injury on the stomach.He had not chosen to assault on any vital part of the body.There is nothing in evidence to indicate that anybody prevented him from inflicting more than one injury.However he took to his heels immediately after giving a solitary blow.Though Ex. P. 1 recites that the appellant dealt the blow saying (vernacular omitted) the background of the case does not indicate that the appellant had any idea to do away with his maternal uncle.Had his intention been to cause the death of Ganesan he could have inflicted more than one injury on any vital part of the body.Considering the fact that the appellant was aged only about 19 years at the time of occurrence, it is likely he had taken recourse to this action to exhibit his anger over the stand of his maternal uncle in the property dispute.Though P.W. 6 doctor says that the injury is necessarily fatal, Ex. P. 7 post-mortem certificate reveals that the incised injury is of 1" depth and death was due to the cutting of superior messentric artery at its centre.Evidently the appellant could not have known that a stab on the stomach would result in the cutting of this artery.In this background we are inclined to hold that the appellant had dealt the solitary blow only with the knowledge that the act is unlikely to cause death in which case the offence is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S. 299, I.P.C.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence under S. 302, I.P.C. are set aside.Appeal allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 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 Ram Singh, co-accused Gajendra Singh as well a deceased Ram Swaroop were residents of Village Sultanpur, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri.According to the prosecution a month prior to the occurrence Ram Singh -- appellant and his nephew Gajendra Singh had taken forcibly water of the tube-well in their field through the field of Ram Swaroop, the deceased, and on latter's protests they had threatened him with dire consequences.The occurrence in question had taken place on 23-12-1982 at about 7 p.m. when the deceased had already finished his evening meals, while his wife Smt. Margsri (P.W. 2) was serving meals to the two sons of the deceased.A kerosene Dibbi was burning nearby.Ram Singh appellant along with co-accused Gajendra Singh and two others arrived there.Ram Singh had a gun while Gajendra Singh had a country made pistol with him.The other two were also arrived Gajendra Singh exhorted his uncle Ram Singh "CHACHA KYA DEKHTE HO, MARO SAALE KO GOLI AUR PANI NA NIKALNE KA MAZA CHAKHA DO".Thereupon both the assailants fired with their arms in spite of all prostrations by Smt. Margsri and her sons.Ram Swaroop died on the spot.After hearing the alarm, witnesses from the nearby houses arrived.The assailants, however, managed to make good their escape.1. Ram Singh has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to life imprisonment, passed by Sri O.P. Jain, V Addl.Written Report (Ex. Ka 3) of the occurrence was submitted at P. S. Bewar on the following day at 8 a.m. on the basis of which case was registered and investigation followed.Postmortem on the dead body was conducted on 25-12-1982 at 2.35 p.m. by Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya (P.W. 5) and noted as follows, vide post-mortem report (Ex. Ka 15).Deceased was aged about 40 years.Rigor mortis was present on both lower and upper extremities.No sign of decomposition was present.Ante Mortem injuries :Fire arm wound of entry 1.5 cm.x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on the left side chest front 8 c.m. above and medial to left nipple at 10 O'clock present.Margins everted.No blackening and scorching and tattooing present.2. Abrasion 2 cm.x 1.5 cm on the outer and back of left fore-arm 6 cm above left wrist.Abrasion 1.5 cm.x 0.5 cm on the front of left leg 9 cm above left lateral malleus.Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh 17 cm below right iliac crest.On internal examination left pleura, lung and heart were found lacerated.Semi digested food material was found and five big metallic pellets were recovered from abdominal cavity.Stomach contained food material.In the opinion of the Doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the aforesaid injuries which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Both Ram Singh and Gajendra Singh were charged and tried under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty.To prove its case the prosecution in all examined five witnesses of whom P.W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh is the son and P.W. 2 Smt. Margsri is the wife of the deceased who gave an eye-witness account of the occurrence and fully corroborated the prosecution story stated above.P.W. 3 Head Constable Narendra Singh had received the written report and prepared the chick report and registered the case in the General Diary.P.W. 4 S.O., A.P. Singh, the Investigating Officer deposed about the various steps taken by him in the course of investigation.He had found blood at the scene of the occurrence.Lastly P.W. 5 Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya proved the post-mortem report and its contents as stated above.The version of the appellant Ram Singh has been that he had moved an application against the deceased and others; that he had no plot near the field of Ram Swaroop, deceased; that Ram Swaroop was also prosecuted in a dacoity case and remained in jail for two months; that Pradhan of the village has got him falsely implicated; that the murder had taken place some time late in the night and not at 7 p.m. as alleged.5. D. W. 1 Brijendra Singh, Assistant Jailer, District Jail, Mainpuri was examined and he had appeared with Jail Register No. 12 of the under trials of the year 1975 and proved that Ram Swaroop was admitted in the Jail on 25-3-1975 and filed Ex. Kha 1 true copy of that entry in the Jail Register.The learned Sessions Judge, however, believed the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the defence version, but he gave benefit of doubt to Gajendra Singh, hence acquitted him, but convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to life imprisonment.On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the F.I.R. was not lodged at the time as shown by the prosecution; that the occurrence had not taken place at 7 p.m. and that there was no sufficient light wherein the assailants of the deceased could be identified and lastly, if the evidence for finding guilt of Gajendra Singh, co-accused was insufficient, the appellant also should not have been convicted on the same evidence of highly interested witnesses.The F. I. R. was submitted by P.W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh, son of the deceased.He has deposed that he had taken report to the police station in the morning getting it described from one Jagdish.P.W. 3 Head Constable Narendra Singh has deposed that he was posted as Head Muharrir at P.S. Bewar on 24-12-1982; that he had registered the case in the General Diary and proved its copy Ex.Surprisingly, it was not asked from him nor it was stated that the chick F.I.R. was prepared by him.However, P.W. 4, S.O., A.P. Singh, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the chick F.I.R. was prepared by Head Moharrir Narendra Singh and that part of his statement stands undisputed.Thus, it appears that there has been a slip by the learned State Counsel when the testimony of Head Moharrir, Narendra Singh was recorded in not getting the chick F.I.R. also proved by Head Moharrir, Narendra Singh (P.W. 3).He denied the defence suggestion that till 26-12-1982 the F.I.R. was not recorded, but it was subsequently recorded.Prima facie, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. was not recorded on 24-12-1982 but was recorded some time on 26-12-1982 because the post mortem on the dead body was conducted on 25-12-1982 at 2.35 p.m. The inquest report also specifically contains that the copy of the F.I.R. was also sent along with the other papers with the dead body for post mortem.Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya, who had done the autopsy, was not cross-examined on the point and it was not suggested to him that the inquest report and other papers which were sent for post-mortem of the dead body did not contain a copy of the F.I.R.The main criticism on behalf of the appellant had been that the evidence of eyewitnesses was not worthy of credence as it was of highly interested persons and that there was no sufficient light wherein they could recognise the assailants of the deceased.It is no doubt true that the two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh is the son and P.W. 2 Smt. Margsri is the widow of the deceased, hence their testimony has to be closely scrutinised.They were the natural witnesses of the crime as it was done in their presence when food was being served by Smt. Margsri to her two sons at about 7 p.m. It was the month of December and, therefore, at that time there must be some light at that place when the food was being served.Both P.W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh as well as P. W. 2 Smt. Margsri have deposed that there was light of the kerosene Dibbi and that the deceased had already taken his meal and he was sitting and warming himself.P, W. 1 Ram Ladete has further stated that the deceased had taken his meal about half an hour prior to the occurrence.The fact that the deceased had already taken his meals stands corroborated by the post-mortem report which shows that food material was present in the stomach and semi-digested food material was found in the abdomen cavity.Besides the testimony of these two witnesses that food was being served it is also in the testimony of P.W. 4, Station Officer, A.P. Singh, the Investigating Officer.In his cross-examination that on the spot he found food burnt wood and "JUTHE BARTAN" (uncleaned utensils wherein meal was taken).He, however, admitted that he did not show them in his inspection note and that he had not taken them in his custody as he did not consider it necessary.He, however, denied that there was no food or 'JUTHE BARTAN' on the spot.It is not there in his statement that he had stayed in the night at the house of the deceased.In view of the above, we have no hesitation in believing the prosecution evidence of Ram Ladete Singh (P.W. 1) the son and Smt. Margsri (P.W. 2) wife of the deceased, who were most natural witnesses being inmates of the house that at about 7 p.m. a kerosene Dibbi was burning.On behalf of the appellant it was strongly urged that the occurrence had taken place late in the night when the deceased and the inmates; of the house had gone to sleep.The F.I.R. was lodged next morning.However, if the deceased had been murdered while he was sleeping, then his dead-body would not have been found at the place where the food was being served on the ground.His dead-body could have been in any of the living rooms as it was the month of December and it could not have been lying without a cot and bedding in a varandah.The Investigating Officer had found blood, pellets and empty cartriges in the Varandah near the dead-body of the deceased which wholly corroborate the evidence of those two eye-witnesses.On behalf of the defence it was also contended that there was no evidence to prove how the three abrasion injuries found on the dead-body were caused.The following three abrasion injuries were noted on the dead-body by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem.2. Abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the outer and back of left forearm 6 cm above left wrist.Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of left leg 9 cm above left lateral malleus.Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh 17 cm below right iliac crest.These abrasion injuries appear to have been caused by pellets.The entire pellets had not entered the body through the gun shot wound of entry of 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm vide injury No. 1 on the dead body but only five pellets had entered the body through wound No. 1 which were recovered at the time of the post-mortem.The investigating Officer had also recovered an empty cartridge, tiklies and pellets from near the dead body.The distance from where the assailant had fired the shot as shown in the site map was about 3 steps.That also corroborates the cause for the dispersal of shots and not enmass entry of the entire shot in the wound.That apart, one or two such minor abrasions could have also taken place when the deceased had fallen down on receipt of the gun shot and writhed with agony on the ground for howsoever short duration it might be.The learned trial Judge has not disbelieved the testimony of these two eye witnesses even against Gajendra Singh but as a matter of extreme precaution has given him the benefit of doubt as he had not caused any injury to the deceased.No other point was passed in this appeal.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Kranti Vs.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.439/2015 registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.As per prosecution case, one case bearing Case No.133/2013 for offence punishable under section 304-B, 398A is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge Ambah in which on 20.7.2014 one application has been filed on behalf of the applicant that at the time of incident she was minor and her case be sent to Juvenile Court Morena along with this application one photocopy of mark-sheet was also filed and in the mark-sheet the date of birth of applicant was mentioned as 1.7.1996 thereafter the Court has summoned the Headmaster of the Govt. Primary School Midhelda for giving evidence in this regard and the Headmaster has stated that date of birth was mentioned in admission register Class VI is 1.1.1991 and mark-sheet which has been filed by the applicant is forged.On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the crime has been registered against the present applicant.Conclusion of trial is likely to take time.Hence prayed for bail.C.No.8463/2015 (Ku.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(M.C. Garg) Judge pawar/-

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

during prohibition raid near Mattu Mandai Railway Gate, Thiruvottriyur, the Inspector of Police, PEW, Washermanpet Police Station intercepted a Stationery Canter Van bearing Registration Number TN29 W 3232 when some men and women were found unloading some boxes.On seeing the police party, some of those persons escaped and 5 males and 3 women were apprehended by the police.A1 to A7 were arrested.On interrogation A1 produced bills and vouchers and stated that the material on load was phenoil and bleaching powder etc., On suspicion, the materials were opened and checked and found 10 Iron barrels containing 18000 Karnataka Sachets 100ml each, 10 plastic canes containing 4750 Karnataka Sachets 100ml each, 18 gunny bags containing 600 Karnataka Sachets 100ml in each gunny bag total containing 10800 Karnataka Sachets, 2 gunny bags containing 500 Karnataka Sachets in each gunny bag total containing 1000 Karnataka Sachets, 51 card board boxes each card board box containing 900 Karnataka Sachets in each containing 45,900 Karnataka Sachets and one cardboard box containing 600 Karnataka Sachets and in total there were 81,050 Karnataka Sachets i.e., 8105 liters of Arrack.A1 confessed that the Arrack sachets were supplied by the petitioner an arrack godown owner at Malur in Kolar District near Bangalore in Karnataka State.He also confessed that the bills and vouchers were bogus in nature and the van was owned by one Shanmuga Sundaram of Hosur.For the purpose of availing the above loan to the said Perumal Samy the petitioner is said to have mortgaged four of her properties at Bangalore.Their further statement would also show that she has mortgaged the properties by deposit of the original documents as guarantor in respect of the loans availed by the said Perumal Samy , an arrack contractor at Malur.P.W.29 in the charge sheet is a clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Excise, Kolar District, Karnataka State and his statement would reveal that during the year 1.7.2002 to 30.06.2003, Malur Taluk arrack was taken by one Perumalsamy by paying 1,15,20,000/- through cheques from Canara bank, Hombegowda Branch of Bangalore and the said Perumalsamy paid Rs.38,40,000/- through Canara Bank Hombegowda Branch every month.It is also stated that the said Perumalsamy paid a E.M.D. of Rs.55,00,000/- at the beginning of the contract and as a contractor he has to offtake 33,000/- litres of arrack every month.For every liter of arrack Rs.20/- is collected and the said Perumalsamy is said to have paid the entire amount due to the Excise Department and there is no outstanding amount in his contract .According to the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the FIR based on the confession of A1 the arrack sachets were purchased at Malur in Kolar District of Karnataka State.According to the prosecution, the petitioner is said to be an arrack godown owner at Malur.A perusal of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statements of P.Ws 27 and 28 the manager and Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Hombe Gowda Nagar Branch would show that the petitioner has mortgaged her four properties in the said bank for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.1,15,20,000/- to one Perumal Samy alleged to be a close associate of the petitioner .His contract was closed on 30.6.2003 and he did not take the contract for the subsequent year.The arrack sachets were seized on 22.08.2002, i.e., the period during which the said Perumalsamy was a licensed contractor of the Karnataka Government for Malur Taluk.The case of the prosecution is also that according to A1, the arrack sachets were purchased at Malur town from the petitioner who is said to be a close associate of the said contractor Perumalsamy for whose contract the petitioner has given four of her properties as mortgage to the Canara Bank for availing a loan by Mr.Perumalsamy.Atropine was found only in items 5,6 and 7 of the analyst's report which were the samples taken in bottles.The samples have been taken only on 3.9.2002 from a different place almost after 10 days from the date of seizure of the arrack sachets purchased in Karnataka.At the beginning of the confession itself A1 says that he was in custody of the police while giving the second confession.On the other hand, these three samples were taken in bottles from the loose arrack kept by A1 at a different place.Therefore there is no connection between the loose arrack said to have been in possession of A1 and the petitioner.But, there should be substantive evidence before the confession of co-accused can be used to set at rest any doubt.

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

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

The Katara family were residents of 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, an official accommodation allotted to Shri Nishit M. Katara, government servant.The family consisted of his Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 4 wife Nilam Katara; their elder son Nitish Katara (deceased) and a second son Nitin Katara.Bharti Yadav's best friend from childhood, Shivani Gaur, was also studying at IMT Ghaziabad but pursuing a different course at that time, i.e. the PGDEM course, specializing in marketing.The course finished in the year 2000 whereafter Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta moved away to their respective home towns while Nitish Katara took a job with Reliance General Insurance in Delhi itself as his father was ill.Bharti continued to reside in the National Capital Region as well.In around January, 2001 with passage of time the friendship of this young couple blossomed into a love affair.This relationship was known to Bharti's family members and relatives including her sister Bhawna Yadav, mother Umlesh Yadav, brother Vikas Yadav, cousin brother Vishal Yadav as well as her maternal aunt (mami -mother's brother's wife/wife of Bharat Singh) and paternal aunt (bua' -father's sister).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 5This aversion was the motive for the abduction and murder of Nitish Katara.To this wedding, Shivani Gaur invited the family of Bharti Yadav as well as the family of Nitish Katara.She also invited her old friends Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta.To attend the wedding and other related ceremonies, Bharat Diwakar came to Delhi from Madhya Pradesh and stayed with the family of his friend Nitish Katara at 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi.The two friends attended the sangeet ceremony in connection with the marriage on the night of 15th February, 2002 where Nitish Katara danced with Bharti.On 16th February 2002, Nitish Katara and Bharat Diwakar went in a hired taxi to participate in Shivani Gaur's wedding and they reached the wedding venue around 10:00/10:15 pm and greeted the bride.Bharti Yadav was on the dias with the bride and they got a picture taken at the wedding with Bharti Yadav and the bride (Exh PW 6/2).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 6Vikas and Vishal Yadav also went to Shivani Gaur's wedding and the prosecution led evidence that they reached there after 11:00 pm.Gaurav Gupta came to attend the wedding from Faizabad on the 16th of February, 2002 itself and was picked up from the railway station by another friend namely, Yashoman Tomar.He was dropped at the wedding venue by Yashoman Tomar at about 11:15/11:30 p.m.While Nitish Katara, Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta were eating dinner, a young person approached Nitish Katara and took him aside.Bharat Diwakar subsequently learnt that the name of this person was Vishal Yadav.As per the prosecution, between midnight and 12:30 a.m., Nitish Katara was thereafter spotted with the three appellants in a Tata Safari bearing Punjab registration No.Inderjeet Singh and Ct.Satender Pal Singh (police personnel on checking duty in gypsy Chetak 13) parked a little distance from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall and finally by Ajay Kumar at the Hapur Chungi.Nitish Katara was not seen alive thereafter.Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta finished their meal and decided to return to their respective accommodations.Upon receipt of a message about Yashoman Tomar's arrival to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 7 pick up Gaurav, they searched for Nitish Katara at the wedding venue but could not find him.Gaurav Gupta also made unsuccessful efforts to contact Nitish Katara on his mobile.Bharat Diwakar had also unsuccessfully tried to contact Nitish Katara on the telephone and thereafter decided to return to 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi.He left the wedding venue and reached the Katara residence alone at about 3:00 am in a hired taxi.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 7It appears that in the meantime, Bharti Yadav became frantic as her brothers and Sukhdev @ Pehalwan had taken away Nitish Katara.She made desperate attempts to reach him on his phone.She also tried to track her brothers by calling the landline numbers at her residence but was unable to find them.By 7:00 am of the 17th of February 2002, Bharti Yadav had called up Bharat Diwakar several times out of anxiety to know the whereabouts of Nitish Katara.Back at 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, Nilam Katara (mother of Nitish Katara) was surprised to see Bharat Diwakar returning alone.In answer to the query of Nilam Katara as to why he returned alone, he could not give any satisfactory answer and went off to sleep.Nilam Katara was also unsuccessful in contacting Nitish Katara on his mobile phone.Unable to sleep because of anxiety, she saw that all the family cars were parked outside Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 8 her house.She woke Bharat Diwakar up and asked him as to how Nitish Katara would return home.Bharat Diwakar disclosed to her that they had gone to Ghaziabad by taxi in which he alone had returned and that Nitish would come with somebody else.Bharat Diwakar also stated to Nilam Katara that he had not met Nitish Katara before returning to Delhi.He had no answer as to how he derived the knowledge that Nitish will come with somebody else.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 8Nilam Katara then took Bharti Yadav's phone number from Bharat Diwakar and called her from the landline phone.Bharti Yadav disclosed that she was also unsuccessful in reaching Nitish Katara.Bharti Yadav also asked Nilam Katara as to whether the boys (Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta) had not told her that her brothers Vikas and Vishal Yadav had taken Nitish Katara away from the wedding.Nilam Katara made desperate calls to Shri D.P. Yadav who also told her that he had heard something and would call her if he got any information.To a second phone call, he told her that he was busy in elections and would get back to her.Nilam Katara also rang up Bharti Yadav to tell her that if she is not able to get any information about her son, she would go to the police station to lodge a complaint and that she would be giving Bharti's name as well in the complaint.To that Bharti Yadav responded that Nilam Katara should give Bharti's name to the police even if it was a slur to her family and that Nilam did not know what they were doing to her son.SHO, P.S. Kavi Nagar My son Nitish Katara on 16th February, 2002 had attended the marriage of Shivani Gaur R/O 53, Model Town, Ghaziabad in the Diamond Palace.Nitish ate dinner with his friend Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta.Bharat Diwakar Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 10 had told that while they were eating dinner, Vishal s/o Late Kamal Raj Yadav came to them.Rohit s/o B.K. Gaur had told that Vikas s/o Sh.D.P. Yadav and Vishal s/o Late Sh.Nitish was taken out by Vishal and Vikas while talking to him.When Bharat could not see him there, he returned to our house.I am apprehensive that some untoward incident may have happened.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 10Nitish (my son) and Bharti Yadav D/o Sh.D.P. Yadav had studied together between 1998 to 2000 at the IMT and shared a friendship.Possibly (sambhavtah') Vishal, Vikas did not like this friendship.Therefore, you are requested to record this information and kindly undertake the necessary action.Nilam Katara 7, Chelmsford Road (Exh.PW-1/A) In this complaint thus she stated that her son was missing; she had briefly written about his relationship with Bharti Yadav and made a reference to possible objections thereto by her brothers Vikas and Vishal Yadav.SI Anil Somania was appointed as the investigating officer in the case.From the police station, Nilam Katara contacted Bharti Yadav on her mobile when Bharti informed that she has been taken away to Faridabad to her sister's house; that nobody was telling her anything and that Nilam Katara should search for her son as time was crucial.Nilam Katara Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 11 was unable to get any information from Shri D.P. Yadav's house where she met Bharti Yadav's mother Umlesh who knew close details of Nilam Katara's family.Bharti Yadav was physically spirited away from her residence in Ghaziabad and sent to Faridabad on the 17 th of February 2002 itself.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 11At about 9:00/9:15 am in the morning of 17th February, 2002, Police Station Khurja received a message from Shri Virender Kumar that a badly burnt dead body was lying on the Shikharpur Road near Khurja.The doctor had observed a fracture injury about 7 cms above the left eyebrow of the dead body.The post mortem report Crl.Armed with this information, on 3rd February, 2002 the police laid a trap to apprehend Sukhdev @ Pehalwan in Bulandshahr area.He could not be physically apprehended but the police laid their hands on a guarantee card bearing a photograph and his complete address (Exh.PW22/A1 in the trial of Sukhdev Yadav).A separate police team was constituted for apprehension and arrest of Sukhdev Pehalwan.Raids were conducted in several places but he could not be apprehended even at his native village.Arrest warrants from the court were also of no consequence.On 31st March, 2002, Sukhdev Yadav was consequently declared a proclaimed offender, an award was declared for information about him and a proclamation for the reward was published in a newspaper with a photograph and also telecast on T.V. An arms licence for a double barrel gun which was held by Sukhdev Yadav from Bulandshahr, U.P. was got cancelled in the year, 2002 by the Investigating Officer.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 16These appellants first pointed out the spot near the Aughwar Railway crossing as the site of the crime as well as the spot where the dead body was thereafter burnt on the Khurja - Pahasu road.Site plans were drawn by the police.Thereafter, Vikas Yadav proceeded to a clump of pattel' bushes and, after searching, took out a hammer (with blood stains on one end of the hammer head) from amongst the bushes.Vishal Yadav searched in another clump of pattel bushes and pulled out a wrist watch from amongst them which, as per the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 17 prosecution, was worn by Nitish Katara on that fateful night.No mobile phone was recovered.A combined recovery memo of the above (Exh.PW34/1) was recorded by the police.The recovery memo was signed by Vishal Yadav and also dated by him.Vikas Yadav not only signed the recovery memo but endorsed receipt of the copy thereof.A copy of the same was given at the spot itself to the accompanying counsel for the accused Shri Satpal Singh Yadav who acknowledged receipt thereof.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 17As per the disclosure statement Vikas and Vishal Yadav then led the police party to Alwar, Rajasthan for recovery of the Tata Safari vehicle.Three places were searched as pointed out by the accused but the Tata Safari vehicle could not be traced.For want of time, the police returned to Ghaziabad and after medical check-up, they lodged Vikas and Vishal Yadav in custody.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 18 days police custody remand from 2:00 pm of 9th March, 2002 to 2:00 pm of 11th March, 2002 for the purpose of recovery.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 18By then Vikas and Vishal Yadav had been taken to police station Dabra, District Gwalior in connection with the cases registered against them there.They effectively managed to delay handing over of their custody to Ghaziabad police.While in transit towards Punjab, the accused informed the police that the Tata Safari vehicle was at the taxi stand, Shamshan Ghat, Panipat.The accused persons were taken to this spot.However, nothing was found at this taxi stand.The accused then informed the police that the car was pearl green in colour and bore registration no. PB-07-H-0085 and that the same was at their factory at Karnal.The two accused thereafter led the police party to the premises of A.B. Coltex at Karnal, a burnt down factory which was lying closed.However even from Ct.Inderjit Singh's evidence, it was established even in his evidence that Vikas and Vishal Yadav, Nitish Katara and one more person were on the road coming from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall around midnight on 16th February, 2002 and travelling in the same direction.Satendra Pal Singh stated that four persons including the three appellants and a fourth in a red kurta were in the Tata Safari which came from the said banquet hall.He identified the person in the red kurta as Nitish Katara from photos.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 19On 18th March, 2002, the Investigating Officer Anil Somania recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Ajay Kumar to the effect that at about 12:00/12:15 in the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 20 night intervening 16th/17th February, 2002 he had spotted the Tata Safari near Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad.The vehicle was being driven by Vikas Yadav, while Nitish Katara (deceased) was sitting on the passenger seat next to him; Vishal Yadav sat behind the driver while Sukhdev Yadav was sitting behind the deceased.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 20That after murdering Nitish Katara, you both alongwith co-accused Sukhdev @ Pahlwan (PO) removed all signs of identification including clothes from his body and poured inflammable material on his body and burnt his body on the abovesaid Khurja - Pahasu Road and caused evidence of murder disappear with th4e intention of screening Crl.And I hereby direct that you both be tried for the above-mentioned offences.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 23Vikas and Vishal Yadav pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.During the trial, the prosecution examined 43 witnesses.On 20thApril, 2007 and 26th April, 2007 the statements of Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav respectively were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused persons opted to lead defence and examined 23 witnesses in defence.After detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court passed a judgment dated 28th May, 2008 whereby Vikas and Vishal Yadav were convicted for the offences with which they were charged.By a separate order dated 30th May, 2008, Vikas and Vishal Yadav were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each under Section 302/34 IPC in default each to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year.Both convicts were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each under Section 364/34 IPC in default each to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.The convicts were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and were to pay a fine of Rs.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 2410,000/- each under Section 201/34 IPC in default each to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.Sukhdev @ Pehalwan 's TrialSukhdev @ Pehalwan was arrested when he shot at police party from police station Patcherawa Village, District Kushi Nagar, U.P. at the night of 11th February, 2005 at 1:30 am.Upon his search, in the right hand one country made pistol .315 bore was found and from the pocket of his pant two live cartridges were recovered.One used cartridge from the chamber of the country-made pistol and one used cartridge lying on the spot was also found.Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was arrested by the police station Dewaria and FIR No.56/2005 was registered under Section 307/7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. Another FIR bearing no.57/2005 was registered against him under the Arms Act.The prosecution has examined PW-21 retired S.I. Umakant Pandey; PW-20 S.I. Ajit Kumar Misra about the arrests and the case in District Kushi Nagar against Sukhdev Yadav.Information about the arrests was given to the Ghaziabad police by a fax message (Exh.PW22/A2 in Sukhdev's trial) Crl.He was produced before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.Her brothers Vishal and Vikas Yadav were averse to the same.Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was an employee of the family of Shri D.P. Yadav at their liquor vend in Bulandshahr and used to roam around with Vikas Yadav, indicating close association certainly more than that a mere employee sharing of motive is to be inferred from these incriminating Crl.(ii)&(iii)Nitish Katara, Bharti, PW 26 Gaurav Gupta, PW 25 Bharat Diwakar, PW 11 Shivani Gaur studied at the IMT, Ghaziabad.Nilam Katara has testified that her elder son Nitish took admission in IMT Ghaziabad in the MBA Course in the year 1998 after finishing his graduation from Venkateswara College, Delhi.He completed his MBA in the year 2000 and joined as a management trainee with the Reliance General Insurance.He was confirmed as an Assistant Manager with Reliance General Insurance about one month before his death and his last office was located in the Hans Plaza, Connaught Place, New Delhi.The Connaught Place branch of the BNP Paribas Bank was in the building adjoining Nitish's office.The witness testified that Bharti Singh, Gaurav Gupta, Bharat Diwakar and Shivani were close friends of her son Nitish.The first three had also studied in the same course as Nitish in the IMT, Ghaziabad.She attributes the friendship of Nitish to Bharti to their being in the same course as well as in the same project at the IMT, Ghaziabad.PW-30 further stated that after completion of the MBA Course, most of the friends of her deceased son moved out of Delhi while Nitish was compelled to stay in Delhi because of his father's health condition.Bharti also did not move or take up any job and the two became close friends.This friendship grew into a love affair and both of them used to organize get-togethers when other friends visited Delhi.Nilam Katara sensed the growing intimacy from a mother's instinct as well.The above testimony of Nilam Katara stands corroborated by the testimony of her son Nitin Katara, the younger brother of the deceased.To prove the intimacy between Nitish Katara and Bharti, the prosecution has led evidence on the record on the following aspects: -(a) Cards, notes and letters sent by Bharti to Nitish Katara as well as an album given by her on 14 th February, celebrated as Valentines Day.(b) Bharti and Nitish Katara made a day trip to Mumbai on 24th August, 2000 to celebrate her sister Bhawna Yadavs birthday with her fianc Deepak Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 79(c) Outstation trips of Bharti and Nitish Katara to Fatehpur Sikri, Jim Corbett National Park and other places.(d) Photographs reflecting intimacy.(e) Bhartis bank account with BNP Paribas Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi.(a) Cards, notes and letters sent by Bharti to Nitish KataraIt stands established on record that after the PGDBM course got over, while Bharat Diwakar, Gaurav Gupta went away, Nitish Katara stayed in Delhi and also continued to remain in close proximity with Bharti Singh.As the other friends went away, Bharti and Nitish Katara became close to each other.A certificate dated 27th February, 2002 (Ex.PW38/X4) issued by the Oswal Sugar Limited with its headquarters at B-14, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi is on record certifying that Bharti was working as its Manager Coordination.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 80PW-30 Nilam Katara has proved on record numerous cards and letters sent to Nitish by Bharti declaring her intense feelings for him.PW30/C23; Ex.PW30/C43; Ex.PW30/C49 and Ex.PW30/C61)We find on record a card dated 25th January, 2002 (Ex PW 30/C-63), barely three weeks before he was killed, wherefrom it appears that Nitish was not well and Bharti sent flowers along with this card which reads as follows: -"Dearest Chimpu, Take real good care of yourself....n get well real soon!! i 2 love u n miss u a lot....n also wanted 2 cum n c u....give these flowers 2 u myself but....m not sure wen next ill c u....hope itll b soon! Dun worry may b my normal phases....u take care of urself.There are more undated cards (Ex.PW30/C30;PW30/C42 and Ex.PW30/C65) which make unequivocal declaration of her deep love, and the desire for a permanent and life time relationship-cum-commitment.An undated letter (Exh.PW-30/C-1) written by Bharti to the deceased Nitish Katara reflects her extremely agitated state Crl.This letter dated 22nd July, 2001 (Ex. PW-30/C-4) written at 2.30 a.m. from the Clark's Hotel, Mall, Shimla-171001 laments the fact that Bharti Yadav had been taken to Shimla Crl.The prosecution also led evidence in the trial of Vikas and Vishal Yadav of their day trip to Mumbai on 24th August, 2000 to celebrate her sister Bhawna's birthday.These three were accompanied by Bhawna's fiance Deepak Yadav and Bharti's best friend Shivani Gaur.It is in evidence that Nilam Katara per chance happened to be in Mumbai for a business trip on 24th August, 2000 when she was compelled to change her travel plans as her meeting got delayed and she had decided to travel by Jet Airways instead of the Rajdhani train as scheduled.When she called Crl.It unequivocally points to the special relationship between Bharti Yadav and Nitish Katara.It also establishes Crl.These photographs had been handed over by Nilam Katara to the police during the investigation of the murder of her son.Other photographs were proved as Exh.PW-30/C-80 and Exh.PW-30 Nilam Katara has stated that the last office of the deceased was at the Hans Plaza, Connaught Place in New Delhi and that the branch office of the BNP Paribas Bank was in the adjoining building.Nilam Katara has testified that Bharti was maintaining an account with the BNP Paribas Bank, Connaught Place and had given Nitish's address (7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi) as her own residential address to this bank.She further testified that Bharti Yadav's statement of account used to come to her (the Kataras) residence.The witness proved a photocopy of a letter received by the bank from Bharti (bearing the signatures of Bharti) which Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 97 was also taken by the investigating officer during investigation.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 97In Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial, PW-40 Shivendra Tiwari has proved that the account no. 0031000144111 with the HDFC Bank, Suryakiran Branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi was the salary account held by Nitish Katara.In the witness box Bharti unequivocally admitted that she had given Nitish's residential address as her own with the BNP Paribas Bank and that she had submitted the account opening form (Exh.PW-38/X-2) containing such address.It is in Bharti's evidence that shortly after the death of Nitish Katara, she had moved an application (Exh PW38/X-3) on 1st March, 2002 to the Branch Manager of the BNP Paribas Crl.This request dated 1st of March 2002 was accompanied by certificate (Ex.PW30/X4) issued by Oswal Sugar Limited to the effect that since July, 2000 she was working as a Manager Coordination at the office at B-14, Gulmohar Park.One additional factor pointing to the close tie between Bharti and Nitish Katara deserves to be noticed.The prosecution has also examined PW-22 Sh.R.K. Singh who is working as a nodal officer with the Bharti Cellular Limited to prove the call records relating to the cell no.98110038469 which was being used by Bharti Yadav.The call records for the telephone no.9810154964 which was being used by Bharat Diwakar (subscriber as per Exh.PW- 22/1).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 102He had brought the computer printout containing the details of the calls made which was proved on record as Exh.There is considerable evidence that this mobile number stood registered in Bhawna Yadav's name (Bharti's elder sister), who has admitted this fact in her evidence.(Ex.PW22/1).PW-21 Deepak Gupta who was working as the nodal officer working with Hutchison Essar Telecom Limited has explained that for reading connections from a cell phone to another cell phone or from a cell phone to a landline or vice- versa, the cell phone company has installed communication tower/cell sites at different places.The witness explained that the Exh.PW-21/1 being the data chart relating to this phone number, contains a five digit number in which the cell ID is indicated by the three middle digits.The first and the last digit relate to the antennas etc.So far as the cell IDs of the Bharti Cellular Ltd. are concerned, Shri R.K. Singh has explained that in the call record which has been produced by him, the cell ID is mentioned in the cell column in four digits.The first three digits indicate the cell tower installed by the company.It is important to note that in her testimony, Bharti Yadav admits having written and given the letters, cards as well as the Valentine's Day album to Nitish Katara.She has also Crl.Several outgoing calls from these numbers to Nitish's cell phone are reflected in Nitish Katara's cell phone records.Obviously Nitish Katara was known to Bharat Singh's household.The only bridge between Nitish and them was their relationship to Bharti.297. PW-38 Bharti has taken a stand that she did not have a close relationship with Nitish and her brothers and father were not aware about any relationship.However, there were several calls to Nitish Katara's cell phone from landline no. 4713790, 4751083 and 4714101 which stood installed at the residence of Shri D.P. Yadav in Ghaziabad manifesting that Bharti's statements in her evidence are incorrect testimony.Their houses were located to close proximity in the same colony in Ghaziabad.But when the attempt to bring about the abortion failed, he began to back out.By Makaram 1128, (corresponding to January 1953) Sumathi had advanced to six months pregnancy; this fact began to gain currency in the locality.Sumathi herself mentioned this to some of her friends and neighbours and also the fact that the first accused was responsible for the same.She also stated that if the first accused refused to accept her as his wife, she would go to his house and commit suicide by hanging.Though Sumathi had denied this to her mother, the parents were able to ascertain the fact through Sumathi's friends, particularly PW 5, who was her uncle's Crl.He consoled her and promised to take her to a separate house which he had arranged for her stay.On 27th January, 1953, the first accused again met Sumathi and told her to be ready to go to her new house.She left her house in the evening and waited for the first accused at the appointed place.At about 8 p.m. accused number one and two came and took her to the forest reserve and murdered her.The prosecution has proved the call records of Nitish Katara's cell phone 9811283641 (Exh.PW21/1) as well as those of Bharti 9810038469 (Exh.PW22/2).As per these documents, the extract of calls made on 17th February, 2002 from and to Bharat Diwakar's mobile number 9810154964 to and from Bharti Yadav on the cell no.9810038469, reads thus:I had called her somewhere around 7 - 7.30 AM from land line of our house.Bharti was very upset when I talked to her on telephone.I told her that Nitish had not come back.She told me that she had also been trying to contact on his cellphone but she had not been able contact except once.I am not sure whether it was Bharti who had been able to speak to Nitish or Bharat or Gaurav Gupta, but somebody had talked to her only once.Bharti asked me that if these boys i.e. Bharat and Gaurav had not told me that Nitish had been taken away by her brothers.I told her that they had not informed me this.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 217had taken Nitish away (question is objected.Objection is overruled) A. She had told me the names of both accd.persons Vikas and Vishal who had taken away Nitish.I asked her where they had taken him.Then she told me that they were not telling her anything and I should talk to her father.I then asked Bharat, then Bharat told me that Rohit Gaur had told that the boy who had called Nitish was Vishal and Rohit Gaur had seen him going with both of them i.e. Vikas and Vishal.I told Bharat that he should go and locate Nitish.He might be still in the same hotel.and he told me that he had heard that something has happened and as soon as he comes to know he shall contact me.I again called DP Yadav after sometime and he told me that he was busy with his election and he would get back to me.xxx xxx xxx I spoke to Bharti again and I told her that if I am not able to find out about my son I would be going to PS and reporting the matter and I would be giving her name then Bharti told me that `Anti do you know what they are doing with your son please lodge the report and give my name and if it amounts to a slur to my family let it be so.xxx xxx xxx Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 218 I had lodged this written complaint between 11.30 am and 12 noon at PS Kavi Nagar, GBD.I had stayed at PS upto 2.30 or 2.45 p.m. as I was waiting if some news of my son could be there.I did not get any news of my son at the PS.I made one phone call to Bharti from PS on her cell and she told me that she was being taken to Faridabad at her sisters house and nobody was telling her anything and I should look for my son, as the time was crucial.From Police stn., I decided to go to house of DP Yadav to meet mother of Bharti, I requested police persons to show me the house, they took me to the house and pointed-out to house and then left.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 218xxx xxx xxx I then went to the house and mother of Bharti herself had opened the door and took me inside, I confirmed from her and she told me that she was mother of Bharti.She spoke to me courteously and behave with me nicely.I told her about my son having been taken by Vikas and Vishal.She said that she had talked to Bharti and Bharti had spoken to Vikas specifically and Bharti had been told by Vikas that they had met Nitish at the marriage and they had not taken him away.(emphasis by us)Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the complainant has tabulated the calls made from or received by Nilam Katara's landline numbers 3747555 and 3366629 as well as those from her cell number 9810206299 from/to Bharti on the cell no.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 2199810038469 on the 17th and 18th of February, 2002 from the proven call record which shows the following:-The above testimony is thus amply corroborated on record in the trial by the established documentary evidence of the call records of the phone no.9810038469 for the month of February, 2002 proved on record as Exh.Thereafter she has called at 6:40 am, 7:13 am, 7:33 am, 8:04 am, 8:15 am, 8:18 am, 8:37 am and 8:50 am.The calls lasted from 37 seconds to 182 seconds.At 10:03 am Nilam Katara's call to Bharti has lasted 105 seconds.She has again called at 11:43 am and spoken for 67 seconds.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 221These calls support her testimony about telling Bharti that she was going to seek police help.The above tabulation from the call records also reflect the call from Nilam Katara's mobile no. 9810216299 to Bharti cell no. 9810038469 at 14:08:22(2:08 pm) on the 17th of February lasting 67 seconds.This piece of documentary evidence supports Nilam Katara's aforenoted oral testimony that she was at the PS Kavi Nagar from 11:30 am to 2:45 pm and that she had spoken to Bharti on her cell from the police station.The call records also establish that after 14:08 hrs, calls were received by Bharti at Faridabad.Bharti has also called Nilam Katara's mobile number on the 17th February, 2002 at 20:11 hrs (08:11 pm) and spoken for 220 seconds to her.One of the calls on Nilam Katara's landline received from Bharti is on the 18th of February, 2002 at 06:57 hrs (6:57 am) they have spoken for 597 seconds.They have again spoken at 7:30 am for 110 seconds and at 11:40 am for 143 seconds.PW39-Nitin Katara stated in his testimony that when I called Bharti Yadav on 17.2.02 around 7.30/8 pm she appeared to be quite upset and she told me that she had last seen Nitish with Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav. ..... During the period 18.2.02 till 20.2.02 she called me on my mobile and once or twice on land line, at that time I was Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 222 having two land line connections bearing No.23747555 and 23366629 at my residence.She was worried and she wanted me to contact everyone in her family and she stressed upon me to contact her father Sh DP Yadav.She also told me that I should not give time to DP Yadav otherwise he would made it a political gimmick.She cried several times on telephone.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 222The prosecution has established that Nitin Katara was based in Pune and used two cell phones, one for Pune and another used for Delhi.A similar tabulation of the calls made and received by Nitin Katara from and on his Pune mobile number 9822288216, to and from Bharti (using the cell phone no.9810038469) as per the proven call records reads as follows:An extract of calls made and received from and on Nitin Katara's Delhi cell number 9811297136, to and from Bharti (on the cell phone no.9810038469) reads as follows:The duration of their calls to the cell number 9810038469 reflects that the party calling had conversation with the person answering the phone.The conversation has even lasted several minutes.If the claim made by PW 42 Bhawna Yadav is accepted, then Exh.PW 22/2 reflects several calls having been made or received from Bharat Diwakar; Gaurav Gupta; Nilam Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 227 Katara; Nitin Katara when the phone was in the possession of Bhawna's driver.There is no reason at all why any of these persons would have had such frequent and long conversations with Bhawna Yadav's driver!(ii) Nitin Katara exchanged 14 calls with cell phone no.9810038469 between the evening of 17 th February, 2002 till the evening of 19th February, 2002 lasting between 16 seconds to 233 seconds;(iv) Apart from the above calls on the mobile, between 6:17 am to 10:03 pm on the 17th of February, 2002, Nilam Katara made eleven calls on 17th February, 2002 (including five calls from her land line number 3366629 and six calls from her land line number 3747555) to cell phone no.9810038469 which lasted between 37 seconds to 182 seconds.Soon after the incident, eye witnesses made statements to the doctor and the father of the deceased.The prosecution's case was that on 3rd December, 1998 Kumari Preeti Shrivastava, a student of B.A. Final in Government Girls College, Ambikapur was sitting with Kumari Vijaylaxmi Mishra PW-7, Kumari Seema Mishra PW-8 and Kumari Nisha Thakur PW-17 in the campus of the College since the second period was free.Her bag and tiffin were kept by the side of the road.Other girls were basking in the sun inside the campus.At about 10.45 A.M., a jeep driven by Samar Vijay Singh entered the college campus and crushing the bag and the tiffin of Kumari Preeti Shrivastava underneath, went ahead.Other appellants, that is, Rajkumar Tiwari, Javed Alam and Ganesh Kashyap were accompanying Samar Vijay Singh in the jeep.Seeing her tiffin and bag crushed by the jeep, Kumari Preeti Shrivastava decided that she would stop the jeep on its return and ask the driver to make good the loss and tiffin which had been crushed.She consequently stopped the jeep on its return and called upon Samar Vijay Singh to repair the tiffin and the bag for her.On this, the occupants of the jeep started laughing.The girls noticed that the occupants of the jeep were calling each other by names and thereby learnt the identities of the persons accompanying Samar Vijay Singh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 258Kumari Preeti refused to get out of his way when being asked to do so by Samar Vijay Singh failing which, he threatened to crush her under the jeep.The other co-accused exhorted him to crush Kumari Preeti if she did not give way.Upon this, Samar Vijay moved the jeep ahead and pushed Kumari Preeti who fell down.When the girls were about to move for picking up Preeti, Samar Vijay Singh reversed and then accelerated the jeep ahead, crushing Preeti's head under the jeep in the process and ran away with the co-appellants.Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7, threw a stone on the jeep, which hit the bumper of the jeep.She noted down the number of the jeep on her palm.Kumari Lalita Yadav PW-6, attempted to hold one of the appellants but she was pushed and fell down.Kumari Vijaylaxmi noticed that the jeep had a "Vote for the Congress" sticker on its back number plate.The girls therefore, informed Assistant Professor Smt. Archana Singh PW-9 and Assistant.Professor Smt. Pratibha Singh PW-10 about the incident who along with Kumari Lalita Yadav PW-6, Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7, Kumari Kumudini Kerkatta PW-4 and Kumari Urmila Paikra PW-5 took the injured Kumari Preeti to the District Hospital, Ambikapur.Thereafter between 06:41 hrs to 08:43 hrs on the 17th February, 2002, there were six phone calls which lasted from 7 seconds to 123 seconds.The tabulation of the phone calls shows that on the 17 th of February, 2002 when Nitish Katara went missing, there were eleven calls between Nilam Katara's landline number and Bharti Yadav's phone between 06:17 hrs to 11:53 hrs.The duration of the calls varied from 37 seconds to 182 seconds.PW 39- Nitin Katara (brother of Nitish Katara) has also testified that on 17th February, 2002 at about 7:30/8:00 p.m, he had telephoned Bharti from Pune and that Bharti Yadav appeared to be quite upset and told him that she had last seen Nitish Katara with the appellants.Bharti Yadav was in a distracted state of mind and wanted Nitin Katara to contact everyone in the family.Bharti emphasized that Nitin should contact her father Shri D.P. Yadav and cried several times on the phone.The conversation between Nilam Katara and Bharti as well as Nitish Katara and Bharti Yadav were proximate to the occurrence and a spontaneous reaction to the query about Nitish by Nilam Katara from her.Neither Nilam Katara nor Bharti Yadav knew that Nitish Katara had been murdered by them.These conversations thus took place during the continuation of the transaction of abduction of the deceased Nitish Katara during which period the appellants were also absconding.She refers to Nitin Katara as chottu'.The contents of these e-mails reflect the extreme anxiety of the sender about Nitish and also the fact that she was corresponding secretly with Nitin.These e-mails also manifest that Bharti had been confined at some place and not permitted to interact by her family.Even on the 20th of February, 2002, Bharti wrote that she hoped to see Nitish soon.She did not know even on 24th February, 2002 that Nitish had been murdered in the morning of the Crl.These e-mails speak for themselves and read thus:PW-9/ Mark A-1 to A-5 were forged or fabricated or that they were not handed over during investigation to the police.The investigating officer completely failed to investigate into the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 285 matter to establish that these mails were actually sent by Bharti Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 285These mails if proved in accordance with law would fortify our conclusion that so far as Bharti, Nilam Katara and Nitish Katara are concerned, on the 17th of February 2002, Nitish stood abducted which transaction, even on had not come to an end.In her cross-examination, she testified that after 3/4 days of Shivani Gaur's marriage, she was interrogated by the police with regard to the present case.She further stated that whatever they' asked her, she had replied.She stated that she did not know' if it was reduced to writing.This is contradicted by her as she volunteered that she had not read her statement which clearly shows that her statement had been reduced to paper.At a later place, when questioned that her statement was recorded by the police on 2 nd March, 2002, Bharti Yadav replied that I do not know if it was my statement to the police but I did have conversation with the police but I do not remember the date when this conversation took place'.Of course, she insisted that she never had conversation with Anil Somania, the Investigating Officer in the present case and that she had only a conversation with the lady police!A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 286While being cross-examined on 29th of November 2006 by Shri B.S. Joon, Special Public Prosecutor for the State she stated that she must have lodged some complaint with some higher authorities that her brothers were being falsely implicated.She admits that she had sent these complaints through her uncle Bharat Singh to various authorities.PW38/X1).Bharti was unable to produce any proof of Crl.The several facts revealed in Bharti's statement (Exh.35/AB) several them for the first time, can be usefully summed up as follows:(v) While studying at the IMT, she became friends with Nitish Katara.(vi) Nitish Katara used to come from Delhi in his green colour Gypsy bearing registration no.(vii) Her friendship with Nitish Katara slowly converted into a love relationship and she started loving Nitish Katara from her heart.(viii) They remained in contact even after 2000 when they finished the course at IMT and used to keep talking on the phone.(ix) They had got themselves photographed together and also used to go for outings.(x) Nitish Katara loved her a lot and had spoken to his mother about their marriage.(xi) On the Valentines Day being 14th February, 2002, she had met Nitish Katara, got photographed with him and also exchanged Valentine Days gifts.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 289(xiii) She had visited the residence of Nitish Katara to give the wedding invitation card of her sister Bhawnas wedding.(xiv) Nitish Katara and friends used to visit her residence.(xv) On the 15th of February, 2002, one day before Shivanis wedding, ladies sangeet had been organized at her house no.58, Model Town, Ghaziabad in which function, she and her friends had danced.(xvi) Shivanis wedding on 16th February, 2002 at Diamond Palace, Kavi Nagar was attended by her elder sister Bhawna; her mother, Shri Umlesh Yadav; her brother, Vikas; her buas son Vishal.(xvii) her brother Vikas Yadav, had come to the wedding in his Tata Safari car accompanied by Vishal Yadav and Sukhdev Pehlwan who was a resident of Dewaria and was employed in their Bulandshahr liquor office.(xviii) Bharat Diwakar, Nitish Katara and Gaurav Gupta had also attended the wedding.(xix) Bharti Yadav had got herself photographed with her said friends as well as Nitish Katara and the bridal couple.(xx) She had also danced with Nitish Katara.(xxi) After jai mala, the guests went from the hall to eat dinner.(xxii) At about 1:30 am in the night, she learnt that Nitish Katara had been called and taken away by her brother Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 290 Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav as well as Sukhdev Pehlwan.On hearing this, she got restless.(xxiii) She searched for Nitish Katara in the Diamond Palace but despite the search, she could not find either her brothers Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav as well Sukhdev Pehlwan or Nitish Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 290(xxiv) On the night of the marriage, at about 2:15 am, she used her mobile phone no.9810038469 and spoke to phone no.4713790 at her residence.She spoke at these numbers at her residence several times because she suspected that Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav as well as Sukhdev Pehlwan may do some untoward incident (apriye ghatna) to Nitish Katara because they had not liked her dancing with Nitish Katara and getting herself photographed with him.(xxv) At about 4:00 am, she rang up Bharat Diwakar on phone no.9810154964 and enquired about Nitish Katara because they had come together from Delhi.(xxvi) At 6:00 am, Bharat Diwakar called twice on her mobile number.He also said that Nitish was not traceable (xxix) At about 7:00 am, Bharat Diwakar called again and he said that Nitishs whereabouts were not known.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 291(xxx) She had gifted Nitish a wrist watch of the Espirit make which she had purchased on 15th December, 2001 from Shoppers Stop in Ansal Plaza, South Extension from her own money.(xxxi) At about 7:30 am, Nitishs mother Nilam Katara rang her up and also told her that Nitish had not reached home.(xxxii) She again received call at around 8:00 am from aunty, Nilam Katara who asked for her fathers phone number.He therefore proceeded to Khurja at 9:00 pm on the 19th of February 2002 but was unable to meet Inspector C.P. Singh.As the deceased as well as Vikas and Vishal Yadav were untraceable, he thereafter went to Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon to search for them as the accused had an office there.Anil Somania also learnt about the sugar mill belonging to the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 300 accused persons in Mukeria (Punjab) and a farm house in Dhanari (UP).In order to search for the appellants, he sent his SO, A.P. Bhardwaj to the farm house.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 300On 20th February, 2002, the Investigating Officer went to the houses of the accused persons in their search but the houses were locked.The Investigating Officer then moved an application for issuance of proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. for attachment of their property.He also obtained warrants for their arrest and pasted them at the houses of the accused persons.On the same day, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of Nitin Katara and Rohit Gaur under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.On 21st February, 2002, the IO hereafter contacted Nilam Katara, Ajay Prasad and Nitin Katara and went to the mortuary to identify the dead body.After seeing the body, Smt. Nilam Katara identified the body as being that of her son from his one hand which had not got burnt.The Investigating Officer then made an application to the CJM, Bulandshahr to seize the dead body and brought the dead body to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).On the 22nd of February, 2002, the Investigating Officer got the blood samples of the parents of the deceased taken as well as the finger prints of the deceased.These were imperative for identification of the dead body and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 301 confirmation thereof.The I.O. then went to the licensing authority to get the said finger prints of the deceased.He also went to the SSP, Ghaziabad and to get a copy of the wireless message sent to the immigration office.On the same day, the Investigating Officer seized some photographs and greeting cards which were produced by Nilam Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 301On the 23rd of February, 2002, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were arrested by the police in Dabra at 4.30 a.m. Interestingly, the Dabra police produced these two appellants before the local magistrate only at about 11.30 p.m. on 23 rd February, 2002 and sought their judicial custody.On the 23rd of February, 2002, itself the Investigating Officer Anil Somania learnt through television that the accused persons Vikas and Vishal have been arrested in Dabra.PW 35/11).The disclosure statement in the instant case have been made one after another by the accused persons.In view of the settled legal positions, the objection to their admissibility on the ground that they were so made or contains a narration of events in similar language would not by itself impact their genuineness.These disclosures are admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the light of the principles laid down in para 145 of Navjot Sandhu (supra).On 26th February, 2002, Anil Somania submitted his report in writing to the CJM, Ghaziabad (Ex.We are appalled at the stance of the appellants and style adopted before and during trial which manifests that the appellants have been brazen and reckless Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 358 in their disrespect of all systems especially the investigating agency and the trial courts.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 358(iii) Whether search and combing operations carried out at the spot by the Khurja police on 17th February, 2002?(iv) Whether Ghaziabad Police visited the spot between 17th and 28th February, 2002?(v) Recoveries from open place accessible to all(vi) No public witness to recovery examined - effect of(vii) Khurja Police not joined in the recoveriesInvestigation in the matter had thus moved and the investigating officer had disclosure statements of the accused persons to proceed on 26th February, 2002, PW-35, the Investigating Officer gave the report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of the addition of Section 302 and 201 of the IPC to the case.An application was also moved by Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 359 the IO Anil Somania before the CJM, Ghaziabad seeking police custody remand (Ex.PW-35/21) of the two accused persons.The application stated that as per the disclosure statements of the accused recorded on 25th February, 2002, the Tata Safari used in the commission of the offence, the mobile phone of the deceased and the weapon of offence had to be recovered.The application of the investigating officer was considered on 27th February, 2002 (Exh.PW-3/B) and twenty four hours police custody remand from 9:00 am on the 28th February, 2002 to 1st March, 2002 was granted in the presence of the accused persons and their counsel.As has already been noticed by us, no objection was made by the accused that no disclosures were made by them to the police officials and that no police remand was necessary.Instead Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav moved applications through several counsels for accompanying them while they would Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 360 be in police custody for effecting the recoveries.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted one lawyer to be present with them during the period of the police custody.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 360PW-35 Anil Somania has stated that on 28th February, 2002 he had gone to the jail after recording DD No.11 in the General Diary of the Police Station (PW-35/22) and took the accused in police custody from the jail at 9.25 a.m. He was accompanied by SI J.K. Gangwar, SI Tej Ram and five constables.A site plan of the place pointed out was prepared by Anil Somania (Ex.PW 35/23).The accused persons then led the police party to Khurja Shikharpur road and pointed out the place where the body of Nitish Katara was burnt and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 361 recovered, a place near the fields of Zahir, Advocate.A site plan of that place was prepared as well.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 361S.I. J.K. Gangwar stated that thereafter Vikas Yadav had searched among pattel' bushes and had taken out the hammer.The bushes were 7 steps away from the place which was pointed out by him as the spot where the dead body was burnt.So far as the wrist watch is concerned, according to SI Anil Somania, a little away from there, the accused Vishal Yadav went into the field and brought out the wrist watch again from the midst of pattel' bushes, about five steps from the hammer, and gave it to him.The mobile phone could not be recovered.If the testimony of DW-22 was to be accepted, then DW-3 Shri Rajender Choudhary should have accompanied the police when they served the recovery memo upon Shri Satpal Singh Yadav.He ought to have known about it there and then.Neither of them says so.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 370The learned Trial Judge has noted that if the recovery memo was served as stated by DW-22 upon him in his chamber at midnight, he would have dated his receipt as 1 st March, 2002 and not 28th February, 2002 as had been done by him.Shri Rajinder Choudhary, Advocate and Shri Satpal Yadav, Advocate have claimed to be part of one team.In an era of mobile phones, if the events had unfolded in the manner testified by DW-3 Rajender Chaudhary, DW-22 Satpal Yadav would have contemporaneous knowledge of the day's events.DW-22 would have certainly known what had transpired in Khurja and that recoveries had been effected.In this application dated 1st March, 2002 (Ex.In this application, the applicant stated that he remained in a separate car while the accused persons were with the police in an another private vehicle.The Crl.The above clearly manifests that the signatures of the appellants were not obtained on any blank papers and they received the copy of the seizure memo after the recoveries were effected and the documents were scribed by the police officials.Satpal Singh, Advocate has also endorsed on the recovery memo that he has received one copy in vernacular and also mentioned the correct date.He has affixed signature in English thereon.We may advert to the testimony of PW-23 Shri Virender Singh, the village pradhan who had first reported the discovery of the dead body to the police.Testifying as PW- 23, Virender Singh stated that he had found the body on the 17th of February, 2002 at around 9/9.15 am while he was passing by on his jeep on the right side of the road and had informed the Khurja police.In his cross-examination, the witness stated that from the position of the body one could see 10-20 feet all around and that the police was searching an area of 100-200 metres; that they were roaming in the Crl.PW-4 has stated that at about 9.10 a.m. on 17th February, 2002 information was received from one Shri Virender Singh at the Police Station that one dead body was lying on Shikarpur road.This information was recorded as DD No.12 (Exh.PW-4/A) alongwith the departure of the witness with his staff for the spot.They started from the police station at about 9.10 a.m. and reached the spot within 10-15 minutes.The police found a male dead body lying in a khainuma gaddha' khaai (gorge/pit) adjoining the kachha portion of the road at the spot.No one identified the dead body which was photographed (Exhs.PW-4/2 and 3).The panchnama of the dead body Exh.PW-3/2A was prepared by Chander Pal Singh.The witness categorically stated that as per the panchnama, the right hand of the body was burnt with other body parts but the left hand and its fingers were not burnt.The panchnama was witnessed by public persons, Surender Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 393 Singh, Zamil, Zarif, Devi and Mukesh.Their parentage and full addresses are given in the panchnama itself.The witness also stated that the field on the south side was not searched by Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 394 him.There is a categorical answer by the witness that he had not given any instructions to his subordinate staff to search the area around the dead body.The witness also stated that he did not find any weapon or incriminating article near the dead body.Itna bhi nahi pata chal pa raha hai ki yah mritak hindu hai ya musalman.Ataha bahalat majburi mein SI/SHO mahodye ke nirdeshan mein panchayatnama mustav karne mein mashruf hota huin.Niji tor par pratiyek vyakti se mritak agyat ke shav (illegible) sahit shinakhat hetu vyapak prachar avam prasar karane hetu rangeen photographer Shikarpur Road se bulaya (illegible) gaye hai.Bhid me se hi panch vyaktiyon ko panchan kiya jata hai....... Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 398Therefore, by force of circumstances, I, Sub-Inspector under the direction of the SHO accordingly get myself busy in preparing the `Panchanama'.I have personally asked every person to identify the dead body.For the purpose of publicity and broadcast, colour photographer has been called from Shikarpur Road.From the crowd, five people have been appointed as panchas...... (Emphasis supplied) Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 399 It was thus not as if only a few bystanders had gathered at the spot.On the contrary, the police had gathered public from several villages to get the body identified.PW- 3/2A records that senkron' (hundreds of) people had gathered.The spot from where the dead body was recovered is not disputed by the appellants.The learned Trial Judge has adverted to the clear testimony of the investigating officers SI J.K. Gangwar (PW-34) and SI Anil Somania (PW-35) with regard to the existence of the bushes.SI J.K. Gangwar had explained that the bushes were called pattel in U.P. which were used for making thatched roofs and were to the height of about 2-3 feet.Though the blood group could not be ascertained, as the results were inconclusive, the accused had to give some explanation as to how the human blood came on this weapon.He gave none.IV Recovery of Tata Safari vehicle The discussion on this subject is being considered under the following sub-headings:(i) Introduction of a Mercedes car as used by the appellants in the night of 16th February, 2002(ii) The defence case - the Tata Safari vehicle was under repairs with Nawab Motors from 16th February till 10th March, 2002A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 443 to the Diamond Palace, Banquet Hall where the marriage of PW-11 Shivani Gaur was being solemnized and after the abduction of Nitish Katara, they took him away in this vehicle.How did a Tata Safari vehicle surface in the whole matter?So far as the recovery of the vehicle is concerned, the prosecution has relied on the testimony of SI J.K. Gangwar; SI Anil Somania and Shri Sultan Singh examined as PWs 34, 35 and 27 respectively in Vikas Yadav's trial.The police officers were examined as PW19 and PW22 in Sukhdev's trial respectively.The prosecution did not examine Sultan Singh in Sukhdev's trial.The testimony of PW-34 J.K. Gangwar whose testimony is corroborated by the evidence Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 444 of PW-35 Anil Somania and their cross-examination on this aspect.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 444As per the police record, Ct.Satender Pal Singh as well as Ct.Inderjeet had revealed in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on 4th March, 2002 that on the night of 16th/17th February, 2002 at around 12:15 a.m., a Tata Safari was seen coming from Diamond Palace towards Hapur Chungi occupied by the appellants and one other person having a round face, who was wearing a red kurta, was also sitting next to the driver.Prior thereto in her statement dated 2nd March, 2002 (Exh.PW35/AB) Bharti Yadav (PW 38 in the first trial) also disclosed that the appellants used a Tata Safari vehicle on the fateful night.Though he did not know the registration number of the Tata Safari vehicle but he clearly stated that it was of Punjab.In the meantime, the appellants Vikas and Vishal Yadav were required to be produced in the Dabra Court in cases under the Arms Act. Accordingly, after their one day police remand was over, they were sent to judicial custody and thereafter on 6th March, 2002 they were sent to Dabra along Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 449 with SI J.K. Gangwar pursuant to DD No.36 in this regard (Ex.They also laid no claim that they had not gone to Shivani Gaur's wedding in a Tata Safari vehicle or that they had used a Mercedes car.It is noteworthy that armed with this order, SI Anil Somania accompanied by a police force as well as the S.P., Ghaziabad, proceeded to Dabra, where Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were lodged in jail.PW-35/39).But by now it was already late for the jail authorities to hand over custody of these appellants to the Ghaziabad police.Thus valuable time out of the specific period of the police remand permitted by the CJM, Ghaziabad was squandered at the instance of these accused.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 451The Ghaziabad police could get custody of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav only at about 9:26 am on the 10 th of March, 2002 and they commenced the journey to Chandigarh for recovery of the Tata Safari vehicle.While on the way to Chandigarh, when the police party stopped for lunch, the accused now disclosed to the investigating officer that the Tata Safari Car was either parked at the taxi stand behind the Shamshan Ghat, Panipat or at his factory in Karnal.It is in evidence that Vikas Yadav disclosed the registration number of vehicle as PB-07H-0085 and that it was of pearl green colour.The police were taken to the taxi stand where again no vehicle could be recovered.The Tata Safari Vehicle was finally recovered on 11th March, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. at the instance of the accused Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav jointly from the burnt down factory premises of a firm named A.B. Coltex in Karnal.It is in evidence that Oswal Sugar Limited of which Shri D.P. Yadav (father of Vikas Yadav) was one of the directors formed part of the management of AB Coltex.It is in the evidence of PW-12 Ms. Kulwant Kaur that the recovered vehicle stood registered in the name of Oswal Sugar Ltd., PW-9 and CW-1 Shri M.K. Katara proved the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 452 fact that Sh.Dharam Pal Singh alias Shri D.P. Yadav (father of Vikas Yadav) was a Director in the Oswal Sugar Ltd.The Investigating Officer has stated that the accused persons had refused to sign the seizure memo of the Tata Safari.No repair which was so time consuming is revealed in the evidence.The prosecution had examined PW-6, Archana Sharma who was running a photo studio in the name of Quality Photo Service.On the night intervening 16th/17th February, 2002, her employee Vijay Kumar (examined as PW-15) had gone to the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall for taking still photographs and videography of the marriage of Shivani Gaur.Vijay had taken the photographs and prepared the video which was handed over to her with negatives of the same.Antemortem Injuries Antemortem Injuries:one lacerated wound 3 cms x 2 cms left side of head and 7 cm above left eyebrow x cavity deep.Post mortem Injuries Deep burn all over body, more on neck chest and abdomen, abdomen peritoneum and thigh, lungs exposed, burnt black intestine, Intestines ____black, penis half burnt, thigh muscle exposed, record.No line or redness and vassicals and no sign of recurative processMembranes - congested brain not liquidBrain - congested and lacerated correspond left side lacerated wound.Soft and pulpi.Neck - Haemotoma of about ltr.present from skull cavity.Thorax (sic thorax) a. Walls, Ribs, Certilages - Burnt b. Plura - Burnt c. Larynx, Trachia....A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 479Buccal cavity, teeth, toungue and pharynx - protrudedContents - emptySmall intestine - NADLarge intestine - NADGall bladder - full12. KidneysBladder - emptyGenitals - NAD Reason of death Death due to coma as a result of ante-mortem head injury and postmortem burn Place : Bulandshahr Date : 18.02.2002(Anil Singhal) Medical Officer Dead body and P.M. reports after P.M. examination handed over to company constable along with dead body of the P.M.Exam.The report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Biology Division on the blood on the hammer (Ex.PW 35/57) is on a printed format.The learned Trial Judge has noted that this printed format contains the following three columns:-(i) Presence of Nitish Katara as well as the appellants at Shivani Gaur's wedding at the same time(ii) Documentary evidence regarding location of Nitsh Katara at around 1/1:30 a.m. (Electronic call records of Nitish Katara's cell phone No. 9811283641 (Exh PW21/1)(iii) Presence of the deceased as well as appellants at the wedding at the same time Crl.However, one Kamal Kishore met him at the Balwant Rai Mehta Lane residence who was brought to the Police Station Tilak Marg and his statement was recorded there (Exh.PW-35/4).The witness stated that Kamal Kishore was working as a security guard of Shri D.P. Yadav, M.P. at Delhi.There is no dispute that Shivani Gaur's wedding was fixed for the 16th February, 2002 at the Diamond Palace, Banquet Hall, Kavi Nagar, Industrial Area.The bride Shivani Gaur reached the venue at about 9 p.m.Bharat Diwakar was staying with the deceased Nitish Katara in his Chelmsford residence in Delhi.On 15 th February, 2002, Bharat and Nitish had attended the ladies sangeet in which Bharti had also participated.Nitin Katara has placed on record e-mails which he says that he received from Bharti Yadav wherein she clearly stated that she could not even disclose her whereabouts and was writing furtively.She had not stated what she was supposed to so as to assist her brothers.On the next date Bhawna Yadav, a sister of Vikas Yadav, introduced a Mercedes into the case in which the two brothers left the wedding venue.Interestingly she Crl.He could not be found at the wedding venue.They tried calling Nitish on his cellphone but could not make contact.That Nitish Katara was in possession of his cell phone is undisputed.The location of Nitish Katara's cell phone is concerned is established from his electronic call record proved by the testimony of PW-21 Deepak Gupta.As per Exh.PW-21/1, from 10:00 pm on 16th February, 2002 till the last registered call on his phone, the following calls were received by or made from Nitish Katara cell phone as well as the tower location serving it :-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 564There were calls received on Nitish Katara's mobile from mobile no.9811220691 which stood registered in the name of Yashoman Tomar which Gaurav Gupta has claimed to have made at 22:24:05 hours and 12:58:26 hours.The call records also show that there were two incoming calls from Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 565 phone no.9811034829 which was being used by Bharti at 00:35:40 and 00:40:44 hours.Thus Nitish Katara received around eights calls from different people which included Bharat Diwakar, Gaurav Gupta and Bharti all of whom were admittedly at the wedding at the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall till 01:00 a.m. If he was still at the wedding venue at Diamond Palace Banquet Hall as stated by Shivani Gaur, Bharti Yadav and Bhawna Yadav, there would be no occasison for them to be calling Nitish Katara on his cell phone.Inside the banquet hall there Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 569 was open space and then the banquet hall.To access the banquet hall, a few steps had to be climbed.Satender Pal Singh stated that he knew Vikas and Vishal Yadav from before 16th February, 2002 as he had seen them roaming in the area with their friends.At around Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 580 12:15/12:30 , i.e., past midnight, while checking the vehicles coming from Diamond Palace on 16th February, 2002, he had stopped the vehicle of the accused persons who were in a Tata Safari which was being driven by Vikas Yadav.The witness clearly stated that Vishal Yadav was sitting in the rear seat of the Tata Safari.By and large, he reitereated his earlier testimony.The documentary Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 590 evidence of the call records establishes that after midnight, Nitish Katara was not at the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall.Inderjeet Singh resiled from his previous statement on the identification.However it is established that the Tata Safari was travelling towards Hapur Chungi where Ajay Kumar saw and identified its inmates.It stands proved beyond doubt as discussed in the next part that Ajay Katara was sitting in the passenger seat of the said Tata Safari vehicle driven by Vikas Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 590The evidence of PW-28 Ct.Inderjeet Singh and PW-32 Ct.The vehicle was being driven by Vikas Yadav.Nitish Katara was seated besides him while Vishal Yadav and another person were in the rear seat.The facts proved as above have therefore to be considered and evaluated with the other evidence brought on record.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 591In his testimony on 31st May, 2003, this witness had stated that on 16th February, 2002, he had gone to Ghaziabad to meet a friend called Subhash Chand, an employee of the U.P. Police, on his scooter.After meeting Subhash Chand, at about 12.10 am on the night intervening 16/17th February, 2012, he started from Ghaziabad to return to his residence at Delhi.While returning on the road at the Hapur Chungi crossing (chauraha) his scooter had gone out of order and stopped.Just at the place where his scooter had stopped, a Tata Safari vehicle being driven by Vikas Yadav had approached the spot from behind.The witness identified Vikas Yadav as present in court and stated that Vikas Yadav had told him to remove the scooter from the road in a very uncivilized manner.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 592The witness further stated that he knew Vikas Yadav from before.As he had been spoken to rudely, the witness went to the Tata Safari vehicle.The witness denied the suggestion that he was a resident of House No.433, Nagla Taal, Village Bamroli Katar, P.S. Bhoki, District Agra but admitted his full address being village Bamroli, P.S. Bhoki, District Agra.He has categorically denied any relationship between his family and the family of Nitish Katara.He admitted that he had cast his vote once or twice in the village.He has also denied that the family of Nishit Katara (father of the deceased) at any point of time lived in village Bamroli or that Virender Katara and Karan Singh Katara ever lived in the village Bamroli.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 623 kurta and a shawl seated next to the driver were its other occupants.The witness correctly identified Vikas and Vishal as present in court.He identified Nitish Katara from his photographs.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 626 the liquor shop of Shri D.P. Yadav in Bulandshahr since liquor was cheaper there.In answer to a court question, the witness stated that he did not go to Bulandshahr from Ghaziabad.However, when returning to Ghaziabad from his visits to Agra, this liquor shop in Bulandshahr fell on the way and so he visited it.This publicity had been necessitated as the accused persons were not traceable at their known addresses or their places of business.There Crl.Yes came about 6 p.m. in the evening.These recoveries were effected in the presence of their counsel Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate.No family member of Nitish Katara (including his mother Nilam Katara) was present in these proceedings.Pursuant to the disclosures on that very day (i.e., the 28 th of February, 2002) the brothers deliberately led the police to Crl.Let us examine the steps taken by the police to trace the appellants.PW-35 stated that on 17th February, 2002, in his absence, the FIR No. 192/2002 was registered under Section 364 of the IPC at Police Station Kavi Nagar naming Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav.He received a copy of the FIR while investigating another case and reached the police station at about 2.00 p.m. on 17 th February, 2002 and thereafter started investigation in the case.The witness has stated that the addresses of the accused persons were given in the FIR and that he searched for them at their houses in Sector 4 and 5, Ghaziabad.Neither they were traceable at their houses nor Nitish Katara was to be found there.In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that the houses of Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav were situated at a distance of only 3 kms from police station Kavi Nagar.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 780On 18th February, 2002, the witness again went and searched for the accused persons at their houses, but without any positive result.PW-35 further stated that he was accompanied by lady SI Anju Bhadoriya, when he went to the houses of the accused persons.Only the mothers of the accused persons met him in their resepective houses and that they had signed the copy of the search memos in respect of these searches (Ex. PW-35/2 and PW-35/3).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 781PW-35 has also testified about searches made for Vikas and Vishal Yadav at the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall as well as in other localities in Ghaziabad which were the possible hideouts of the accused persons.The Investigating Officer also visited the official residence allotted to Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav at 15, Balwant Rai Lane, Delhi where also neither the accused persons nor the deceased could be found.On 19th February, 2002, PW-35 Anil Somania searched for the accused persons at their offices in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon but he could not find them there.PW-35 Anil Somania also learnt that the accused persons were involved in a sugar mill in Mukeria, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and also could be at the farm house at Dhanari, District Budaun, UP and that he should search for the accused persons in these two places.On 19th February, 2002, the Investigating Officer sent SI A.P. Bhardwaj to search for them at the Dhanari farm house owned by the accused.On 19th February, 2002 PW-35 himself searched for the accused persons again at their houses in Ghaziabad but could not find them there.On 19th February, 2002, PW-35 also received telephonic information from Sh.SI Anil Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 782 Somania states that at about 9 p.m. on the night of 19th of February, 2002, he went to Khurja.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 782The warrants of arrest also could not be executed as the accused persons were not at their house.Thus the submission of learned Senior Counsel that there is no evidence of the addresses at which the police searched for the appellants is contrary to record.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 784Vikas Yadav has stated that at Bisoli on the 19 th of February, 2002, he learnt about his implication in the case.Vikas and Vishal Yadav have admitted that they acquired knowledge of their being wanted in the case involving Nitish Katara's demise in this manner.These were already times of mobile/cell phones and people remained closely connected.Mr. Dey points out that it was only on 25th February, 2002 upon receipt of the report of the DNA test conducted on the samples from the dead body as well as Nilam Katara and her husband that it was confirmed to the police that the body recovered at Khurja on 17th February, 2002 was actually that of Nitish Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 788Therefore, commission of offences under Section 302/201 of the IPC was added to the FIR only therafter pursuant to the order of 27th February, 2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel has urged that Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav have mentioned Section 302 IPC in the applications which were filed by them before the Judicial Magistrate at Dabra on 24th February, 2002 as well as 25th February, 2002 even though it had not been incorporated in the FIR, only because of their complicity in and from their knowledge of the murder of Nitish Katara and destruction of evidence.Upon grant of transit remand, Anil Somania took custody of the accused persons from the jail at Dabra and finally started Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 789 for Ghaziabad in the evening of 24th February, 2002 after recording the departure in the Daily Diary (Exh. PW-36/8) of PS Dabra.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 789The court directed that Vishal and Vikas Yadav be kept for a period of 14 days, i.e, till 11th March, 2002 in judicial remand and directed preparation of the warrants under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.Thereafter, on 27th February, 2002, both Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav had been produced from jail in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate pursuant to the order dated 25th of February, 2002 passed on the application for police remand.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate perused the report of the investigating officer as well as the case diary (CD') .The investigating officer made a request to the court for addition of offences under Section 302/201 IPC.It was directed further that the warrant of the accused persons under Section 167 be prepared under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC.The question nos. 66 to 70 put to Vikas Yadav under Section 313 are relevant on this aspect.At the end of the questions by the court Vikas Yadav attempted to explain that after he left the marriage venue at the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall he had gone with Vishal to attend the party of Amit Gandhi in Raj Nagar.Thereafter Vishal left for his house while he left for Karnal to attend a havan and a ring ceremony.After attending these, he went to his factory in Mukeria.In the evening of 18th February, 2002, he left for Bisoli and early in the morning of 19th February, 2002 reached his constituency.In Bisoli, he learnt that he had been implicated in a false case.He consequently proceeded to Allahabad which he reached in the morning of 20th of October, 2002 and contacted Shri Arvind Mishra, Advocate.Vishal also reached there the next morning when they met Mr. A.D. Giri, Senior Advocate and Mr. Jai Singh, Advocate when it was deemed to surrender before the concerned court at Ghaziabad.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 791Questions No. 45, 92, 93 and 94 were put to Vishal Yadav were in this regard who also denied the fact that he absconded without anything more.He claimed that on the 19th of February, 2002, he was in his house at Ghaziabad and that he had his cousin in Allahabad where they went to take legal advice.Vikas and Vishal Yadav have claimed that at about 11.30 pm on 16th February, 2002 they were present at the house of DW-1 Ashok Gandhi to attend the ring ceremony of his son Amit Gandhi.Thereafter Vikas Yadav left for Karnal on 17th February, 2002 as in the morning he had to attend a Hawan followed by a ring ceremony in the afternoon of DW-14 Manuj Diwan at Karnal.The defence examined Sh.Ashok Gandhi, an income tax advocate by profession who was a resident of R-2/233, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad as DW-1 to establish the fact that Vikas and Vishal Yadav had attended the ring ceremony of his son Amit Gandhi at the Gandhi residence.The function started at his residence at about 8.30 p.m. of the 16th February, 2002 and the rituals took 1-2 hours.In his cross-examination DW-1 Ashok Gandhi refers to a roka ceremony' as well.DW-1 Ashok Gandhi has explained that in the lagan ceremony at 7.00 pm, his daughter-in-law's parents were accompanied by a pandit who read out the lagan stating the date and time when the saptpati (wedding ceremony) was to be performed.There is no mention of the presence of the daughter-in-law.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 799There is no evidence that either Vikas, Vishal Yadav or any of their family members attended the wedding.The witness did not produce the CD or any photograph of the wedding ceremony.Vikas and Vishal Yadav have attempted to establish that after attending the ring ceremony at the Gandhis, Vikas Yadav proceeded to Karnal to attend the paryojan' ceremony relating to the marriage of DW-14 Manuj Diwan - at the house of his father DW 4 Sh.In order to explain the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 815 failure to approach the police with the evidence of Vikas Yadav's visit, DW-4 had set up a story that in his absence Ghaziabad police visited his house at Karnal and saw the photographs of the ring ceremony.DW-4 has advanced an explanation that after 15-20 days of the arrest of the accused persons, when he was in Alwar, he received a telephone call from his residence at Karnal that some' police officers from Ghaziabad had visited his residence and they were shown the photographs of the function.By that time, the album was not received from the photographer and his children had brought the photographs from the photographer and shown them to the police.The witness further stated that his children disclosed to him that the circle around the face of the accused Vikas in the photograph mark Exh.As per DW-4, when the police visited his house, the album had not been received and photographs were brought from the photographer.The witness confirmed that the endorsement of Vikas's entry was also the last entry in the register.The police personnel who appeared in the witness box established the concerted efforts from the 17th of February, 2002 to search out the accused persons at all their known addresses including business premises including at the factory in Mukeria.No suggestion was made to these Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 825 witnesses that the accused had actually visited the factory on the dates in question or was available at any other place.The isolated statement of Ombir with regard to the movement of Vikas Yadav on the 18th of February, 2002, when examined against the other proven facts on record, is unbelievable.The defence has examined DW-9, Bhairav Prasad Maurya and DW-17, Sandeep Mishra to prove that on 19th and 20th February, 2002 Vikas Yadav was at his constituency Bisauli.As per Bhairav Prasad Maurya (DW-9) he was related to one of the contestants of BSP party whom he was supporting and at the same time, taking care of the election process.No report was lodged with the police nor message was sent to the Election Commission by the witness or any other person about the incident.No documentary evidence of the altercation or the compromise which is claimed to have been reached has been produced.Interestingly, DW - 9 states that though he reads newspapers but he did not read the newspaper or watched television from 17th to 19th February, 2002 since he was busy in elections.Both DW 9 and DW 17 are known to the father of Vikas Yadav.There is thus substance in the challenge to the authenticity of the seal appearing on Ex.DW-17/A as well as the presence of Vikas Crl.The defence has thereafter sought to establish a case that Vikas Yadav met Shri Arvind Mishra, Advocate DW - 12 on 20th February, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 831 2002 at Allahabad.On 21st of February, 2002, he took Vikas and Vishal Yadav to the house of Shri A.D. Giri Senior Advocate.He advised them to surrender before the court.There would be some documentary evidence of their travel to and fro, board and lodgings at Allahabad and related documents which ought to be in their power and possession.The two appellants do not even disclose the names of the train(s) by which they travelled, let alone any proof of their having undertaken the journeys at all or of their hotel stay and related expenditure.It is also pointed out that Allahabad falls on the Delhi- Howrah rail route.Dabra however is located between Jhansi and Gwalior on the train line between Delhi-Chennai.Therefore, Allahabad and Dabra are in completely opposite directions in the context of Delhi.With regard to their movement from Allahabad in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to the question No. 217, Vishal Yadav has stated as follows: -".....from Allahabad we took the next available train to Delhi to reach Ghaziabad, on the way alighted at Dabra for refreshment but were falsely implicated as state above....we were travelling by Gomti from Allahbad to Ghaziabad....."With regard to their movement from Allahabad is concerned, at point 238, Vikas Yadav has stated as follows: -From Allahabad we started for Delhi by changing trains i.e. Allahabad to Kanpur, Kanpur to Jhansi and Jhansi to Delhi.On the way we got down at Dabra Station for some refreshments but were apprehended and confronted unnecessarily by the Dabra police on being recognized due to that our photographs were flashed everywhere i.e. print media and electronic media.It would appear from the Vishal's statement that the accused persons did not change trains anywhere.While as per Vikas's statement, the accused persons changed trains thrice.In answer to the court question No.238, Vikas Yadav further stated that they had left Allahabad on 22nd February, 2002 in the night for Kanpur.When questioned as to what time they left from Kanpur to Jhansi, the accused Vikas Yadav stated that they reached Kanpur in the early hours of 23rd February, 2002; waited in the waiting room and then on the same day Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 840 they took a train to Jhansi and from Jhansi took a train to Delhi.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 840Though Vikas Yadav in his statement under Section 313 states that he informed Shri Rajender Choudhary, Advocate about wanting to surrender; appearing as DW-3, Rajender Choudhary, Advocate does not say so.The appellants were not arrested from the railway station.Mr. Kapoor, ld. counsel for Sukhdev @ Pehalwan has contended that the prosecution case that Sukhdev @ Pehalwan had abscondeded after the commission of murder, is false and that this appellant has adequately established that he was peacefully living in his village and discharging normal functions at the time of the crime and thereafter.The name of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan as being involved in the crime first surfaced in the statements of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on 25th February, 2002 by the Investigating Officer Anil Somania.However, they referred to him merely as Pehalwan'.As per Anil Somania, IO, PS Ghaziabad (who testified as PW-22 in Sukhdev Pehalwan's trial), the statement of Bharti Yadav (Exh.Consequently a trap was laid on 3rd March, 2002 by Investigating Officer Anil Somania to apprehend Sukhdev @ Pehalwan in Bulandshahr.The police were unable to apprehend him physically but were able to lay their hands on a guarantee card, which bore his photograph as well as complete address (Ex. PW-22/A1).This is how the police could get the complete particulars of this appellant.It is in evidence that despite several efforts which include formation of a separate police team for apprehension and arrest of Sukhdev Pehalwan, the police were unsuccessful.Several places including his native village were raided despite arrest warrants obtained from the concerned court but he could not be apprehended.The SSP, Ghaziabad on 25th March, 2002 declared a reward of Rs.5,000/- for the arrest of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan .The Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 850 reward was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- by IG/DG, Meerut for information about the arrest of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 850The proclamation of the reward was published in the newspaper with photographs of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan and television telecasts were also taken out.All efforts were to no avail.On 4th March, 2002, non-bailable warrants for the arrest of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan were issued by the concerned court and SI Mukesh Tomar went to his native village to execute the same.Yet Sukhdev @ Pehalwan successfully avoided arrest.On 31st March, 2002, the police got Sukhdev @ Pehalwan declared a proclaimed offender.He did not surface for three years thereafter.In the year 2002, Anil Somania got Sukhdev Pehalwan's double barrel gun licence cancelled.Even this did not secure his custody.The next chronological reference in the record of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan is to be found in the evidence of PW-20, SI Ajit Kumar Mishra who testified that on 23rd February, 2005 while posted as SI in PS Patcherawa, District Kushi Nagar, UP, he was on patrol duty along with five constables leading towards village Vanvera from the side of village Karjaha.At Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 851 about 1.30 am, when the police party was near Rudelpur Tiraha, Village Sarai Patti, it spotted a person in the headlights of the jeep.The police party stopped him and enquired about his particulars but this person suddenly shot at the police party and started running towards the west side of the tiraha.Despite the police party disclosing its identity and calling upon him to surrender, this person did not stop.In the meantime, he fired another shot upon the police.The police party chased him for about 40-45 paces and could overpower him only when this person was trying to re-load his pistol.It was after apprehending this person that his identity was revealed to the police party as Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan, son of Shri Vishawnath Yadav, resident of Tarnbagla, Kumeha, PS Patherwa, District Kushi Nagar, UP.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 851Upon his search, the police recovered from Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan one country made pistol of .315 bore from his right hand and two live cartridges from the pocket of his pants.One unused cartridge was recovered from the country made pistol while one used cartridge was found from the spot.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 852PW-20 SI Ajit Kumar Mishra identified Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan present in court as the person whom and the police party arrested on 23rd February, 2005 in the above circumstances.The prosecution also examined SI Umakant Pandey as PW-He stated that during the course of the investigation he learnt that Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was a proclaimed offender of PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad and the Ghaziabad police was accordingly informed about the accused.The portion of her deposition setting out the exact questions put to Vikas Yadav and his answer may be extracted in extenso and read as follows:Q. It is told that you have admitted to the police and confessed before police that you had a quarrel with them (Un se) Ans.The two brothers were brought to Ghaziabad early that morning, producted in the court of the CJM, Ghaziabad and lodged in judicial custody in the Ghaziabad jail.What have you to say? A. It is incorrect.I did not even know Nitish Katara.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that on 17/02/02 complainant Nilam Katara from her cell phone No.9810206299 and landline Nos.3747555 and 3366629 called several times to your cousin sister Bharti Yadav on her cell Phone No.9810038469 to ascertain the whereabouts of Nitish Katara upon which Bharti Yadav replied that she was also trying to contact Nitish on his cell phone, but there was no response.What have you to say?A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 898A: I do not know.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that your cousin sister Bharti Yadav called from her cell phone No.9810038469 to Bharat Diwakar on his mobile phone No.9810154964 at 4.06 am.What have you to say?A: I do not know.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that on 17/02/02 complainant lodged a complaint Ex.PW 1/1 in the PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, UP, against you and your co accused persons regarding the abduction of Nitish Katara, from Diamond Place.What have you to say?A: I came to know later on that a false report had been lodged against me and my cousin Vikas Yadav.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that the police searched you and your co accused persons Vikas Yadav and Sukhdev Pehlwan but you were found missing at the given addresses despite efforts made by the IO to search you.What have you to say?A: It is incorrect.This witness states that he had arrived on the same night when the marriage was to take place.The statement of Bharat Diwakar under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by the investigating officer in the presence of his father who was ADG Spl.Operations and was at that time posted at Bhopal.In this statement, Bharat Diwakar had stated that they were unable to make contact with Nitish Katara on his mobile.If Nitish had actually told Gaurav Gupta that he was at the IMT, would these two, again educated, well connected friends of Nitish, have overlooked telling the police of this crucial fact? If true, it was a vital fact which required to be investigated.The ld. trial judge has righlty held that the fact that they made improvements in their previous statement over identical facts and tried to introduce a conversation with Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 911 Nitish at 00:58 hours is a telling circumstance by itself.So far as Bharat Diwakar is concerned, he has not only made this improvement but has attempted to conceal the identity of Vishal Yadav as the person who had called away Nitish Katara clearly manifesting the correctness of the observations made by the ld. trial court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 911The ld.As per Ex.PW21/1, call records relating to Nitish Katara's cell phone, after 23:24:28 hrs.(11:24 pm), Nitish's cell phone reflects that he also received three phone calls from cell phone no.9811009998 (cell number not tracked by the police), each lasting 00:01 seconds.In addition, he has received two calls from Bharti's identified cell phone (no.9811034829), one at 00:35:40 hrs.(00:35 am) lasting 00:20 seconds and a second call at 00:40:44 lasting 00:21 seconds.These corroborate Bharti's disclosure to Nilam Katara that she also had unsuccessfully tried to contact Nitish after she had learnt that he had been taken away by her brothers.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 914 informed about his schedule to his friends whom he had so precipitately abandoned midway through dinner.On 7th August, 2003, the trial court has recorded that though Kamal Kishore was summoned for that day, but he was not present.In this background, non-bailable warrants Crl.PW-35/4) is falsified by established and proven documentary evidence of Nitish Katara's mobile phone electronic records (Exh.PW21/1).This documentary evidence disproves that Nitish Katara was at Balwant Rai Mehta Lane, New Delhi at 1:00 am the stated time.As per the call records (Exh.PW-21/1), at 0111 hours (1.11 a.m.) on 17th February, 2002, Nitish Katara was in the Ghaziabad area Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 955As per Ex.The next call was received by him at 00:35:40 hrs when his phone was being covered by the Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad cell tower.The five calls thereafter received by him up to the last call being at 01:11:18 hrs was received by this cell phone when it was being covered by the Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad cell tower only.The several calls to his cell phone establish that Nitish Katara was within the reach of cell towers in Ghaziabad and had not moved to Delhi.The accused persons had gone together to Shivani Gaur's wedding.In this statement Bharti Yadav confirmed the involvement of a third person revealing his full name as Sukhdev Pehalwan' also present with her brothers in the wedding on the night of the incident.The police had no idea who he was or that he was employed in the liquor shop of the family of Vikas Yadav in Bulandshahr.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 986 made to his repeated applications to the court.In the meantime, Ajay Kumar filed an affidavit on the 23rd of May, 2008 that he had learnt about the alleged sting operation conducted on him as being claimed by a newspaper.On the next date, the reader refused to accept the same on the ground that the court was on leave and he was asked to return at 3:00 p.m. The court had dispersed and the reader expressed inability to accept the affidavit and the application.The witness stated that when he came out of the court room, two or three persons connected with Shri D.P. Yadav stopped him and threatened him with dire consequences and told him to leave the court failing which his son and family would be liquidated.The witness stated that he got scared and left the court premises.On 17th May, 2008 and 19th May, 2008, the witness claimed that he received threats on his cell phones from Subhash Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 987 Yadav who warned him against going to court.A complaint was lodged with the Shahibabad Police Station in this regard.Because of threats which he was receiving, the applicant stated that he could not come to the court as he was being threatened that his son, who is in the custody of Shri D.P. Yadav, would be killed.The witness referred to the several applications and documents made before the court about the prevailing threat to him to make him change his previous statement in the court.He neither sent any soil lifted from the spot where the burnt body was recovered nor black ash which Crl.It is also recorded that the report of the investigating officer as well as the CD (case diary) has been perused.This order contains the signatures of both Vikas Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1018 Yadav and Vishal Yadav.They were also represented by counsels in all proceedings.In these circumstances, it would be most unfair to disbelieve the investigating officers and to discard the steps taken by the investigating officers in the instant case.To so treat the police force with total suspicion and disdain would be unfair to the organization to say the least.The writ petition came to be before the court on the 28th of February, 2002 when the following order was passed.shall now go to respondent Nos.2,3 and 4(xxi) On the 21st of April, 2004, Shri C.K. Sharma, counsel for Bharti Yadav stated that the Court approach her university.The Court noticed that the university had no role with her appearance as a witness and she was delaying the case unnecessarily on one pretext or the other.(xxii) The court also observed that no reply was being received from the Ministry of External Affairs and that there was no assistance from the Ministry in this regard.He is further directed to give the details of all these facts by moving an appropriate application to which against he has refused.He has submitted that on 17/7/06 he would not be able to appear before the Court since his wife is admitted in some hospital at Kerala, as such he is leaving immediately for Kerala..(xli) It is urged by Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the complainant before us that the above conduct of the father of Bharti Yadav, who was also father of the accused Vikas Yadav and maternal uncle of Vishal Yadav, reflects the consort between them to avoid her appearance as a witness.It is impossible that Shri D.P. Yadav did not know the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1051 address of his daughter (whom he must be supporting) or of his friend who he claimed had met her and non-disclosure of her address was deliberate and malafide.S.K. Bhuttan, Advocate for Shri Bharat Singh, an attorney of Bharti Yadav.Despite service of the proclamation at her address, 33, Sutton Way Heston, Middlesex TW-501, UK, she has not appeared for recording of evidence.Bhuttan, Advocate submitted that Shri Bharat Singh would produce Bharti Yadav before the court during the first week of November and he would confirm the date from Bharti Yadav personally with the assistance of his client about her visit to India on a specific date.A week's adjournment for arranging the exact date when Bharti Yadav would be coming to India was sought, if all arrangements of her travel, to and fro UK, were made by the State and the media was kept away from the witness.Upon receipt of an assurance on all counts from the Special PP, the case was adjourned to 6th October, 2006 for Sh.Bhuttan to provide the information of the date when the witness was travelling.In the meanwhile, the order under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was kept in abeyance.She had travelled to and was studying in the UK.It is reasonably expected that she was aware of her responsibilities as a citizen of this country, more so, when she was in admitted knowledge of the court processes against her.Yet she was under the total control of her family.However, the matter reached such an impasse that the court had to issue NBWs, which were duly served; commence proceedings in accordance with Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. issuing a proclamation which was also served on her and an application for attachment of properties in accordance with Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. had been filed by the State to secure her presence.Even these court proceedings did not persuade Bharti Yadav to appear in the court.The complaint of Ajay Katara, the reply given by SO along with complaint of Saroj Yadav are sent to DIG Meerut Zone.Mr. Ajay Katara is directed not to enter into the jurisdiction of PS Vijay Ngr and Gh'bad for next six months to ensure his safety.It is made clear to both the police officers that any harassment to the witness in the garb of complaints lodged by relative of DP Yadav or well wishers of accd.persons shall be taken seriously by this court.(Underlining by us)(x) On the 11th of August, 2003, the court sent the copy of the application of the witness Ajay Katara as well as reply received by the two police officers, afore-named, to the DIG, Meerut Zone, UP requesting him to conduct an enquiry and sent a report to the court.The learned trial judge again emphasized that the witness Ajay Katara should be given adequate protection.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1061He was confronted with the portions of Exh.PW28/A in translations whereof read as follows:At about 12 o'clock in the night, Vikas Yadav son of Shri D.P. Yadav had come in a Tata Safari car from the direction of Diamond Palace.The position of Ct.Inderjeet Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1066 Singh is a little better as he maintained his statement (Exh.PW-32/A) under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also recorded on 4th March, 2002 except with regard to identification of the person in the red kurta.He was confronted with the following portions of Exh.PW-32/A:Portion A toA The window panes of the vehicle were open.He was confronted with the following portions of his statement:Portion A to A Bhawna Yadav, sister of Bharti Yadav; brother Vikas Yadav; Vishal Yadav, maternal brother (fufera) had also come there.After the barat, many people were eating dinner in the garden of the Diamond Palace.Bharat Diwakar, Nitish Katara and Gaurav Gupta being friends were eating dinner together in the garden At about 12:00 in the night, Vishal Yadav reached near Nitish Katara and started talking to him.The witness promptly gave the desired answer.The court has also noted that counsel for the accused persons kept suggesting answers to the questions which he had put to the witness in a low tone.For instance, when DW-3 merely stated that Vikas Yadav had told him about obtaining his signatures on blank papers, counsel suggested to him the name of Vishal Yadav as well and thereafter, a suggestive question was put to the witness pointedly referring to Vishal Yadav.The witness repeated the tutored information.The judgment dated 28th May, 2002 makes substantive observations on the condition of Bharat Diwakar and the fact that he was under the influence of the accused persons.The ld.Trial judge has noted that Bharat Diwakar went to the extent of his denying that his statement was recorded by the police on 17th February, 2002 and subsequently, admitted at Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1072 the time inquiries were made from Nilam Katara by the police at PS Kavi Nagar.On 17th February, 2002, he too was called and interrogated and that he had narrated the entire episode.The appellants have asserted that they have been dishonestly implicated in the case.From the above discussion, as also held by the learned trial judges, the following chain of circumstances therefore, stand proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants:(i) The deceased Nitish Katara and Bharti Yadav (sister of Vikas Yadav; first cousin sister of Vishal Yadav and; daughter of Shri D.P. Yadav who was also the employer of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan) were in an intimate relationship aiming towards permanency.The family members of Bharti Yadav, including Vikas and Vishal Yadav, were opposed to this relationship.(v) At around midnight, Nitish Katara was seen with the appellants in a Tata Safari vehicle at a short distance from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall (15-20 steps at a turn where a police patrol gypsy Chetak 13 was parked) where the wedding was being held.(vi) The deceased was last seen alive at around 12:20/12:30 am at the Hapur Chungi by prosecution witness Ajay Kumar Katara in the company of the three appellants in the Tata Safari vehicle which was being driven by Vikas Yadav.Nitish was seated in the front passenger seat next to the driver while the other two appellants sat in the rear seat.(x) The dead body of Nitish Katara was found at 9:30 a.m. in the morning of 17th February, 2002 in a completely burnt, naked and unidentifiable condition on the Shikharpur Road which was recovered by the Khurja Police.(xi) The time at which the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellants was proximate to the time when he was murdered as well as the subsequent discovery of his body.(xii) As Nitish Katara did not reach his residence after the wedding, Nilam Katara lodged a police complaint of her son being missing with the police station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad at about 11:30 a.m. on the 17th of February, 2002 which was registered as FIR No.192/02 under Section 364 of the IPC.(xiii) The post-mortem had been conducted on the recovered dead body at 3:30 p.m. on the 18 th of February, 2002 by Dr. Anil Singhal, Orthopaedics Surgeon at the District Hospital, Bulandshehr.As per the post-mortem (Exh.PW3/3) the cause of death was death due to coma as a result of ante-mortem head injury with post mortem burns.(xiv) The body was having a lacerated wound on the head, a fracture in the skull, laceration and hematoma in the brain immediately below the fracture.The doctor had Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1119 opined the head injury to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The body was identified by Nilam Katara on 21st of February 2002 as that of her missing son Nitish Katara from his unburnt left hand.The report dated 7th of March, 2002 of the DNA examination confirmed the identity of the dead body as that of Nitish Katara.(xvii) The investigating officer recorded the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of these appellants in the Ghaziabad jail on the night of 25th February, 2002 in which Vikas and Vishal Yadav made separately disclosure statements about knowledge of the place where the crime was committed as well as the place where the dead body was burnt and the fact that one Pehalwan' was their accomplice.Both of them also stated that the Tata Safari vehicle which had been used on the fateful night could be pointed out by them.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1120 Vikas Yadav additionally disclosed that he could point out the place where the hammer used in the offence had been hidden by him.Vishal Yadav also additionally disclosed in his statement that he could get recovered the wrist watch and mobile of the deceased which had been hidden by him.(xviii) On the 28th February, 2002, Vikas and Vishal Yadav accompanied by their counsel Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate pointed out to the police the spot near Aughwar Railway Crossing where the crime was committed and then the spot where the body was burnt and the site plans were prepared.Then alone can law and order be maintained.The appellants in Crl.Whereas the appellant in Crl.By the present judgment, we propose to decide the challenge to the judgments dated 28th of May 2008 and 6th July, 2011 on which detailed arguments have been addressed.Bharti Yadav also informed Nilam Katara that her brothers were not informing her about anything and that Nilam Katara should speak to her father.When questioned again, Bharat Diwakar told Nilam Katara that he had been told by Rohit Gaur (brother of the bride Shivani Gaur) that Vishal Yadav was the person who had called away Nitish Katara and who had seen Nitish Katara going with Vishal Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 9On 17th February, 2002 between 11:30 am and 12:00 noon, having failed to ascertain the whereabouts of her son, Nilam Katara lodged a complaint with the police station Ghaziabad.The handwritten complaint made by PW-30 Nilam Katara on 17th February, 2002 was in vernacular which was registered as FIR No.192/02 under Section 364 of the IPC (Exh.PW-1/A) and the translation thereof reads as follows:Inspector Chander Pal Singh proceeded to the spot with Constable Mudassar Khan and found a dead body which had been burnt beyond recognition in a khai' (gorge/pit) near the road.The panchnama of the dead body (Exh.PW3/2A) was recorded with regard to the recovery of the dead body as well as the steps taken by the police to identify the body on that day.A post-mortem was conducted on the corpse on the 18th of February 2002 by Dr. Anil Singhal, an Orthopaedic Surgeon in the District Hospital, Bulandshahr who opined the cause of death as death due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury with post mortem burn.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 12 (Exh.PW3/3) also shows a lacerated wound measuring 3x2 cms.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 12A message was received by Police Station Ghaziabad on 19 th February, 2002 about the discovery of the dead body which was lying in the mortuary.On the 21st of February 2002, S.I. Anil Somania took Smt. Nilam Katara for identification of the dead body to the mortuary in Khurja.Nilam Katara identified the body as that of her son, Nitish Katara by examining his left palm which was not burnt and comparing it with her own hand, as Nitish Katara had unusually small hands.In order to further confirm the identity of the dead body, the police took steps for getting a DNA examination conducted on samples drawn from the dead body and compared it with samples drawn from Nilam Katara and her husband Nishit Katara.These samples were sent for DNA examination to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta.A report dated 7th March, 2002 (Exh.PW17/1) received from the laboratory concluded that the dead body belonged to biological son of Nilam Katara and Nishit M. Katara.In the meantime, after the registration of the case on 17 th of February 2002, the police at Ghaziabad took intensive steps Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 13 to search for Vikas and Vishal Yadav, brothers of Bharti Yadav.Immediate steps were taken by Anil Somania to travel to Dabra so as to arrest the brothers in the present case.The two were brought to Ghaziabad and produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate , Ghaziabad on 25th February, 2002 (CJM Ghaziabad' hereafter).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 13Appropriate endorsements were recorded in the records accordingly.According to the police, on the 2nd of March 2002, they were permitted to record a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Bharti Yadav at her residence in Ghaziabad.At the time of recording of the statement of Bharti Yadav by Anil Somania accompanied by one police official Anju Bhadoria, her father Shri D.P. Yadav remained present.In this statement (Exh.PW35/AB), Bharti Yadav had disclosed the full particulars of the Pehalwan' (disclosed by Vikas and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 15 Vishal Yadav) as Sukhdev Pehalwan'.He was also present in Shivani Gaur's wedding on the night of 16th February, 2002 and that Sukhdev Pehalwan' was working in their liquor vends in Bulandshahr, U.P. She also stated that Nitish Katara had been taken away by these people from the wedding of Shivani Gaur itself.Bharti disclosed about her relationship with Nitish Katara, exchange of gifts etc.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 15So far as investigation against Vikas and Vishal Yadav is concerned, in view of the disclosures made by them, the police made an application to the CJM, Ghaziabad on 26th February, 2002 seeking police custody remand so as to effect the recoveries pursuant thereto.The court had already permitted counsel to be present with the accused persons during the police remand.On the 28th of February 2002, the investigating officer took custody of Vikas and Vishal Yadav from the Ghaziabad jail and got their medical done.Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate accompanied the accused.As the Tata Safari vehicle and the mobile phone of the deceased remained to be recovered, the police made another application on 1st March, 2002 seeking police custody remand for the same.The CJM, Ghaziabad rejected this application.The police moved the Sessions Court which by an order dated 6th March, 2002 held that the power vested in the CJM court which alone had to consider the remand prayer.A fresh application was thereafter filed before the CJM, who, by an order dated 8th March, 2002, granted two Crl.They got the Tata Safari bearing the above registration number recovered on 11th March, 2002 from these premises.The accused persons refused to sign the recovery memo of the Tata Safari vehicle (Exh.PW27/1).The Investigating Officer was continuing with the investigation and during the course thereof, recorded statements amongst others of Ct.Inderjit Singh and Ct.Satender Pal Singh who were police personnel on patrol duty in police Gypsy Chetak-13 which was parked a little distance Crl.The prosecution led evidence to show that the three accused persons and Nitish Katara came away from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall in the Tata Safari vehicle at around midnight on that night.Though in the witness box Ct.The recovered hammer was sent for a forensic examination.By the report dated 6th of March 2002, the serologist confirmed presence of human blood on the narrow end of the hammer.Trial of Vikas and Vishal YadavOn completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against Vikas and Vishal Yadav on 6th April, 2002 in the court of CJM, Ghaziabad.Thereafter on 6th April, 2002 the case was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.Immediately, thereafter she filed Crl.Writ No. 247/2002 in this court seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus and other directions to the police.Nilam Katara had impleaded Vikas and Vishal Yadav as respondents in this matter.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 21Before the Writ court, the investigating agency had placed detailed status reports setting out the several steps taken during investigation including the searches, recording of statements; disclosures as well as recoveries; etc. During the course of hearing before us, parties were called upon to inform the court about all previous litigation as well as the orders passed by the courts.Unfortunately other than few orders placed before us, we have not had the benefit of reading the pleadings.Vikas and Vishal Yadav had also approached higher courts including the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.In the meantime, Nilam Katara filed a petition being Transfer Petition No. 449/2002 before the Supreme Court of India praying for transfer of the trial against Vikas and Vishal Yadav to Delhi.The Supreme Court first passed an order dated 22nd May, 2002 staying the further proceedings before the trial court at Ghaziabad.By a subsequent order dated 22nd August, 2002, transferred the trial to the Sessions Court at Delhi.Accordingly the trial of Vikas and Vishal Yadav was conducted by the trial court in Patiala House, New Delhi.By an order dated 23rd November, 2002, the following charge was framed against Vikas and Vishal Yadav for commission of offences under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC:Further investigation was completed by the police against Sukhdev @ Pehalwan and a supplementary chargesheet against him was filed in the court where the trial of Vikas and Vishal Yadav was pending.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 25By now 37 prosecution witnesses stood examined in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's case.The case against Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was registered as SC No.117A/2006 and was placed before the same Trial Judge trying SC Case No.78/2002 against Vikas and Vishal Yadav.After hearing the appellant Sukhdev @ Pehalwan on charge, by an order dated 13th April, 2006, it was directed that charges under Section 364/302/201 read with Section 34 of the IPC be framed against him.Accordingly, the following charge was framed against Sukhdev @ Pehalwan-I, Ravinder Kaur, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi do hereby charge you Sukhdev @ Pehlwan as follows:A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 26I hereby direct that you be tried by this court for the above mentioned offences.As he pleaded not guilty, he was put to trial on the said charges.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 27Sukhdev @ Pehalwan assailed the order directing framing of the charge as well as charge by way of Crl.It is noteworthy that in the meantime, the two trials were being conducted on the same date.The record reflects that the common order-sheet was recorded on each date which included the presence of all the appellants as well as their respective counsels.was treated as the main case.Recording of evidence in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's matter was completed and finally the judgment came to be passed on the 28th of May 2008, Sukhdev @ Pehalwan's case was transferred for completion of trial by an order dated 25 th July, 2008 of the District Judge.During this trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses most of whom had been examined during the trial of Vikas and Vishal Yadav.Some of the witnesses examined during the previous trial were either not relevant for this trial given the allegations against Sukhdev Yadav or were given up as having been won over.On 6th July, 2007 the Special Public Prosecutor gave up Bharti Yadav and Bharat Diwakar as Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 28 prosecution witnesses.Thereafter on 10th July, 2007 the prosecution similarly gave up Gaurav Gupta as a prosecution witness.The Special Public Prosecutor adopted the statements of Dr.Anil Singhal and Ms. Nilam Katara as well as a few other witnesses which had been made in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's case as their statements in Sukhdev @ Pehalwan 's trial with the consent of the accused who was given full opportunity to cross-examine them.Sukhdev @ Pehalwan denied his presence at Shivani Gaur's wedding on the night of 16th February, 2002 as well as his presence in the Tata Safari vehicle in which the deceased was alleged to have been abducted and killed.Sukhdev @ Pehalwan set up a defence that the police had wanted him to become a witness against Vikas and Vishal Yadav, and, upon his refusal, he was falsely implicated in the case.Sukhdev @ Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 29 Pehalwan also examined as DW-2 the Nodal Officer of the Bharti Airtel Ltd.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 29Appeal No.741/2008 while Vikas Yadav has filed Crl.Sukhdev Yadav has assailed the judgment dated 6th July, 2011 by way of Crl.The challenge rests primarily on the ground that there was no evidence at all to support the guilt of the appellant; that the prosecution had failed to establish any motive against the appellants; that there was no credible evidence of the appellants being in the company of the deceased either at the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 30 wedding, outside the venue or anywhere else in the Tata Safari vehicle.It has been contended that the evidence led by the prosecution was shaky and not credible and that the appellant has been convicted on sheer conjectures and surmises.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 30During the course of the submissions by counsels for the three appellants, we have noted that the witnesses and entire evidence led by the prosecution in Sukhdev trial is part of Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial.We also find that the submissions made on behalf of the three appellants over lap and their examination requires a reading of the same oral and documentary evidence as well as judicial precedents.We have therefore, heard the three appeals together and propose to decide these three appeals (Crl.Appeal No 741/2008, 910/2008, Crl.Appeal No 145/2012,) by a common judgment, of course, specifically adverting to separate grounds pressed before us on behalf of any of the appellants and also noting the manner in the evidence on a particular fact or circumstances pointed out by the parties.She has been throughout appearing in the appeals as well.No objection was raised by the appellants to her presence or representation on her behalf before us.We also find it in the interest of justice to permit her to be represented in the court Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 31 and assist us in the hearing of the present appeals.We have consequently heard the submissions on behalf of the complainant as well.Vikram Singh 9In their defence, Vikas and Vishal Yadav examined 26 witnesses 10 of whom were advocates.So far as Sukhdev Yadav was concerned, he examined two witnesses in his defence.We shall discuss the testimonies of these defence witnesses as we deal with the rival contentions hereafter.In the first trial, out of 43 witnesses, all except for one material public witness either had to be declared hostile or were won over or influenced.And these included police personnel.Witnesses prevaricated on the same issues.Material embellishments and improvements were also on the same point.The evidence in the present case has to be scrutinized on these principles.(v) Testimony of a witness declared hostile :(vi) Knowledge of Bhartis family members about the relationship(ix) Conduct of Bharti Yadav on the 17th of February, 2002 and thereafter; her reactions, and utterances to Nilam Katara and Nitin Katara; conversations with Bharat Diwakar after Nitish Katara had been abducted and prior to anyone learning that he had been murdered(x) Regarding involvement of Vikas and Vishal Yadav -Spontaneous utterances by Bharti Yadav during the continuation of the transaction are admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 54The prosecution led evidence to the effect that Bharti Yadav (daughter of Shri D.P. Yadav) was romantically involved with the deceased Nitish Katara so much so that they were looking towards establishing permanency in their relationship.Vikas Yadav son of Shri D.P. Yadav is Bharti's brother.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 73 out of the way, that would have lent additional assurance to the circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt.But the fact that the prosecution has failed to lead such evidence has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be very closely examined... (Underlining by us)(iii) Prosecution evidence on motiveLet us now examine the prosecution submissions to establish motive.The prosecution examined Shri Bhagwan B. Mathur (PW-13) who was an Executive Coordinator at the IMT, Ghaziabad who proved Exh.PW-13 Shri Bhagwan B. Mathur was not cross-examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.His evidence is corroborated by the testimonies of PW-11 Shivani Gaur; PW-25 Bharat Diwakar; PW-26 Gaurav Gupta; PW-30 Nilam Katara and PW-38 Bharti Singh Yadav.(iv) The involvement of deceased Nitish Katara and Bharti Yadav in an intimate romantic relationship and that they were contemplating a permanent life long relationship culminating in marriageThe witness was in a position to identify Bharti's handwriting as she also had received a number of cards from her with her handwriting and signatures.The witness gave a graphic description of the signatures and handwriting of Bharti to explain its distinctive features.The witness also pointed out that the deceased Nitish was also known by the family nickname Chimpu'.Bharti had her own nicknames for him which included Pudda etc. Nitish similarly used to call Bharti by the nick name Ghughu' or Chuha' because of her petite figure.149. PW-30 had stated that she had shown all the intimate cards written by Bharti to Nitish; the album etc. to the investigating officer.However, he had chosen only two birthday cards out of the lot which were proved on record as Exh.These cards demonstrated beyond any doubt the existence of a deeply romantic relationship between Bharti Yadav and the deceased.Nilam Katara also produced and proved on record the letters and cards written by Bharti to Nitish Katara which are Ex. PW 30/C-1 to Ex.Also included a bed sheet as Ex PW 30/C-74 and three diaries from Ex PW 30/C-70 to Ex Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 81 PW 30/C-71 and Ex PW 30/C-72 and Ex PW 30/C-79 as a Valentine's Day album given by Bharti to the deceased.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 81On 14th February, 2001, celebrated as Valentine's Day, Bharti addressed a card in Hindi (Ex PW 30/C-15) to him.On his birthday on 20th April, 2001, Bharti has addressed thirteen birthday cards to Nitish Katara, each one making intensely passionate wishes about the two of them and declarations to him.(Ex PW 30/C-9; Ex PW 30/C-10; Ex PW 30/C-11; Ex PW 30/C-16; Ex PW 30/C-25; Ex PW 30/C-26; Ex PW 30/C-27; Ex PW 30/C-31; Ex PW 30/C-33; Ex PW 30/C-34; Ex PW 30/C-38; Ex PW 30/C-53 and Ex PW 30/C-66).Two deeply romantic cards both dated 17th May, 2001 were addressed by Bharti to Nitish Katara.In the cards dated 17 th May, 2001 (Ex PW 30/C-29) it was printed that now that I have found you....I want to spent my life with you."[In print on the cover] "I believe (call me naive) that a lover can be a best friend.I believe in loving you for hours and days and weeks and years on end.I believe in the idea of a soul mate.While there is also a card dated 19th October, 2001 (Ex.PW30/C50), four cards were given by Bharti to Nitish, each dated 17th November, 2001,(Ex.Bye, love u loads, Ghugu N do let me kno afta u hav ur medicine n brfast....lunch....dinner....love u!"Bharti Singh also sent a Valentine's Day card dated 14 th February, 2002 (Ex PW 30/C-21), i.e., two days before Nitish Katara was killed, to him.This card reads as follows:-I need you to talk to me."PW-30/C-4) addressed to Nitish Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 90 and separated from Nitish Katara on her birthday.It reflects the deep feelings nurtured by the scribe for Nitish Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 90Agonizing over their separation Bharti has stated therein to keep everybody happy.This letter clearly refers to her being pressurized and put into fear with regard to her relationship with Nitish Katara.The letter documents the opposition to Bharti's relationship with Nitish and the fact that everybody was dissuading her (samjhate hai) as well as trying to instill fear (sab mujhe darate hai) but she remained undaunted as she trusted Nitish.Mr. Krishnan has also drawn our attention to the specific question put to Bharti Yadav in the witness box as to whether she had intended to marry the deceased Nitish Katara.The witness stated at one place that she used to like him but there was no proposal for marriage.The attempt on behalf of Vikas Yadav to dispute closeness between his sister and the deceased and distance himself from them is thus belied by the extensive documentary evidence and the emotional revelations contained therein.(b)Day trip to Mumbai on the 24th of August 2000 to celebrate the birthday of sister Bhawna YadavA.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 94 up her son Nitish, he disclosed that he was also in Bombay for Bhawna's birthday celebrations.Nilam Katara met Nitish at the Mumbai Airport and he pointed out these friends to her.The witness also produced the cheque bearing no.239166 (Exh.PW-40/B) issued from this account by the deceased Nitish Katara on the 15th of September, 2001 in favour of Bharti Singh.This cheque was received by the HDFC Bank from the BNP Paribas Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for clearance which was effected on 18th September, 2001 which bore the signatures of the authorized signatory at point A (Exh.PW-40/A).The evidence on record establishes that this cheque was utilized by Bharti for opening her bank account with the BNP Paribas Bank.It was further requested in this letter dated 1st of March, 2002 that the address be changed in the account and all documents and correspondence be sent to her new address.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 98It is thus evident that at the time of opening the bank account, Bharti Yadav had two addresses in Delhi.In her oral testimony before the trial court, Bharti attempted to prevaricate and refused to admit or deny that she had sought change of the address in the BNP Paribas Bank to B-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 9914, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi where her sister Bhawna had an office.This conduct of Bharti and her avoidance to make any statement in her testimony is itself illustrative of the pressure on her to save her brothers at all costs.The timing of the request to change address is eloquent of the pressures on Bharti as well.The fact that she had opened a bank account giving Nitish's address using a cheque given by him and was operating it thus establishes not only the depth of their involvement but also evidences objections of her family to the same, given her need to maintain the account surreptitiously.Her reluctance and prevarication about giving details about the account indubitably establishes the pressure to which she is being subjected not to reveal the truth.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 100(f) Expensive giftsNilam Katara as PW - 30 has testified that in December of 2001, Bharti had gifted Nitish Katara an expensive watch of the ESPRIT make which she bought from the Ansal Plaza.It is in evidence that Nitish Katara was wearing this watch when he was murdered and that the watch has been also recovered at the instance of the Vishal Yadav.Nilam Katara has also testified about Bharti's gift of a golden chain with claws to her deceased son.She had argued with her son about accepting such expensive presents from Bharti Yadav.Her younger son, Nitin Katara (PW-39) corroborates the receipt of these gifts by Nitish from Bharti.Bharti has made a bald denial that she gifted the articles to Nitish.Her testimony ends up as a tale of prevarications and initial denials.The evidence on these gifts of Nilam Katara and Nitin Katara (PWs 30 and 39) is clear and unequivocal.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 101 veracity of their evidence.It inspires confidence and has to be believed.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 101The testimony of this witness could not be challenged in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Vikas Yadav while Vishal Yadav did not cross examine this witness despite opportunity.In the first trial, PW 25 Bharat Diwakar; PW 30 Nilam Katara; PW 39 Nitin Katara as well as PW 25 Gaurav Gupta have categorically testified that cell number 9810038469 was being used by Bharti and that they were calling on this Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 104 phone and speaking to her.They also claimed to have received phone calls from her using this very cell phone.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 104The prosecution has proved the call records of Nitish Katara's cell phone (Exh. PW 21/1) as well as those of Bharti (Exh.PW22/2).As per the prosecution, these phones were installed at the residence of Shri D.P. Yadav at Ghaziabad.The frequency of these calls coupled with the letters and cards lead to only one conclusion, that both of them shared a relationship which was more than mere friendship.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 105 admitted her having used the above noticed nick names of the deceased as well as her own nick names.Bharti Yadav has specifically admitted that the letters Exh.PW-30/C-2 and Exh.She has also admitted all the letters and cards which have been exhibited in the testimony of PW-30 Nilam Katara.She admits their photographs as well.Though Bharti orally attempts to distance herself from a close relationship with Nitish, her oral testimony if disproved by this documentary evidence which also corroborates the oral testimonies of PW-30 Nilam Katara and PW-39 Nitin Katara about the deeply romantic relationship which existed between the deceased and Bharti.This documentary evidence also establishes the opposition of Bharti's family to it.We shall discuss this circumstances hereafter.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 105(e) The relationship between Bharti and Nitish Katara was disapproved by Vikas Yadav and Vishal YadavThe prosecution led evidence before the trial court that the intimacy of the deceased with Bharti Yadav was of such extent that they were planning to marry and that this intimacy was not palatable to Vikas and Vishal Yadav.The opposition to the relationship was for two reasons: firstly, that the deceased did not belong to the Yadav caste and secondly, that Nitish Katara belonged to a family of government servants.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 106 this aversion to the relationship motivated them to get rid of the deceased.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 106The accused persons have completely denied knowledge of any such intimacy between Bharti and the deceased or of their plan to spend their lives together.Bharti was waiting for her brother to leave town before telling her father.The witness talks about the apprehensions harboured by Bharti about disclosing their intentions to her father.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 107The same disclosure was made by Nitish Katara to his brother Nitin Katara to whom also he had specifically told about the opposition to the relationship by Vikas and Vishal Yadav.Just after the occurrence of murder a large number of persons including family members came on the spot on cry of the informant to whom she disclosed about the occurrence.This complaint was registered as an FIR on the basis of which the investigation was started.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 123It is pertinent to mention that at the point of time, when the complainant Nilam Katara had lodged the police complaint on 17th February, 2002 (Exh.On this aspect, reference requires to be made to the pronouncement of the Privy Council reported at AIR 1947 P.C. 19 Smt. Bibhabati Devi v. R.N. Roy (also known as the Bhowal Sanyasi case').In this case, a challenge was laid to evidence given by four witnesses referred to as the Maitra group whom the trial court accepted as unimpeachable witness and whose evidence he accepted as virtually conclusive proof of the time of alleged death as having taken place at dusk between 7 and 8 o' clock.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 131In this regard, the applicable principles on which the evidence has to be scrutinised have been laid down by the Privy Council in Bibhabati Devi (Supra).This court is required to consider the entire evidence, that is, all the proven circumstances on record to reach the conclusion with regard to the truth of the statement attributed to the deceased Nitish Katara.She exhorts him in her letter to join her in Shimla while making repeated declarations of her feelings.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 132The testimony of PW-30 Nilam Katara on this aspect deserves to be carefully examined.There are two aspects to the same.The witness has nowhere stated that Nitish was narrating something that Bharti had told him.The witness has made a categorical statement that Nitish had told her about the following facts: -"(i) that Bharti was planning to tell her father about their intention to marry"; and "(ii) that her brothers knew about her intention but they were averse to her marriage with him but she was confident that she would be able to convince her father."The above testimony would also show that Nitish had made a categorical and positive statement regarding the fact that Bharti's brothers had knowledge of their intention to marry and their objections to the same.There was also a positive statement made by Nitish to his mother Nilam Katara that Bharti was confident that she would be able to convince her father.Therefore PW-30 Nilam Katara has given evidence of what was in Nitish's personal knowledge and was told to his mother as a fact.A specific question was put to PW-30 Nilam Katara as to which brother of Bharti was averse to such an alliance.The only witness who could have appeared in the witness box to corroborate this statement was Nitish Katara who was no more.The statement therefore would have been made only two and a half month prior to his death.In the light of the proven circumstances, the gap of two and a half months from December, 2001 to 16th /17th February, 2002 when the statement was made to Nilam Katara that Nitish Katara was murdered, would not impact the admissibility of the statement.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 136(iv) Effect of failure to cross examine a witness despite opportunityIn her cross examination by counsel for Vikas Yadav, Bharti has also clearly stated that the mother of Nitish Katara was aware of her closeness with Nitish.She corroborates PW-30 Nilam Katara when she testified about Nitish also mentioning to her, his own mother's discomfort with their relationship also because Bharti belonged to a particular Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 137 family and Nilam Katara had warned him about his relationship with her because of her caste and her parentage.The court agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the evidence of these two witnesses with regard to the factum of the incident deserves to be scrutinized.PW-4 was found in the company of the deceased at the place of occurrence.It was observed by the Supreme Court that immediately after the incident, within less than an hour thereof, PW 4 went to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 150 the police station and lodged the first information report.His evidence Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 151 with regard to the time, place and manner of the incident as well as the identity of assailants was found to be acceptable.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 157Bharti therefore can make no grievance that her letters, cards, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 159 photographs and phone details are part of record of court proceedings and judgments.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 159(vi) Knowledge of Bhartis family members about the relationshipA.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 160examined on this aspect at all.This testimony establishes that Bharti's mother was aware of the proximity between Bharti and Nitish Katara.In the statement of Bharti Yadav under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW 35/AB) recorded on 2nd March, 2002, Bharti has stated that her bua' (father's sister) and mami' (wife of mother's brother) knew about her affair with Nitish Katara.These records reflect incoming calls from telephone nos. 4721001 and 4720020 which phone lines had been installed in Shri Bharat Singh's house.Shri Bharat Singh is Bharti Yadav's maternal uncle (mama') and even appeared as her attorney before the trial court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 161It stands established that on the 24th of August 2000, Bhawna Yadav (sister of Bharti) accompanied by her fiance, Deepak Yadav; sister Bharti, as well as Shivani Gaur, Nitish Katara went to Mumbai for a day trip to celebrate her birthday.Thus an exclusive group of closely attached sisters, friends and a fiance went on this special trip.Bhawna and Bharti lived in one house with their parents and brothers including Vikas Yadav.It is not possible to believe that the family members of Bhawna and Bharti Yadav, which included their brothers and parents did not know of Bhawna's birthday on 24th August, 2000 or about the celebrations taking place in Mumbai! Birthdays are family occasions more so in which a fiance was joining.The family would be expected to be aware of the participants in the birthday celebrations.Vishal Yadav was so close to Vikas Yadav, that, as per their defence, they accompanied one another to several functions on the fateful night, where one or the other or both were invited.They were closely related to each other.Bharti wrote the letter dated 22nd July, 2001 (Exh.PW-30/C-4) wherein she laments the fact that she has been separated from Nitish on her birthday and taken away to Shimla away from him on her birthday.This fact also manifests the extensive number of times that the two might have met.The records of Bharti Yadav's bank account in the BNP Paribas Bank; the voluminous letters, cards, diaries, album and photographs as well as the call records by themselves establish not only the depth of the relationship of Bharti with the deceased, but also the apprehensions and fears nurtured by PW 38 Bharti Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 164 stemming from the opposition of her relatives to the relationship.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 164Bharti's family members were aware of the same.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 170 daughter.Out of shame PW 1 left the house and this aggravated the feelings of Sumathi.She had disclosed the fact of her pregnancy to her friends PW 5 and 6; and to PWA.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 170She had also mentioned that the 1st accused was responsible for the same.The first accused was away from the locality and when he was not to be seen for few days, Sumathi began to enquire about his whereabouts.On 25th January, 1953, the first accused met Sumathi on his way to Karottu junction.In this case, on 21st October, 1988, Asha Ben, the deceased was set ablaze at the time and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 175 place mentioned in her statements.On 21st October, 1988 itself a FIR was registered on the statement made by the deceased to the police officer (PW 10).In the meantime, the Executive Magistrate (PW 1) on being informed by the doctor who examined the lady, visited the hospital and recorded her statement around 11:15 a.m. The prosecution relied on the statement made by the deceased for establishing the identity of the culprit which included the statement given by her to her husband; to the Executive Magistrate and the police in the FIR.The defence challenged the identity of the assailant.It is contended on behalf of the appellants that testimony of Nilam Katara in court contains material improvements over her statement recorded in the First Information Report as well as her two statements (Ex.PW30/DA and Ex.Trial Judge.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 209(ix) Conduct of Bharti Yadav on the 17th of February, 2002 and thereafter; her reactions, and utterances to Nilam Katara and Nitin Katara; conversations with Bharat Diwakar after Nitish Katara had been abducted and prior to anyone learning that he had been murderedPW-22/2 reflects a call from the cell phone number 9810038469 (Bharti's) to PW 25 Bharat Diwakar at the above number on 16th Feb-2002 at 17:20:59 hours (about 05:21 pm) which call lasted for 15 seconds while he called up the same number at 19:00:46 hrs (about 07:00 pm), which call lasted 51 seconds.These calls were made before Bharat Diwakar proceeded to Shivani Gaur's wedding.PW-25 Bharat Diwakar has further categorically testified that he had received a call from Bharti using cell phone no.9810038469 at about 4.06 a.m. on the 17th of February, 2002 on his cell phone.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 215This testimony was not challenged by the defence and the witness has not been cross-examined on this statement at all.This documentary evidence proves that on 17th February 2002, eight phone calls have been exchanged between Bharat Diwakar and Bharti Yadav starting as early as at 4:06:34 hours to 21:37:04 hours lasting between 21 seconds to 192 seconds.Gaurav Gupta had stayed with another friend Yashoman Tomar (PW 20) in Noida.This is again corroborated by the call details in Exh.PW 22/2 which shows that three calls having been made from Yashoman Tomar's cell number 981122691 on 17 th February, 2002 between 6:49:29 hours (06:49 am) to 22:38:37 hours (10:38 pm) lasting 60 seconds; 11 seconds and 98 seconds respectively.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 216It is in the testimony of PW-30 Nilam Katara that she was using the mobile phone bearing no.9810206291 and that the landline nos. 3366629 and 3747555 were installed at her residence at 7, Chelmsford Road, New Delhi.Her testimony as PW 30 in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial about her actions on the 17th February, 2002 may be usefully extracted and reads thus:"Q. What further efforts you made to locate your son.A. Thereafter I took Bhartis cell no. from Bharat.I called up Bharti twice on that morning as far as I remember.She offers no explanation as to why she registered the phone against the servant quarter.There can really be no reasonable explanation as to why a phone connection would be taken at the address of servant's quarter unless the intention was to prevent knowledge thereof to the property owner.This act itself indicates that though permitted to her sister and brothers, Bharti was not allowed use of even a cell phone and that, to prevent detection her sister had got her one using the servant quarter's address.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 224PW-38 Bharti has simply denied knowledge that phone no.9810038469 was registered in the name of her sister at their residential address or she was using the same or any cell phone.She completely denied receipt of any phone calls from Bharat Diwakar, Nilam Katara, Gaurav Gupta or Nitin Katara.She claimed that she could not remember even the landline number of the telephone at her residence!At the same time Bhawna Yadav (appearing as PW 42 on the 9th of March, 2007 in her brother's trial) has stated that till 16th February, 2002 evening, this cell phone was in her Crl.She further stated that her driver had received a single call from Nilam Katara on the phone on that day and she had returned the call to Nilam Katara in the evening of 17th February, 2002 from Faridabad.She denied making any calls from this mobile to Bharat Diwakar on 16/17th February, 2002 between 4 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. The witness also denied receiving any calls from Gaurav Gupta during this period.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 225But Bhawna's lies stand caught out when the marriage video (Ex.PW42/1) was played during her testimony.In this video she has been filmed with a cell phone in her hand.A second cell phone was also handed over to her by her friend Lata in the video which has been noted by the trial judge.Bhawna Yadav still insisted that she had left her phone (a third phone) with her driver.The Special Public Prosecutor sought leave to put leading questions to this witness with regard to cell numbers being used by her father, brother Vikas Yadav, husband Deepak Yadav.At this stage when the Special Public Prosecutor was putting these questions to her, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 226 Bhawna Yadav did not let her testimony be concluded on this date and sought deferment on the ground that her child was unwell.Thereafter, it appears that better sense appears to have prevailed over this witness.She appears to have realized the fool hardiness of her denials when pitted against not only the oral testimony of the several prosecution witnesses, but also the documentary evidence of call records and the tower locations which identified where the cell phone no.9810034689 was located.Again on 18th February, 2002, Nilam Katara made Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 228 four phone calls from her land line number 3747555 to Bharti on the cell phone no.9810038469 which ranged from 66 seconds to 597 seconds (almost 10 minutes).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 228The only permissible conclusion from the evidence on record is that Bhawna does not recollect who or how many times calls were received on 9810038469 for the sole reason that this cell phone was never used by her but was with her.This cell phone was actually being used by her sister Bharti as testified by the several witness.A perusal of the call records (Exh.PW-22/2) pertaining to 9810038469 shows that at 15:42:37 on 16th February, 2002, a call was received on this cell phone from the cell no.9811283641 which was being used by Nitish Katara.The call records of all the phone numbers of Nitish Katara;The electronic phone records coupled with the testimony of the representatives of the phone companies and service providers as well as that of the family members and friends of Nitish Katara belie the stand taken by Bharti and Bhawna Yadav.The unchallenged oral testimony of Bharat Diwakar; Gaurav Gupta; Nilam Katara; Nitin Katara and Yashoman Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 229The above discussion persuades us to hold that there is no error in the finding of the learned Trial Judge's that mobile phone no.9810038469 was being used by Bharti Yadav and she exchanged several calls with Nilam and Nitish Katara, Bharat Diwakar, Gaurav Gupta and Yashoman Tomar noticed by us hereinabove.(x) Regarding involvement of Vikas and Vishal Yadav -It has been contended by Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel representing the complainant that the case of the prosecution was that all the appellants abducted the deceased Nitish Katara and murdered him.The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances which form a complete chain.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 230 phone calls made shortly after Nitish Katara was found missing from the wedding venue and examine the relevance and admissibility of the same.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 230The FIR was lodged by Tarachand Sahu PW-11, the clerk of the Girls College.Kumari Preeti was first examined by Dr. M.L. Beatrice PW-3, Chief Medical and Surgical Superintendent Holy Cross Hospital who was informed by Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 259 Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7 and Kumari Lalita Yadav PW-6 about the incident whereupon in her report Ex.P-4, she wrote "Hit by jeep on the head and knocked down and passed over by front and back wheel of the jeep".A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 259Shri R.L. Shrivatava PW-32, father of Kumari Preeti Shrivastava reached the hospital and inquire about the incident from the girls who were present there.He was informed by the girls about the names of the occupants and the driver of the jeep at the hospital as well as about the incident.The investigation further revealed that appellant Rajkumar had, soon after the occurrence, gone to Abhaydeep Singh PW-2 and told him that the Jeep driven by Samar Vijay Singh had dashed against a girl.Statement of Abhaydeep PW-2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C which was exhibited on record as Ex.It appears that ASI Hardeep Singh PW-36 on 3rd December, 1998 had recorded the statements of Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7 and Kumari Lalita Yadav PW-6 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. at the District Hospital which also gave an absolutely similar description of the incident and the manner in which they learnt the name of the driver and the occupants of the jeep.In the witness box before the learned trial court, Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7 and Kumari Lalita Yadav PW-6 suppressed the entire truth while Kumari Seema Mishra Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 260 PW-8 blurted out the same when she was declared hostile in cross-examination by the prosecutor.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 260Shri R.L. Shrivatava PW-32, in the witness box testified about the information received by him from the girls about the names of the occupants and the name of the driver of the jeep as well as the incident as part of res gestae and admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance was also placed on the information given by Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7 to Dr. M. L. Beatrice PW-3 which was recorded by her.(i) immediately after seeing his daughter Kumari Preeti in coma outside the minor operation theatre Shri R.L. Shrivatava had asked the crowd as to what had happened and where.This was soon after the occurrence when the girls were in a state of shock and blurted out truthfully the incident as to what had happened when he reached the hospital within the minutes of the occurrence.(iii) The testimony of Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7 who accompanied the injured Preeti to the hospital gave the same history of the incident to Dr. M.L. Beatrice PW- 3 which was recorded in the report Ex.P-4 which contained the name of Kumari Vijaylaxmi PW-7 as the person giving the history of the incident.The court had asked and answered the following questions:-Was there spontaneity in the identification? Was there an opportunity for concoction?Bharti (PW 38).There would have been no occasion therefore for putting such a statement by Nilam Katara to them.Even otherwise Bharti's utterance was in her telephonic conversation with Nitish's mother.Additionally there were calls on the cell phone between Nilam Katara and Bharti on the 17th of February, 2002 which lasted from 67 seconds to 220 seconds.The call records extracted above also show that there were several calls on the 18th and 19th of February, 2002 between Nilam Katara's phone numbers and the phone number which Bharti Yadav was using.The prosecution has led evidence agitated of Bharti's state in the later part of the 17th February, 2002 as well when Nitish was still missing.As per Nilam Katara, she finally left her residence for physically searching for him at the marriage venue and lodged the police complaint at PS Kavi Nagar between 11:30 am and 12:00 noon.FIR No.192/2002 was registered under Section 364 of the IPC on 17th February, 2002 at 11:30 a.m. Despite Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 277 the search launched for them by the police neither the accused brother's nor the appellant were traceable at all known addresses.This body was identified on 21st February, 2002 by the complainant Nilam Katara as possibly being that of her son Nitish Katara.Therefore, till the 21st of February 2002, everybody believed that Nitish Katara was alive and simply missing.The appellants Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav who were arrested in a case under the Arms Act only on 23rd February, 2002 by police Dabra, District Gwalior, M.P. were absconding.These e-mails have been produced on record as Exh.PW-9/Mark A-1 to A-5 during his testimony.Bharti refers in these mails to Nitish by his pet name Chimpu.He denied the defence suggestion that the e-mails marked Exh.(xxxiii) She also gave a statement about her contact with Nitin Katara (the younger brother of Nitish Katara) including their e-mail ids.(xxxiv) Bharti Yadav also disclosed that on 16th February, 2002, she had received a call from Nitishs phone no.9811283641 on her mobile no.9810038469 at about 3:00 pm when he had said that since they were going to meet at the wedding, they would talk there and that they would stay together at the wedding.(xxxvi) Her mami (mothers brothers wife), wife of Shri Bharat Yadav knew the facts about her relationship with Nitish Katara.(xxxvii) Her bua (fathers sister) had also come to know about the same.She had told them that she loved Nitish.They had all said that after the elections, they Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 292 will place the wedding proposal before Shri D.P. Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 292Prior to her statement on 2nd March, 2002, the police had no details about the identity of Pehalwan disclosed by Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav as their accomplice in the crime.It is Bharti Yadav who disclosed that the Pehalwan was named Sukhdev'; and that he was a resident of Dewaria and also that he was an employee in the liquor business of their family at Bulandshahr.It is only because of this revelation that the police has effected raids in Bulandshahr on the very next day, i.e., the 3rd of March, 2002 and were able to recover the guarantee card disclosing his address and photograph.All efforts to arrest him proceeded from this information.In Exh. PW-35/AB Bharti also corroborated the disclosure of the accused persons that they had come to the wedding in a Tata Safari vehicle.The phone calls referred to in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exh. PW35/AB) are all corroborated from the documentary evidence of the call record.Several other details noted above have been investigated by the police and stands proven during trial from the other evidence brought on record.The Investigating Officer Anil Somania has categorically stated that he had recorded the statement of Bharti Yadav Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 293 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW 35/AB) at her residence 4/16, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad in the presence of a lady S.I. Anju Bhadoria as well as Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Bharti Yadav.It has been established that the statement stands recorded in the case diary.The investigation was subjected to contemporaneous judicial scrutiny.The material testimony of the Investigating Officer Anil Somania, so far as faithfully recording of statement Ex.PW 35/AB remains unchallenged.The above narration would show that Bharti Yadav had actually made the statement ExhPW35/AB and resiled therefrom in court only to assist her brothers from prosecution.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 293The learned trial jugdes have concluded that Vikas and Vishal Yadav were averse to the relationship between their sister Bharti Yadav and Nitish Katara and this provided the motive leading to the commission of the offence.It has been held that Sukhdev @ Pehalwan shared the same motive.II Disclosures made by Vikas and Vishal Yadav on the 25th of February, 2002 to the Investigating Officer - whether believable?The discussion on this subject is being considered under the following sub-headings:A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 294(i) There was delay in recording of disclosures -(v) Whether such disclosures possible - given the alleged prior conduct of the appellantsMr. U.R. Lalit as well as Mr. Ram Jethmalani, ld.A second disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-35/17) stands attributed to Vishal Yadav as having been made on the same day about inter alia a wrist watch and mobile, leading to recovery of only the wrist watch.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 296 Ex PW 35/17) were identical, except for few cosmetic changes.If the disclosures were actually made, the conduct of the IO would be different.Accordingly on instructions he made a police party and left for Dabra.On reaching there, Anil Somania learnt that the accused persons had been taken for production before the Judicial Magistrate.The Investigating Officer immediately moved an application before the Magistrate not to release the accused persons on bail.(Ex.On 24th February, 2002, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the police officials at Dabra and applied for a two day transit remand.Upon the application (Ex.PW 35/13) being approved, the custody of accused persons could Crl.The application referred to the FIR No.192/2002 registered under Section 364 of the IPC by the P.S. Kavi Nagar and abduction (apaharan') of Nitish Katara against the appellants.A reference has been made to Case No. 99/2002 and 192/2002 both under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 41(1)(4) of the Cr.P.C. registered at Dabra.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 302The appellants moved an application before the Dabra Court wherein they mention Section 302 of the IPC.As on that date, the Police Station at Ghaziabad had registered FIR No. 192/2002 only under Section 364 of the IPC.It is further in the testimony of the Investigating Officer that he had started from Dabra on 24th February, 2002 at 3.30 p.m. and reached the O.P. (Outpost) Kachehari on 25th February, 2002 at about 5 a.m.Anil Somania has categorically stated that there was no opportunity to interrogate the accused persons in Dabra and that he did not talk to the accused persons with regard to the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 303 case or interrogate them as in Uttar Pradesh no statement can be recorded without permission of the Magistrate when the accused are in custody.This testimony has not been challenged in cross-examination by the appellants.It has not been disputed before us as well.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 303The accused persons were produced in the court of CJM, Ghaziabad on the 25th of February 2002 at about 10 a.m. who remanded them to judicial custody.PW-35 Investigating Officer Anil Somania also moved an application on the same day under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-35/15) for permission to record the statements of Vikas and Vishal Yadav.On getting permission from the CJM for recording the statement of the accused persons, the Investigating Officer S.O. Anil Somania proceeded to Ghaziabad jail on 25th February, 2002 itself and requested the jail authorities to produce the appellants before him for the purposes of interrogation.The appellants were so produced before the Investigating Officer, who recorded the information furnished by the appellants one after another in the case diary itself.He had first recorded the voluntary disclosure statement of Vikas Yadav and thereafter the voluntary statement made by Vishal Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 304It is evident from the above that till such time the accused persons were arrested and the dead body recovered by the Khurja police identified, the entire effort and energy of the Investigating Officer and the police was rightly devoted to tracing out Nitish Katara and the appellants.The Investigating Officer was required to follow due process.The appellants do not dispute the requirement that court permission was required to record their statements as they were under arrest.The permission was granted on the 25th of February 2002 and the statements recorded on the same date.There was therefore no delay at all in interrogating the accused persons or recording their statements.The above narration and discussion also supports the prosecution that such statements were actually made by Vikas and Vishal Yadav.The water level in the well was of about 6 feet.So saying appellant Bhakua led the Investigating Officer and showed the said place from which the Investigating Officer seized the Tabli.The statement of appellant Bhakua has been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the case diary and Crl.They nowhere denied the making of the disclosures to SO Anil Somania.That though the disclosure recorded at Dabra and subsequently by the Ghaziabad Police at Ghaziabad, are not admissible in the eye of law, as both were obtained forcibly and under duress but the relevance of summoning the said disclosure can be judged from the fact Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 324 that U.P. Police was having knowledge of certain facts which were earlier they were likely to attribute to Sukhdev Pehlwan, but with a malafide intention they preferred to plant and fabricate the evidence against the present application/accused and his co- accused, though the present accused and his co-accused are altogether travelling in different boats.So the evidence becomes much more relevant and has a vital bearing over the aspect of planting and fabricating evidence against the applicant/accused.PW3 deposed that four accused persons whom he identified in the Court came to his shop and they sold the ring for Rs.325/- and some days later, the Police Inspector accompanied by accused 1, 2 and 3 came to his shop and the said accused asked PW3 to produce the ring which they had sold.Then, he took out the ring from the showcase and it was seized by the Police Inspector.The difficulty in accepting such evidence was projected in the following words by D.A. Desai, J. speaking for the Court:PW 35/20) about the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 353On 26th February, 2002 itself, the Investigating Officer filed a separate application (Ex.PW 35/21) in the court of the CJM, Ghaziabad informing the court that pursuant to the permission granted by the court, the statements of accused Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were recorded on the 25th February, 2002 in the district jail Ghaziabad in which statements they made admissions with regard to the crime and detailing their disclosures.The Investigating Officer therefore, prayed for three days police remand for effecting recovery of these articles and also to get full information about the site of the occurrence.On both the applications, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad passed orders dated 26th February, 2002 for summoning the accused Vikas and Vishal Yadav for 27th February, 2002 (Ex.PW 35/21A).The learned CJM heard the application on 27th February, 2002 for remand in the presence of the appellants Vikas and Vishal Yadav as well as their counsels.The accused persons did not file any application or make objections disputing the making of or the correctness of the disclosure statements referred to by the police.The court accordingly granted 24 hours police custody remand starting from 9:00 a.m. of 28 th Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 354 February to 1st of March, 2002 to effect the recoveries.It appears that the court also directed that during the remand, the accused persons could keep one advocate with them.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 354It is important to note the manner in which the appellants proceeded thereafter in the matter.Superintendent of Police Dy.PW-34, SI J.K. Gangwar has stated that after their medical examination on 28th February, 2002, the accused persons led the police party from Bulandshahr to Khurja road near Agwar Railway Crossing (14 kms) which spot they had reached around 12 noon.The accused Vikas Yadav first pointed out the place where Nitish Katara was killed which was about 25 steps before the railway crossing of Agwar.Two public witnesses, Raghu and Aslam were joined as panchas in these proceedings.Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate was present at the time of the recoveries on the pointing out by the accused persons.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 362 prepared at the spot.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 362The recovery memo was read over to the witnesses after it was scribed.It contains the signature of two panchas as well - Raghu and Aslam.PW-34/1 has also been signed by SI Anil Somania, SI J.K. Gangwar, Constable Dinesh Kumar, Constable Vinod Kumar Singh.As per the recovery memo Ex.PW-34/1, both the accused persons pointed out the place where the dead body was burnt.Thereafter, they took 7 steps towards the north-west, first Vikas took out a blood stained iron hammer from the cluster of pattel' grass in a pit (gaddha).PW-34/1 further records that thereafter Vishal went ahead and took about 5 steps to the north of the place wherefrom the hammer was recovered and took out one wrist watch of Esprit make from amongst the bushes.SI J.K. Gangwar was also categorical that Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate was present (who was an advocate of the accused persons) when the recoveries were made on their insistence.SI Gangwar has explained Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 363 that Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate refused to sign the recovery memo as a witness stating that he was the advocate of the accused person and would not be able to defend the case on his behalf if he becomes a witness.In answer to a specific question, PW-34 categorically stated that Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate of the accused persons had taken the copy of the memo at the spot and he signed the original memo after writing that he has received the copy.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 363A pointed question was put to the witness with regard to the nature of the bushes.The witness further categorically stated that the hammer which was recovered by Vikas Yadav from among the bushes, was not visible from the road to the police team.SI Anil Somania as PW-35 corroborates the above testimony of PW-34 S.I. Gangwar.As per the crime report received on 17th May, 2002 Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 364 (Exh.PW-3/3), the hammer had human blood on it, though there is no report on its grouping.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 364Thereafter, the appellants led the investigating officer to Alwar, Rajasthan for effecting the recovery of the Tata Safari vehicle.Three separate placed were searched but the Tata Safari could not be recovered and the police party returned to Ghaziabad around midnight.On 1st March, 2002, Anil Somania produced the appellants before the CJM, Ghaziabad and the appellants were remanded to judicial custody.Learned senior counsel has urged at length that the prosecution has attributed joint acts to the accused throughout the investigation.The investigating officer claims to have prepared the sketch of the railway crossing at Aughwarpur where Nitish Katara Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 365 was murdered.(Exh.PW-35/23).Learned senior counsel has contended that according to the investigation they recovered a hammer on the disclosure of Vikas Yadav and a wrist watch on the disclosure of Vishal Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 365During this search, the Tata Safari vehicle could not be recovered.Statements of PW 4 Inspector C.P. Singh, SSI C.P. Singh, PW 5 Ct.Mudassar Ali and Ct.The submission is that these delays in recording the statements about recovery proceedings render the recovery itself suspicious and unreliable.The challenge to the recoveries is laid inter alia on the ground that the Ghaziabad police requested no assistance from the Khurja police and that no public witnesses were Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 366 present there.No efforts to join public witnesses were made and the names of witnesses have not been mentioned in the police diary which only makes a reference to janta ke gawah'.It is contended that the investigating officer has not mentioned the time of recording the statements of Raghu and Aslam.He did not know these persons and has made no inquiries qua them.Learned senior counsel has urged at length that there has been conscious effort to make out ignorance of material details by the police.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 36635) admittedly had knowledge of the place where the hammer was allegedly hidden.This being so, the police could have proceeded to investigate and search for the weapon.It did not have to effect recovery based on the alleged disclosures.Learned senior counsel would object that as per the disclosures, the reflected recoveries were to be effected from another jurisdiction.If this was so, police would have arranged for panchas to accompany them.Here the police claims that two members of the public, one Raghu and one Aslam came along on bikes and immediately became amenable to participating in the recovery proceedings.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 368Learned senior counsel has further submitted that PW 4 Inspector Chander Pal Singh and PW 5 Constable Mudassar Khan from P.S. Khurja who recovered the dead body as well as PW 23 Shri Virender Singh (informed the police about the body) found nothing at the spot soon after information was received that a dead body was lying at the spot.In this testimony, DW- 22 admits receipt of the recovery memo but claims that the police had given him the memo at about midnight on 28th February, 2002 in his chamber.Shri Satpal Singh Yadav suggests that he was in his chamber even at midnight as he was busy with bar elections.When cross-examined on this aspect he states that elections were only in mid March but he does not recollect the exact date.The witness admits that he did not inform the CJM that the police had served him the memo in the midnight.The State has emphasised the fact that DW-22 does not state that Rajender Chaudhary was accompanying the police at Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 370 midnight when they came to serve the recovery memo.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 371DW-22 Advocate Satpal Yadav was the president of the Ghaziabad Bar Association and would be wielding substantial authority.The police could not have dared to effect manipulations or pressure his clients or tried to serve a fabricated document upon him.The application stated that a fabricated (farzi') police recovery memo had been prepared by the police and that the accused persons had told the applicant (Shri Rajender Chaudhary) that while on the way, the police had threatened and forcibly obtained the signatures of the appellants on 5-6 blank papers.When he protested with the SHO Kavi Nagar and the Investigating Officer about this, the applicant was told that he should address the court and not them.By way of this application dated 1st March, 2002, the applicant prayed that the application and affidavit be directed to be made a part of the case diary of the Investigating Officer.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 372The application was accompanied by an affidavit (Exh.DW3/E) of Shri Rajender Chaudhary, Advocate.The authenticity of the recovery memo Exh.PW-34/1 has therefore been assailed primarily on the ground that Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate was not present at the spot and instead Shri Rajender Chaudhary, Advocate was present and that no recovery was affected.DW-3 firstly stated Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 373 that the court had verbally directed him to go with the police and the accused persons.At a subsequent stage of his testimony, he stated that he was chosen as the consensus candidate from among the group of lawyers who had filed the applications.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 373The witness denied any association or acquaintance with Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate - DW-22 expressing his inability to recall even whether Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate was the then President of the Bar!DW-22, Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate has testified that he had informed Shri Chaudhary on 1st March 2002 at about 11 am in the court premises that he had received a copy of the recovery memo and shown it to him as well.However, DW-3, Shri Rajender Chaudhary, though admits that he met DW-22 before he went to the court, does not say that he saw the recovery memo.DW-3 states that he was told about the seizure memo in his chamber at 10 / 10.30 a.m.).Yet neither the application dated 1st March, 2002 (Exh.DW-3/D) nor the affidavit Exh.DW3/F filed by DW-3 Rajender Choudhary make any reference to the recovery memo which has been received by DW-22 Satpal Singh Yadav.It is important to note that neither the application nor the supporting affidavit makes any mention of either the fact that Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 374 Advocate had informed him about the receipt of the seizure memo or the contents thereof.On the contrary, DW-3 has testified that he was told by the court that as per the police record, recovery of a hammer and watch was affected and he filed the application as a result thereof.DW-3 has further testified that vide the order (Ex. DW-3/C) the court had dismissed his application.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 374In the application (Exh.DW-3/D) filed by DW 3 Rajender Chaudhary, for the first time a case was set up that 5 - 6 blank papers were got signed when the accused were taken on the 28th of February, 2002 for recovery.In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., Vikas Yadav has in blatant contradiction stated that blank papers were got signed by him at the Agra Police lines during transit from Dabra to Ghaziabad.He has claimed that at one go, almost 20 blank sheets were got signed by the police from them under coercion.The recovery memo Exh.PW-34/1 scripted in vernacular contains the signatures of Vikas and Vishal Yadav.Vishal Yadav had even put the date of 28th of February, 2002 under his signature on receipt of the recovery memo.Vikas Yadav has endorsed Received Copy in English below his signature.The placement of the signature of the appellants also shows that they have affixed their signatures just below the writing of the police.The recovery memo runs into two pages.The signatures are on the second page.It is in evidence that the police team returned to Ghaziabad only around 11:30 pm whereafter the accused persons had to be medically examined.They were guided, not by single counsel, but had teams of lawyers for their defence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 380 were recovered.The complainant has expressed strong reservations about certain critical areas of the investigation based on the influence of the accused and their families.Who could be accused of planting articles for the recovery and why? The family members of the deceased would be interested only in ensuring that the real culprits who were responsible for the deceased's abduction and murder were punished.By then she had already approached the Supreme Court.Thereafter she had filed Crl.We have asked the question as to why would she falsely implicate any person? She would be the person most interested in establishing the truth.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 381The prosecution filed an application to examine Shri Satpal Yadav, Adv.This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and vide its order dated 6th August, 2007 allowed prosecution to examine the witness.It would appear that the prosecution thereafter decided not to examine Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate as a witness.He was then examined as a defence witness.It is clearly evident therefrom that the witness was not supporting the prosecution case.The prosecution was therefore justified in opting not to examine Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate as a prosecution witness.We find that even DW-23 Rajender Chaudhary did not pursue this application which establishes that the same was filed only to create false evidence and does not negate the presence of Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate with the appellants at the spot when recoveries were effected.The defence evidence of DW-3 and DW-22 to the contrary is not believable.We find that the learned Trial Judge has extensively analyzed the testimony of DW-3, Rajender Choudhary and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 383 DW-22, Satpal Choudhary and disbelieved it noting the following:-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 383(i) DW-3 claimed that while on way, both the accused persons had told him that police had obtained signatures on blank papers.He took no steps at all pursuant thereto.DW-3 had deposed that he accompanied both the accused during police custody remand of three days w.e.f. 28th February, 2002 to 1st March, 2002'.The learned Trial Judge notes that the witness forgot that there are only 28 days in February and that this answer suggested that he was neither aware of the court order nor accompanied the accused persons.(iii) DW-3 claimed that the court had orally directed him to accompany the accused persons.The witness was not aware as to whether any application was moved on behalf of the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by any advocate seeking permission to accompany the accused during the police custody remand.DW-3 stated that there was no written order by the court that they have to accompany the accused persons and that the court had merely directed him verbally to do so! The learned Trial Judge has observed that thereafter in answer to a suggestive question by Shri G.K. Bharti, Advocate, he stated that he had chosen to accompany the accused persons with the consent of lawyers of the two accused.(iv) The witness claimed that he had orally informed the court that he was appointed to accompany the accused persons and that no recovery was effected in his presence but the court told him about the police recovery on hammer and watch at the instance of the accused persons.So he moved the application on 1st March, 2002 (Ex.DW3/D) with his Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 384 affidavit (Ex.DW3/E) on which the court made the order (Ex.DW3/F).(v) In Ex.DW3/D, Shri Rajender Choudhary had written that he remained with the police vehicle in his own private vehicle no.The recoveries were effected in the presence of Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate, the counsel for the accused persons.The testimony of PW-34, S.I. J.K. Gangwar and PW-35 Anil Somania and then categorical statements that Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate accompanied the police party and the accused persons at the time of recovery; details of the recoveries; preparation of the recovery memo on the spot; signatures of the accused persons; the witnesses; the endorsement by their lawyer as well as the reason for the same remains unassailed and no question was put to the witness in this regard.There is no challenge also to statement of the investigating officers that copy of the recovery memo was received by the advocate at the spot itself.No suggestion has been put to the investigating officers to the effect that he had made an incorrect statement with regard to the presence of Shri Satpal Singh Yadav, Advocate.No suggestion was given to the investigating officers on the lines of the testimony of DW-3 Rajender Chaudhary and DW-22 Satpal Singh Yadav.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 385The application dated 1st March, 2002 filed by Shri Rajender Chaudhary (DW 3) did not seek any action against the Investigating Officer for recording any false statement.The learned Trial Judge has noted the pointed questions with regard to the disclosures and recoveries put to both the accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Question nos. 130, 142, 143 and 144 made categorical reference to the recoveries and recovery memos.In all these questions, it was put to Vikas Yadav that advocate Shri Satpal Singh Yadav had accompanied them and was present at the time of the recovery; that copy of the recovery memo was received by him at the spot and he made an endorsement (Ex.PW34/1A) with regard to receipt of copy of the recovery memo; that Shri Satpal Yadav refused to sign the memo as a witness on the plea that he was an advocate of the accused persons and if he signs he would become a witness to the recovery and would not be able to defend the case on their behalf.Similar questions were put to accused Vishal Yadav as well.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 386In response, the two accused persons merely denied the recoveries and presence of Shri Satpal Yadav.However, neither of the two accused stated that DW-3, Shri Rajender Choudhary, Advocate had accompanied them or was present at the spot.The appellants do not deny their signatures on the recovery memo.Instead a contradictory and false claim is set up by Vikas Yadav that his signatures were obtained on 20 black sheets at the Agra police line during police remand from Dabra to Ghazibad.Clearly the challenge to the recoveries effected on 28th of February 2002 on behalf of the appellants on the grounds considered above is untenable and hereby rejected.(iii) Whether search and combing operations carried out at the spot by the Khurja police on 17th February, 2002?Learned senior counsels have vehemently urged that the genuineness of the alleged recoveries must be disbelieved inasmuch as police officials must have visited the site on the Shikharpur Road when the body was recovered on 17th Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 387 February, 2002 and must have conducted a proper search when nothing was found by the police.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 387It is contended that between the 17th and 28th of February 2002 the prosecution had ample opportunity for planting the articles which were recovered.In this regard reference is made to the testimony of PW-4 Inspector Chander Pal Singh, PW-5 Ct.Mudassar Khan and PW-23 Shri Virender Singh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 388The witness had also taken the burnt ash and samples near the dead body which were sealed and deposited as case property at the Police Station Khurja.It is in the testimony of the witness that there was a tubewell about 50 steps away from the place where the body was found.In answer to a specific question as to whether he had searched the area around the dead body, the witness had stated that he had only seen' the place near the body.In answer to another pointed question on the issue, the witness stated that he did not go upto the tubewell.The witness further stated that though trees were shown in the site plan Exh.PW-4/4, he had not shown the bushes specifically nor had he marked any pit.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 394Mr. Lalit, senior advocate has also drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-5, Constable Mudassar Khan who stated that on 17th February, 2002, the police team had started by about 09.10 a.m. from the police station and reached the spot within 10-15 minutes.The police team had stayed at the spot where the dead body had been recovered till around 2-3 p.m. He refers to no search or combing operations.It is in the testimony of Ct.Mudassar Khan that the dead body was in a pit about 3-4 steps from the road.The witness stated that he had seen the place surrounding the body (spot) but had made no measurement as to how many feet he had gone upto.PW-4/4 shows that the tubewell was at a distance of about 50 steps from the dead body.The police persons had gone in one or the other direction.The witness could not recollect if there was any tubewell.PW-5 Constable Mudassar Khan had also testified that he had not Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 395 gone into the fields.He further stated that nothing was recovered upto 15-20 steps.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 395The appellants contend that nothing was recovered by either PW-4 Inspector Chander Pal Singh or PW-5 Constable Mudassar Khan around the dead body up to about 15-20 paces.The appellants have therefore, challenged the recovery of the hammer by the accused Vikas Yadav 6 - 7 steps from the place of burning of the dead body as pointed out by him and recovery of the wrist watch about 5 steps by Vishal Yadav from the place where the accused Vikas Yadav had recovered the hammer.The relevant extract of Panchanama (Ex PW 3/2A) of the unknown dead body dated 17th February, 2002 is extracted hereafter:.....Hast suchna amad dwara telephone mein SI C.P. Singh mein arakshi 1090 Mahender tatha arakshi 614 Mudasar Ali, SHO/Inspector Shri Chander Pal avam unke humrahi arakshigan (illegible) Tomar tatha 378 Arvind (illegible) sarkari - UP 13/E 1570 mey (illegible) Om Prakash, babat milne shahar (illegible) Shikarpur Road par ki Janch (illegible) hetu thane se (illegible) Ba-vahan) UD No.12/0910 AN 17.02.2002 ravana hokar Shikarpur Road par, baad lene (?) Crl.Padosi gaon Baharai, Amra tatha Murari AN evam Khurja Shahar ke bahut se vayaktiyon ko jeep sarkari mein ______hailer dwara vyaapak prachar prasaar karakar moke par bulvaya gaya hai.Senkron ki sankhaya mein aas paas ke shetra ke vayakti akatrit hein.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 397A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 398The translation of the relevant extract of the Panchanama (Ex PW 3/2A) of the unknown dead body dated 17th February, 2002 reads as follows:...Quite a crowd has gathered on the spot.I, Sub Inspector C.P. Singh, am busy in getting the unknown body identified under the leadership and directions of SHO.People from the neighbouring villages of Behrai; Amra; Murari and Khurja City have been called to the spot in the Government Jeep, after effecting wide publicity and broadcast through hailer.Hundreds of people from the surrounding areas have gathered.Efforts to get identification of unknown deceased are being effected from all of them on war footing through every person.But because the dead body is mostly burnt, its face fully burnt and beyond recognition, therefore identification of the dead body could not be possible.It is therefore implausible that the Khurja police could have combed the area looking for hidden articles on the 17th of February 2002 in these circumstances.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 399The learned Trial Judge in the judgment dated 28th May, 2008 has noted the testimony of Inspector Chander Pal Singh that when he reached the spot to recover the dead body, there were about 50 persons and thereafter people had been just coming and going.PW-4, Inspector Chander Pal Singh has stated that he had conducted only inquest proceedings and prepared the panchnama (Ex.PW3/2).PW-4, Inspector Chander Pal Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that he had not shown the pattel bushes specifically in the site plan (Ex.PW4/4).This oral Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 400 testimony was corroborated by the photographs (Ex.PW4/2 and Ex.PW4/3) of the dead body.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 400SI J.K. Gangwar has stated that the hammer recovered by Vikas Yadav from among these bushes was not visible from the road.The witness also stated that they were not able to see the earth beneath the bushes as the place was covered by the bushes.His testimony has not been challenged in cross examination.No suggestion was given to the witness by the appellants that there were no bushes at the spot or that the hammer and the wrist watch could be seen by the public.Anil Somania (PW-35) was subjected to a protracted cross-He explained that the wrist watch was recovered from bushes of small wheat plants/crop and that there were many such like bushes in the area.So far as the topography is concerned, PW-35 clarified that from the main road, first of all there was a kachha rasta, then bushes and then fields.It is in evidence that the dead body was recovered from a gorge (referred to khainuma gaddha or loosely referred to as pit' or gorge').PW-4, Inspector Chander Pal Singh has testified that he had not given any instructions to his subordinate staff to search the area around the dead body.PW-4 Inspector Chander Pal Singh denied all suggestions by the defence to suggest that Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 401 during his presence on the spot on 17th February, 2002, the police had carried out search operations.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 401PW-4 Inspector Chander Pal Singh and PW-5 Ct.Mudassar Khan stated that they had only seen and not effected any search for any articles.Even if it were to be held to be contrary, it stands established that the hammer and wrist watch were not in the open and were not visible to all.The learned Trial Judge has noted that the photographs of the dead body show dense bushes towards the feet of the deceased and there were leaves spread all around the ground.The photographs Ex.PW4/13 show bushes on the left side of the dead body as well.The learned Trial Judge also notes the specific question put in cross-examination by counsel for Vikas Yadav to PW-23, Virender Singh regarding inspection of the place by the police.The witness has testified that he did not know if the police were removing the bushes with dandas' (sticks) although police was roaming in the surrounding area.It has held that the accused persons therefore, admitted the presence of dense bushes which were required to be removed by dandas to effect the search.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 402When subjected to cross-examination by Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for Vishal Yadav, PW-23 Virender Kumar claimed that on the 17th of February, 2002, he had not seen any drag-marks or tyre-marks or shoe-marks around the dead body.When questioned by the court, he admitted that he had to remove people in the crowd to see whether there were any such marks to ascertain where the dead body had come from.No such statement is to be found in his examination- in-chief.He has further stated that when he removed the crowd, he only got space for putting one step.There were bushes of grass (pattel) of the height of between 2 and 3 feet at the spot.The recovered articles were hidden in two separate clumps of bushes, concealed from prying eyes.However, this submission fails to consider the fact that it was an unidentified body burnt beyond recognition that had been recovered by the Khurja Police.At that time no one knew that the body was of Nitish Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 407On this aspect, our attention has also been drawn to the statement of PW-5, Ct.PW-4 however states that he had not taken the Ghaziabad police from the CJM office to the place where the dead body was found.In the cross-examination by Shri K.N. Balgopal, Advocate on behalf of the accused Vikas Yadav, PW-23 Virender Singh vaguely stated that one or two days after the discovery of the body, he had seen the Ghaziabad police on the spot when he was passing from that road.He stated that he had stopped his jeep on seeing the police as well as public and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 408 enquired as to what was happening.So far as identification of the police personnel is concerned, the witness had not verified from the police but he stated that he had asked the same from the public.The witness did not know the name of any of the police personnel who were there on that day.The witness also claims to have seen a jeep bearing a Ghaziabad number from which he deduced that the police was from Ghaziabad.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 408The witness was explicit about the time at which he saw the dead body as well as the details of when he made the police report on 17th of February 2002 about the dead body lying at the spot.However, he could not give the date or time on which he claims to have seen the Ghaziabad police at the spot.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 409 police he claims to have seen at the spot where from Ghaziabad is a conjecture.(v) Recoveries from open place accessible to allWe have noted above the submission of learned senior counsels that the recoveries on the 28th of February have to be rejected on the ground that they were effected from an open place, accessible to all.The body was in a khainuma gaddha.There were several clumps of pattel' bushes in the area standing 2 to 3 feet tall.It is in the evidence of SO Anil Somania, the Investigating Officer that the hammer was recovered by Vikas Yadav 6-7 paces away from where the body was recovered by searching amongst pattel' bushes.The wrist watch was recovered by Vishal Yadav again after searching from another clump of bushes.Neither the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 410 hammer nor the wrist watch were visible to the eye.He has stated that adjacent to the main road there is a kachcha' (unmetalled) road; then bushes and then fields.After crossing the bushes they had gone to a wheat field.PW-35 had stated that the distance between the place of recovery of the dead body and the wrist watch was 50-20 paces.PW-34 S.I. J.K. Gangwar corroborates Anil Somania on all scores.The witnesses maintained that the accused persons had searched for the recovered items in the bushes and taken them out.Despite the search, the mobile phone of the deceased could not be recovered.The defence was unable to dent this testimony of either PW 34 S.I. J.K. Gangwar or PW 35 Anil Somania.That appears to be a very remote possibility.Nobody can simply produce a veechu aruval planted under the thorny bush.The discovery appears to be credible.The recovery Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 420 effected on the alleged statement given by the appellant was disbelieved on the ground that there were material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.There were discrepancies with regard to the timing of the PW-10, the Investigating Officer reaching the spot.It is found that the witnesses who have been examined for attesting the seizure have not supported the prosecution version.On behalf of the defence it was submitted that the seizure witnesses were men of status in the village and their not supporting the recovery would be fatal to the prosecution.Pursuant to the disclosure statements Exh.PW35/16 and 35/17, the other recovery which the police effected at the joint instance of both the appellant brothers that of the Tata Safari vehicle recorded in the memo (Ex.We have noted that by the order dated 27th February, 2002 police custody was granted by the court to effect the recoveries of the articles disclosed which included the Tata Safari vehicle.Pursuant to the disclosure made by them, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav deliberately misled the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 445 police to three different places in Alwar on the 28th of February, 2002 for recovering the vehicle.The police was first led to the Maharaja Building, Alwar where the offices of the accused persons were situated.Nothing was recovered therefrom.Thereafter they led the police party to the Siriska Palace Hotel in Alwar, as according to them the vehicle and the mobile phone of the deceased would be recovered from there.This again turned out to be a fruitless exercise.They lastly led the police party to Shanti Kunj, a house in Alwar where also no recovery could be effected (search memos in this regard were recorded by the police - Exh.PW 35/25, PW 35/46 and PW 35/47).As the period of the police remand was coming to an end, the police party was compelled to return to Ghaziabad.During this sojourn, it was disclosed that vehicle may be at Dhanari (U.P), Hoshiarpur (Punjab) or Chandigarh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 445Thus on the 28th of February, 2002, the Tata Safari vehicle used by the accused persons as well as the mobile phone of the deceased, both of which were disclosed by the accused, could not be recovered during the remand.The accused persons were produced before the CJM, Ghaziabad and PW-35 Anil Somania made a further application (Ex.PW 35/28) on 1st of March, 2002 seeking their ten days police remand for effecting the recovery of the vehicle and mobile phone.It was also stated that during the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 446 police remand, the appellants had provided assurance that the Tata Safari vehicle could be recovered from Dhanari (Budaun) or Hoshiarpur (Punjab) or Chandigarh and had further disclosed that the mobile phone of deceased Nitish Katara was also in the same car.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 446In the order dated 1st of March, 2002 passed on this application, the CJM noted that the accused Vikas Yadav in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had disclosed that he could point out the place where the Tata Safari vehicle was hidden in Alwar.However, the same could not be recovered when the police visited various places in Alwar.The court also noted that as per the accused persons, the mobile phone was also in the vehicle.It is pertinent to note that by a separate order passed on 1st of March, 2002, the CJM Ghaziabad directed that as a matter of Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 447 abundant caution, a photocopy of the case diary [from serial no. dated 28th February, 2002 (Saat Vark)] be kept in sealed cover and the accused persons be informed.A revision was filed being Crl.This revision was opposed on behalf of Vishal and Vikas Yadav who even challenged its maintainability.PW 35/36).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 449On the 8th of March, 2002, an application was made by the co-investigating officer before the CJM, Ghaziabad for five days police custody.However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted police custody remand w.e.f. 2:00 pm on 9 th March, 2002 till 2:00 pm on 11th March, 2002 only.After this order, a joint application (Ex. DW-6/5) was moved on behalf of Vikas and Vishal Yadav on the 8th of March, 2002 by Shri Neeraj Gautam, Advocate seeking permission from the court that two laywers be allowed to accompany the accused persons during the 48 hours police remand.This application was allowed by an order of the same date.(Ex. DW-6/6).Noteably, again, Vikas and Vishal Yadav did not dispute either the disclosure statements or the recoveries attributed to them.We may now note the manner in which these appellants obstructed the police in obtaining their custody.On the 9th Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 450 of March, 2002, PW-35 Anil Somania handed over to the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Dabra a copy of the order dated 8th March, 2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad regarding police remand of the accused persons.The hearing of this application was fixed for 1.00 pm.The application was opposed on behalf of the accused persons who contended that the directions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad were not in the name of the court in Dabra.This objection was rejected.The Tata Safari bore registration no.PB-07-H-0085 - A recovery memo Exh.PW27/1 was scribed which the accused refused to sign.PW27/1).The investigating officer has made an endorsement to this effect on the recovery memo itself.(i) Introduction of a Mercedes car as used by the appellants in the night of 16th February, 2002The accused persons claim to have left Diamond Palace Banquet Hall in the night of 16th February, 2002 after meeting the bride and bridegroom in Vikas's Mercedes.The Mercedes' vehicle was introduced for the first time in the case at a grossly belated stage in the cross examination of PW-42, Bhawna Yadav (sister of Vikas Yadav) recorded on Crl.DW-12 Ashok Gandhi also makes a convoluted reference to a Mercedes.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 453Several other witnesses including Ct.Satender Pal singh, Ct.The accused accompanied by their counsel led the police on an inter state trip on the 28th of February 2002 to Alwar, Rajasthan for the recovery of this Tata Safari vehicle.Thereafter they disclosed that the vehicle could be in U.P. or Punjab.On the 9th of March 2002, they led the police team way beyond Ghaziabad to Panipat, Haryana, till it was finally recovered from burnt factory premises of Vikas Yadav's father in Karnal.The appellants were accompanied by counsel.It is in evidence that PW 35 Anil Somania recorded the statement of Vikas Yadav's sister Bharti Yadav under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 2nd of March 2008 in the presence of their father Shri D.P. Yadav referring to the use of the Tata Safari vehicle by the appellants.By then Vikas and Vishal Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 454 Yadav had already been taken by the police on the 28th of February, 2002 to Alwar, Rajasthan to search for the Tata Safari vehicle.Neither his father nor sister stated that Vikas Yadav had left Diamond Palace Banquet Hall in a Mercedes.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 454No one objected to the applications nor protested its seizure on any ground.They did not inform the CJM, Ghaziabad that no Tata Safari car was used by them on 27 th February; 1st March or 8th March, 2008 when the orders on the police remand application were passed.The Sessions Court was also not informed on 6th March, 2002 that on the night of the 16th February, 2008, they were using a Mercedes car.Instead the appellants filed applications that their counsels accompany them during the police remand.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 455Till the end of both trials, or even till date, no details or particulars of the Mercedes have come on record in terms of its registration number, ownership, etc. It is clearly evident that the Mercedes has been introduced merely as a red herring to controvert the evidence on record about the recovered Tata Safari vehicle was really the vehicle used for the commission of the offence.The appellants examined DW-2 Madhumohan Nair and DW-9 Shakti Chand who were both employees of the Nawab Motors, C-24, Sector-8, Noida to establish this defence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 456In support thereof, reliance was placed on job cards and requisition for different parts in respect of the vehicle, as reflected in a computer statement Ex.The exhibition of the documents was subject to furnishing of legible and attested copies of the same.This was not done.The witness was unable to read even the chasis number or the engine number of the vehicle from the document (DW- 2/A).Payments for parts and the works undertaken were in cash.So there were no documents to support payments.The witness could not recollect as to whether any service tax had been paid.No contemporaneous record to establish that the said Tata Safari had at all entered the gate of Nawab Motors, as claimed, was produced.DW-2, Madhumohan Nair gave evidence that as per the practice of the firm, at the time of delivery of a vehicle, a gate pass was given to the customer which he delivers to the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 457 guard at the exit gate of the company in order to take away his vehicle.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 457To establish that the vehicle was returned on 10th March, 2002, the appellants are relying on a gate pass issued by Nawab Motors.The defence witnesses failed to produce the original gate pass to show that the vehicle was returned only on 10th March, 2002 which, if existed, ought to have been submitted at the exit gate of the workshop when the vehicle exitted.The witness did not produce the same despite directions to do so.Neither DW-2 nor DW-7 were personally concerned with issuing the gate pass with regard to the vehicle or with regard to requisitioning the spare parts.DW-7, Shaktichand, also sought to produce on record certain documents of transactions by the electronic mode without compliance of the Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The same is legally impermissible.He was unable to render any explanation for the manner in which these records are maintained.Other related witnesses were also examined by Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 458 the defence including DW8 Gaurav Aggarwal and DW11 Om Bir Singh.The ld.The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence of these defence witnesses for the following additional reasons as well:-(i) Even though, a register containing the entries recording the vehicle numbers was maintained, no register to prove the entry of the Tata Safari vehicle in Nawab Motors was produced.No details as to who brought the vehicle to the Nawab Motors or the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 459 particulars of the person who took delivery there have been given.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 459It was in evidence that since 2002, the servicing and repairs of Tata Safari vehicle was being undertaken by Nawab Motors.Though the bill raised by Nawab Motors was for only Rs.14,811/-, the defence has inexplicably sought to prove payment of Rs.25,000/-.The learned Trial Judge has pointed out that the premises of the company A.B. Coltex had been burnt for several years before the arrival of the police and the factory was lying closed.A question has been raised as to how and why a vehicle would be delivered after repairs to premises in such condition? This question could not be answered by the appellants before us as well.When on 27th February, 2002 and 1st March, 2002, the investigating officer, PW-35 Anil Somania moved the application for police custody remand of the appellants for recovery of the Tata Safari, Shri Rajinder Chaudhary, Advocate purporting to be acting on behalf of Vikas Yadav, also made an application to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad praying that counsel be permitted to accompany them.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 460It is also evident from the above narration that if the vehicle was actually with the Nawab Motors, since 16 th February, 2002, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav would have led the police to the premises of Nawab Motors at Noida.This person was an employee of Shri D.P. Yadav who was a Director in M/s A.B. Coltex.The Trial Judge has rightly concluded that this witness was coming to the support of the defence.We agree with the trial judge that the appellants Vikas and Vishal Yadav set up a false plea that they had not gone to the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 462 wedding of Shivani Gaur on the 16th of February, 2002 in a Tata Safari vehicle but in a Mercedes car.It therefore, stands established on record that the Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No.PB-07H-0085 stood registered in the name of M/s Oswal Sugar Limited, G.T. Road, Mukeria Hoshiarpur and that Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav was one of its Directors.PW-30 Nilam Katara, mother of Nitish has testified that in December, 2001 Bharti Yadav had gifted a wrist watch of make Esprit to Nitish Katara.The appellant, Vishal Yadav, made a disclosure statement on the 25th of February 2002 to the effect that he could get a watch recovered.On 28th of February 2002, a wrist watch (make Espirit) was in fact recovered at the instance of Vishal Yadav from amidst thick bushes of Pattel' near the spot where the dead body was recovered.A joint recovery memo (Exh.PW-34/1) of the hammer as well as the wrist watch was scribed by the investigating officer.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 463In order to establish the correctness of the recovery and the statement on this aspect made by PW-30 Nilam Katara, the prosecution caused a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered watch to be undertaken.In this regard, the testimony of PW-7, Ram Lakhan Singh (Special Executive Magistrate, Ghaziabad) is relevant.This witness was authorized to conduct TIP of persons as well as of property and was posted as the Special Executive Magistrate at the relevant time.He was approached by the SHO, PS Kavi Nagar on 2nd April, 2002 who made a written request for getting the identification of the wrist watch from Smt. Nilam Katara.The recovered wrist watch (Exh.PW-7/Article 1) was produced before PW-7 in a sealed condition.Five similar watches brought by a contractor D.D. Aggarwal and were mixed up by contractor with the watch in question (Exh.PW-7/Article 1).The testimony of this witness could not be shaken in his cross-examination.After its identification, the wrist watch, was again sealed by him.Appearing in the witness box, Nilam Katara has described the apparels as well as the accessories which Nitish Katara was wearing when he went to attend Shivani Gaur's wedding which included the said Espirit wrist watch and a gold chain Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 464 with tiger claw both of which had been gifted to him by Bharti in December.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 464Nilam Katara has testified that on 2nd April, 2002 in proceedings conducted in the Kacheri, from amongst similar watches, she had identified the Espirit wrist watch (Exh.PW- 7/Article 1) which Nitish was wearing on 16th February, 2002 when he had gone to attend the marriage of Shivani and that had signed the memo of identification of the wrist watch (Exh.PW-7/3).In court the witness identified the watch Exh.PW7/A-2 as the one worn by Nitish when he had gone to attend Shivani's marriage and identified by her on 2nd April, 2002 during investigation.However, the testimony of the witness could not be shaken.A suggestion was put to the witness that when Nitish Katara had gone to the marriage, he was wearing a round watch with a metallic chain which the witness categorically denied.The witness insisted that her son was wearing the square watch Exh.PW-7/Art.1 which had been recovered.She also denied that he was wearing a round watch in the photograph of the marriage Exh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 465The appellants have challenged the recovery of the wrist watch at the instance of Vishal Yadav on the ground that there was no evidence that the deceased Nitish Katara was wearing a wrist watch when he attended the marriage of Shivani Gaur.The appellants also challenged identification of the wrist watch conducted by PW-7 Shri Ram Lakhan, Special Executive Magistrate on the ground that instead of mixing similar watches, watches of different makes and shapes were mixed up which enabled the witness to identify the watch by reading the brand thereof as the watch had been planted by her and the police.The appellants have alleged a conspiracy on the part of the complainant and the police hatched on 20th February, 2002 resulting in incorporation of the existence of the wrist watch in the statement of Smt. Nilam Katara.The recovery of the watch was challenged on the ground that the bill for purchase thereof was not produced by the complainant.We have already noted above as to why would Nilam Katara do anything to implicate innocent persons for the murder of her son instead of insisting that the really guilty be punished? There is no answer forthcoming to this query.PW-6 had prepared an album of the photographs which was handed over along with negatives to the concerned family.The witness stated that the police had taken positives of some of the photographs of the marriage.Archana Sharma proved the photographs Exh.PW6/2, Exh.PW6/3 and Exh.PW6/4 on record as those taken by Vijay and given by her to the appellants.The negatives of these photographs were collectively proved as Exh.It stood established, therefore, that the photograph (Exh.PW6/2) was the original copy prepared from one of the negatives which was exhibited collectively as Exh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 467Surprisingly, during her cross-examination by the defence, this witness testified that apart from the photographs exhibited in the court, she had brought 3-4 other positive prints which were not put in the album as they were not considered good.The witnesses produced these photographs as Exh.PW6/D1 and Exh.Importantly, the witness did not have the negatives of such photographs.Out of these photographs, we are concerned with one photograph (Exh.PW6/D3) which was produced by PW-6 for the first time while under cross examination Exh.PW- 6/D3 was pressed as an original photograph while PW6/D4 was its enlarged copy.The defence sought to establish before us as well that PW6/2 is actually the photograph Exh.PW6/D3 with amendments having been made (in Exh.PW6/2) regarding the wrist of the boy standing in the photograph wearing a red kurta.PW6/D1 to Exh.There was no explanation as to why Archana Sharma did not have the negatives of the photographs.Or Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 468 why, if this photograph existed, she did not hand it over to the investigataing officer? Without negatives, the Trial Court has rightly doubted the genuineness of these photographs.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 468During her re-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor , PW-6 Archana Sharma admitted that she had prepared Exh.PW6/D1 to Exh.PW6/D4 after the police had taken away the three negatives (Exh.PW6/5) and that these photographs were prepared from positives.She did not disclose at whose instance, the photographs were prepared and the manner in which they were produced on record without any direction from the court.The learned Trial Judge has concluded that PW-6 Archana Sharma was acting at the instance of the accused persons and that the photographs which were produced were not genuine photographs.In the witness box, PW-15, Vijay Kumar tried to favour the defence by deposing that he had also taken the photograph - Exh.PW6/D3 and Exh.PW6/D4 in the marriage of Shivani Gaur.He Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 469 could not state as to whether the photographs shown to him had been made from a negative or prepared using a computer from positives.Clearly the witness was under the influence of the accused persons and made the unfortunate effort to support the dishonest efforts of the defence to prove morphed photographs as originals.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 469In an attempt to establish that the photograph (Exh.PW6/2) was not an original photograph clicked at the wedding of Shivani Gaur, the defence also examined DW-15, Vikram Garg and DW-16, Mahender Sharma.DW-15 was shown the photographs (Exh.PW6/2, Exh.PW6/D3 and Exh.PW6/D4) and was asked to identify the original amongst them.He replied that Exh.PW6/D3 was the original photograph while Exh.PW6/D4 was its enlargement.The witness admitted that neither the photographs were taken clicked in his presence nor the enlarged copy (Ex.PW6/D4) was prepared in his presence.When shown the three negatives (Exh.PW6/5 colly.), the witness admitted that Exh.PW6/2 was prepared from one of the negatives which was shown to him.The learned Trial Judge has noted the interference and the tutoring of DW-15 on behalf of the appellants at this stage to overcome the clear admission by the defence witness.At this stage, Mr. G.K. Bharti, Advocate for Vikas Yadav, whispered something into the witness' ear whereupon the witness took a somersault and stated that as the negative shown to him was small in size and four people were appearing in the photograph, and so he could not state as to from which negative the photograph - Exh.PW6/2 was prepared.DW-15 Vikram Garg admitted that he was seeing the photographs - Exh.PW6/2, Exh.PW6/D3 and Ex.PW6/D4 for the first time in the court.The witness also admitted that jewellery or anything can be added or deleted from the photograph by editing.The fact that Exh.PW6/2 was an original photo prepared from proven negatives already stood established in the testimony of Archana Sharma during the trial.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 471DW-16, Mahender Sharma had enlarged the photograph which had been got produced.He stated that he could manipulate the photo in any manner given the softwares noted above.Even face expressions can be changed and that not only wrist watch, even shackles can be shown on the hands on the legs of the person in the photo.It appears that permission was sought by the appellants for taking enlarged photographs of the photographs filed in court by the prosecution.Instead of calling a photographer in court for preparation of the enlarged photograph from the negatives which were available on record, the defence called a computer expert, who with the help of a scanner, took an impression of the positive print of the photograph available on record.From such positive print, the defence got prepared photographs which were got produced on record in the testimony of prosecution witness, PW-6 Archana Sharma.The photographer who had come to the court, had admitted that he could manipulate a photograph in any manner.These remarks were noted in the cross-examination of PW-7, Shri Ram Lakhan, Special Executive Magistrate when the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 472 defence sought to cross-examine him with regard to the photographs.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 472In fact, Nitish Katara is wearing a full sleeved red kurta in the photographs.The learned Trial Judge has noted the conduct of the defence witness.On a consideration of the evidence on record, it has been held that Exh.PW6/2 was not the original but only a copy with amendments.In these circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has correctly concluded that Ex.PW6/D3 and Ex.PW6/D4 were morphed photographs and were a dishonest attempt of the defence to show that the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 473 deceased Nitish Katara was not wearing the recovered Esprit watch at the time of the marriage of Shivani Gaur but was wearing a round watch with a metallic chain.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 473The recovery of the wrist watch of Espirit make at the instance of Vishal Yadav on the 28th of February 2002 stands established in the statement of the investigating officers, PW-4, S.I. J.K. Gangwar and PW-35 Anil Somania.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 474 wearing a round wrist watch as shown in the photograph - Exh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 474It has therefore been rightly held in the impugned judgment that the wrist watch (Ex.PW7/Article 2A) which was recovered by Vishal Yadav on 28th February, 2002 pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.PW 35/17) was the wrist watch worn by Nitish Katara on the night of 16th February, 2002 when he had gone to attend the marriage of Shivani Gaur.VI Whether the recovered hammer was the weapon of offence?(d) Rigormortis : Chest, abdomen and anterior wall lost , organs Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 478 exposed and burntA.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 478(e) Decomposition: Hairs charred small inch only Tongue protruded Face neck and body black but no vesicles Intestines congested, Left elbow joint opened, No clothes on body, Penis entirely charred and black.Base - NADVertebrae - Not openSpinal Cord - Not expound(Anil Singhal)An important fact which requires to be borne in mind is that on 18th February, 2002, PW-3 Dr.Anil Singhal, PW-3 has to be examined on the above binding principles and in the background of other circumstances which have been brought on record.(ii) Nature, shape and size of hammerAs per this memo, the hammer was made of iron; the hammer head was broad on one side and narrow on the other side....the first accused Vikas took out from the pattel' bushes situated in a pit on the road an iron hammer at approximately 12:45 and while handing it over he stated that he used this hammer to injure the abducted Nitish Katara on his head to kill him.The hammer had a wooden handle whose length was approximately one valisth (sic vitastaa) and char angul (four fingers).The other side was narrower and blood stained.The skull fracture was on the frontal bone.The doctor was shown the hammer in the witness box.Yet the doctor has also not bothered to correlate the injury to the hammer head, which was broad on one side and narrow on the other side.There was blood on the narrowside.The impugned judgment records that the small flat surface of the hammer was almost similar to the dimension of the injury and, therefore, it could not be stated that the injury on the left frontal bone of the deceased which was sufficient to cause death, has not been caused by the hammer.The learned Trial Judge has carefully analysed the positioning and nature of the injury on the skull of the deceased and also concluded that it was not possible that the entire base of the weapon would leave a mark in the shape of the weapon at the place where it struck the skull.The laceration in the brain were behind the fracture.A countercoup laceration shows up opposite to the point of contact on the head.(v) Failure to ascertain origin of the blood on the hammerAs per the forensic report, an iron hammer with a wooden handle having brownish stains on the iron part of the hammer was sent for a forensic examination.This serological report dated 29th April, 2002 Exh.PW-35/57 reports that human blood was detected on the iron hammer using serological techniques.Though the blood group could not be ascertained, as the results were inconclusive, the accused had to give some explanation as to how the human blood came on this weapon.He gave none.This discovery would very positively further the prosecution case.PW-35/37 that the blood on the hammer head was human blood.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 535 No.216/02 was registered on 19th February, 2002 at the Police Station Khurja and the investigation was taken up by PW-4 Insp.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 540A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 540(iv) Outside the wedding venue - evidence of last seenSatender Pal Singh in this regard.Our attention has also been drawn to the statement of Bharat Diwakar athat Nitish Katara was called away while he was eating dinner with Gaurav Gupta and him, at 11/11:30 pm.PW-26 Gaurav Gupta to the effect that Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 541 the deceased left the place where he was eating dinner at about 12/12.15 a.m.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 541As per the prosecution case the appellants and Nitish were next spotted a little distance away from the Banquet Hall at 12/12:15 am by Ct.Inderjeet Singh and Ct.It is further submitted that PW-33 Ajay Katara has testified that around 12.20 a.m./12.30 a.m. on the night intervening 16/17th February, 2002, he had seen the deceased Nitish Katara with Vikas and Vishal Yadav as well as Sukhdev @ Pehalwan in a Tata Safari vehicle at the Hapur Chungi.As against the above, PW-11 Shivani Gaur, the bride; PW-42 Bhawna Yadav and PW-32 Bharti Singh/Yadav have stated that the deceased was still at the Banquet Hall at around 1.30 a.m.Learned senior counsel has also pointed out that PW-19 Jai Prakash Pandey and PW-31 Umesh Sharma on the one hand and PW-11 Shivani Gaur, PW-38 Bharti Yadav and PW-42 Bhawna Yadav on the other have been disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge in this behalf.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 542 Bharti who stated that after midnight, at about 1/1.30 a.m. after most of the guests had left, she along with her friends including Nitish Katara had taken dinner.She had also stated that the appellants Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav had come early and went away without dinner.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 542On the same issue Mr. Lalit relies on the evidence of PW-42 Bhawna Yadav who stated that Vikas and Vishal Yadav reached the wedding venue around 10.30/10.45 p.m. and left after 10-15 minutes at around 11 p.m. in a black Mercedes car.PW-42 had also stated that when she had dinner around 1 a.m., Nitish Katara was with them but he did not eat dinner with them.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 543 deceased when he was eating dinner with his friends Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta.On behalf of appellant Vishal Yadav it is submitted by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel that the prosecution has attempted to establish that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused persons firstly outside the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall; and then around 12 or 12.30 a.m. in the night intervening 16/17th February, 2002 by Ajay Katara near the Hapur Chungi.Anil Somania stated that on the 17th of February Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 544 2002, he came to Delhi at Kothi No.15, Balwant Rai Mehta Lane which was allotted to Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav who was an M.P. but could not trace the accused persons even at this accommodation.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 545 because he wanted to charge Vishal Yadav as the second accused.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 545Learned senior counsel would contend that the only evidence against Vishal Yadav was that he had been seen at the wedding of Shivani Gaur in the company of Vikas Yadav, at the gate of the Banquet Hall as well as at the Hapur Chungi and there was no evidence at all that Vishal Yadav did not part company with Vikas Yadav thereafter.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 552On the 16th of February 2002 Bharat Diwakar (PW-25) and Nitish Katara left the Katara residence for the wedding between 9:30 p.m. to 10: 00 p.m. They reached the venue at around 10:15 p.m. The photographs Ex.PW6/2 as well as video cassettes Ex.PW 42/1 bear testimony of the fact that the "baraat" (bridegroom party) had not arrived at the venue by that time.The deceased and Bharat Diwakar did meet the bride and also got themselves photographed with Bharti and her.The bridegroom does not feature in this picture.So far as Nitish Katara's presence at the wedding is concerned, the testimony of Bharat Diwakar (PW-25) as well as their friend Gaurav Gupta (PW 26) in Vikas Yadav's trial is material.Bharat Diwakar and Nitish Katara reached the Diamond Banquet Hall at about 10.15 p.m. in a hired car.After wishing the couple, PW-25 has testified that Nitish Katara, Gaurav Gupta and he left for the adjoining garden where the food arrangement had been made.While they were eating dinner at around 11-11.15 p.m., one young male came to them and enquired as to which of them was Nitish Katara.Nitish identified himself to that person at which they moved away from them and were talking.Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta continued with their meal.A strenuous effort was made before the trial courts and also before us on behalf of the appellants to create a doubt with regard to the time at which the deceased was last seen at the wedding venue.As noticed above, it is in the testimony of Bharat Diwakar that the deceased was called away when he was eating dinner with his friends.However, this witness is also categorical that only Bharat, Nitish and he had gone for dinner together and there was no one else with them.It is necessary to also examine the testimony of Shivani Gaur, Bharti Yadav and Bhawna Yadav on this aspect.PW- 11 Shivani Gaur states that at her wedding she took her meal at 12.30 or 1 a.m. and at that time she saw Nitish Katara on one side but did not see him take his meal.Given her testimony, the court has put a specific question to PW-11 Shivani Gaur to tell as to which of her friends left the wedding venue at what time.She answered that she would not know because they came to the stage, got photographs clicked, ate food and went away.She also testified that since Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 554 it was very crowded she did not know who came and went away when.All that this witness could say was that Swati, Puja, Priti and Vipin and Amit were her friends who left last at about 12.30 a.m.when she was going for dinner.PW-11 makes a specific statement that all her other friends left before 12.30a.m.She also explained that she was able to state that these were the last people who left because, at that time, the crowd was not much and they actually came to her and said good bye. PW-11 is also categorical that at the time of the satpati ceremony which lasted from 1:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m., only her close friends Bharti Yadav, her sister Bhawna and one Lata were present.She further stated that she had lastly seen Nitish Katara at around 1:30 a.m. when after taking her meal, she was going for the saptbadi.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 554The learned trial judge has held that PW-11 Shivani Gaur has made a tutored and false statement that she saw Nitish Katara at about 12:30/01:00 a.m and again at 01:30 a.m. The trial judge has held that the witness has so testified only to assist the defence in challenging the testimony of PW-33 Ajay Katara that he had seen Nitish Katara in the company of all the appellants at Hapur Chungi around 00:20 hrs or 00:30 hrs.So far as the departure of Nitish Katara from the wedding venue is concerned, Bharti was unable to recollect the exact time when her friends including Nitish had left the venue.She stated that it was late and only a few guests were left and the phera ceremony were about to take place.The evidence on record manifests the pressure to which Bharti Yadav was subjected to toe the defence line.Immediately after the wedding, she was physically spirited away from her residence in Ghaziabad and sent to Faridabad on the 17th of February 2002 itself.These mails till 24th February, 2002 reflect the deep anguish and pain the witness was undergoing as well as her ignorance of the plight of Nitish Katara, admittedly a close friend, if not more, at what she also believed and at the hands of her brothers.She beseeched Nitin Katara on the cell and e-mails to trace Nitish at the earliest and expresses hope to see both of them shortly.Matters don't end here and towards the end of September/October 2002, Bharti Yadav is sent away to U.K. ostensibly to pursue an academic course but, as the trial court record reflects, it was really a blatant attempt to prevent her appearance in court as a witness.The witness was represented by counsel during her testimony.As she was completely resiling from her previous statement, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 557 for the State was permited to cross-examine her.On the 29th of November, 2006 while under cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, the witness sought an adjournment on the ground that she was unwell prior to the lunch recess.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 557Bharti Yadav's testimony reflects that she has done her utmost to resist the pressures.But then Vikas Yadav is her brother and Vishal Yadav, a first cousin.So in the previous part of her testimony, she only attempts to distance herself from Nitish.On the next day she is still not able to make a positive assertion of any false fact relating to Nitish Katara in her cross examinations by the Special Public Prosecutor or by the Senior Counsel for Vikas Yadav or ld. counsel for Vishal Yadav.Clearly realizing the reluctance of this witness, the defence then adopted an ingenious method of bringing the false statement into the evidence.Recourse was taken to putting the false assertaion of fact, as a suggestion to the witness.Bharti Yadav appears to have finally succumbed to the pressures at the final stage when she conceded to the suggestion by Shri S.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for Vishal Yadav to the effect that she had dinner with her friends including Nitish Katara around 1:00 am.Unfortunately for the prosecution, while Crl.The appellants also overlooked the fact that Nitish had come to the wedding with Bharat Diwakar.Shivani Gaur, Bharti and Bhawna Yadav make no reference to Bharat Diwakar's presence at 1:30 am.His own evidence is to the contrary.Bharti's evidence that she ate dinner with Nitish Katara is also contrary to the unchallenged evidence of PW 25 Bharat Diwakar and PW 26 Gaurav Gupta who stated that the three of them were together at dinner and do not mention that Bharti presence at that time them.42 Bhawna Yadav, the video cassette, Ex.The trial court has observed that in the video cassette, Bharti is not with the bridal couple when it was proceeding towards the dining table.PW 42 Bhawna also admitted that Bharti was not at the dining table with the couple and the other people.The court observed that the complete table had been filmed and that PW 42 Bhawna also was not eating when the bridal couple was taking dinner.Bharti featured in the video with the bridal couple only at the Vedi' for the phera ceremony rendering her testimony about Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 559 eating dinner with Nitish at 1:30 am undubitably false.The learned trial judge has therefore, correctly held on this aspect that the testimony of PW-38 Bharti on this aspect also does not inspire any confidence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 559Interestingly during her testimony PW-38 Bharti does not categorically deny that Vishal Yadav had sought out Nitish Katara when he was with his other friends and taken him out of the marriage hall but merely stated that she had no knowledge.So was the answer to other similar questions with regard to Nitish having been taken by the appellants in a Tata Safari vehicle.Even more important is the fact that if this testimony was true, PW-38 Bharti Yadav would have been anxious to enter the witness box as such testimony would have facilitated the defence of her brothers and prevented the long incarceration for her brother and her first cousin.This fact by itself goes a long way to support the findings of the trial judge that the witness has been produced after wait of over three and half years only when the defence was confident that she could be influenced by her family to make a testimony which facilitated her brothers' defence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 560This discussion would be incomplete without referring to the evidence of PW-42 Bhawna Yadav on the duration of Nitish Katara's presence at the wedding.It is important to note that in PW-42's examination-in-chief on 9th March, 2007, the witness is categorical that Bharti and she were throughout together in the marriage function at the Diamond Palace.In answer to a specific question as to whether Bharti parted company from her at any time during the marriage function, Bharti Yadav had stated that she could not say if she went aside' for a minute or so during the marriage function.This statement is contradictory to the statement of PW 11 Shivani Gaur as well as PW-38 Bharti.In her cross examination on 28th March, 2007 PW 42 Bhawna Yadav voluntered that on that date she had dinner about 01:00 a.m and Nitish Katara was with us' but he did not have dinner with us'.She admitted the suggestions that in the video she had been shown at one time at the dining table with Shivani Gaur but was not eating food at that time.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 561 says while Vikas was driving it, Vishal sat on the rear seat which is strange as the passenger seat was vacant! It was thus a desperate attempt by the appellants at the last stages of Bhawna's cross-examination to establish that Nitish Katara was at the wedding long after Vikas and Vishal Yadav left the venue in a Mercedes.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 561The photographs Ex.PW6/1, PW6/2 and PW6/3 as well as the wedding cassette show that neither PW 11 Shivani Gaur nor PW 38 Bharti are wearing a watch.These witnesses would have no manner of knowing the time of the departure of any person.These witnesses had no recollection of important events and essential circumstances in their daily lives.PW-11, Shivani had a selective amnesia.She could not recollect significant details while giving her testimony in Vishal and Vikas's trial.The information about which the witness stated that she cannot remember is information which any person would normally be expected to remember.Yet despite passage of four years, when she cross-examined on 13th September, 2006, she had total recollection of date, time and length of period of Vikas and Vishal Yadav's visit to her wedding and time she claims to have seen Nitish Katara.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 562Bhawna Yadav could not remember as to who accompanied her to Mumbai in the extraordinary day trip to celebrate a birthday - not an everyday trip.Except the first call from Yashoman Tomar's phone which shows that Nitish Katara was at or around Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, all the other phone calls were received when he was at or around Raj Nagar in Ghaziabad.At around 1 a.m., an incoming call was received by Nitish Katara's cell phone at location ID 12253 which corresponds to Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.This proves that Nitish Katara was not at the wedding venue at 1 a.m. when this call on his cell phone was received by him.The evidence of PW 25 Bharat Diwakar and PW 26 Gaurav Gupta coupled with the documentary evidence of electronic Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 566 records proved by PW-21 (Exh.PW-21/1) establishes that after midnight Nitish was not at the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 566In his examination-in-chief Bharat Diwakar stated that around 12:45 am, after Gaurav Gupta and he finished eating, they both tried calling Nitish on his cell phone but could not get through to him.He thereafter started inquiring in the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall as to whether the person wearing a red kurta had been seen by anybody when he was told that he was talking with a person named Vishal.It is evident from the above that Bharat Diwakar had learnt at the wedding itself about the name of the person who had taken Nitish as being Vishal.The court questioned Bharat Diwakar as to who had told him the name of the person with whom Nitish had left the wedding as Vishal.In response Bharat Diwakar stated that he could not recollect the name of the person who told him so.Bharat Diwakar confirmed that he had made inquiries from all those persons who were standing on the gate if they had seen any person in a red kurta leaving.At that time he was told that the name of the person with whom Nitish had gone was Vishal.When Bharti Yadav appeared as PW-38 in her brother's trial and was questioned about Vishal Yadav approaching Bharat Diwakar, Gaurav Gupta and Nitish Katara at the marriage function and taking Nitish Katara out of the marriage hall, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 567 Bharti Yadav did not deny this fact categorically but only claimed that she had no knowledge.Bharat Diwakar (PW-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 56725) has stated that Nitish Katara was called away from their company at 11/11.15 p.m. So far as the timing, the time at which Nitish Katara left the Banquet Hall or evidence about his being outside the wedding venue is concerned, we shall discuss it hereafter.Let us examine the evidence on the aspect of the presence of the accused persons at the wedding.So far as the presence of Vikas and Vishal Yadav at the wedding is concerned, the bride Shivani Gaur (PW-11).stated that Vikas and Vishal came around 11/11.15 p.m. and after greeting the couple they went away without taking a meal.Shivani Gaur has also stated that the accused Vikas and Vishal Yadav had told her husband that they had to go to a polling booth and could not stay long for which reason they did not eat their meal.There is no dispute that Nitish Katara was also present at the wedding at that time.The photographs Ex.PW6/2 (featuring Shivani Gaur with Bharat Diwakar, Nitish Katara and Bharti); Exh.PW6/3 as well as Exh.PW6/4 (featuring the bridal couple with Vishal Yadav in a (black jacket) and Vikas Yadav (in a white shirt) Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 568 have also been proved on record establish the presence of the deceased and the accused person respectively at the wedding.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 568He submits that the witness, who was the bride on that day, stated that she had seen Nitish Katara around 1/1.30 a.m. while leaving for the phera ceremony and therefore the prosecution case that Nitish was abducted by the three appellants must fail.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 569In his cross-examination, Gaurav Gupta further stated that the main gate of the venue was on the main road; then on both sides there were kanats' (marquees) followed by four or six stairs for entering the marriage hall.The garden where dinner was laid was on the right side and that more than 500 to 600 people who were moving around were taking their meals.The sitting arrangement for the bride and groom was made at the centre of the hall which had a wall in the centre.PW-14 Sandeep Goyal has stated that the dinner arrangement on 16 th February, 2002 was made in the lawn which, if facing the banquet hall, fell on to right side of the banquet hall.The main gate was around 35 to 40 feet from the main road.The venue had to be accessed by the ramp of 35 feet from the main road to the gate of the plot.So far as the venue is concerned, it has emerged in the testimony of Bhawna Yadav that the boundary wall of the premises was of the height of about 8 feet or more with grills fixed thereon.Inside the boundary wall there was open space and then the Banquet Hall which could be accessed by a few steps.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 570It is noteworthy that Shri Sandeep Goel, owner of the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall (PW-2 in Sukhdev Pehalwan's case).He confirmed that the entire main gate is not visible from the dais where the bride and the bridegroom are seated and only the upper portion of the main gate is visible therefrom.Therefore it was not possible to see from the dias as to who was leaving the wedding venue.Shivani Gaur (PW-11) stated that the wedding on 16th February, 2002 was preceded by a sangeet on 15 th February, 2002 which was attended by her friends Bharti Yadav, Nitish Katara and Bharat Diwakar.It is in the testimony of this witness that she and her husband were sitting on the dias in the Banquet Hall on 16th February, 2002 from 10.20 p.m. till 12.30 a.m. on 17th February, 2002 and that the meal for the baraat started at 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. at a place different from the hall.Shivani Gaur testifying as PW-7 in Sukhdev Pehalwan's trial, again in her cross-examination stated that Vikas and Vishal Yadav had come to meet her on the dais on the wedding site at 10.30 pm and left immediately thereafter.A clarification was sought from the witness by the court as to what she meant from leaving immediately.The witness explained that they left the dais where she was sitting with the bridegroom after getting their photographs clicked in a hurry.When further querried, the witnesses pleaded Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 571 ignorance about when they left the venue hall as she was seated on the dais.It is evident therefrom that the witness certainly did not know when Vikas and Vishal Yadav actually left the wedding venue as she was on the dais till after 12.30 on that night.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 571PW-38 Bharti Singh corroborates PW-11 in her statement that Vikas and Vishal had come together to the marriage venue and did not eat dinner.So far as Vikas and Vishal Yadav's departure is concerned, Bharti has stated that she saw them leaving the place (dias) where the couple was sitting between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. She accepts the suggestion that she could not state as to what time they left the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall after leaving the hall and with whom.Let us examine what the third witness who has attempted to assist the defence has to say.PW-42 Bhawna Yadav is also a daughter of Shri D.P. Yadav and sister of Vikas and Bharti Yadav.It is interesting that at the initial stages of her cross- examination, on the 9th of March 2007, Bhawna Yadav accepted the suggestion that Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were not appearing in any frame of the wedding cassette Exh.She also accepted the suggestion that they had attended the marriage for only 10 minutes and had left.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 572Bhawna Yadav was examined as the second last witness on by the prosecution.By this time the accused persons were aware of the entire case of the prosecution.Amongst other proven facts, the prosecution had proved the disclosure statements and recoveries of the Tata Safari which the accused had to demolish.There was also evidence of the deceased being seen in the company of the appellants which had to be displaced.Bhawna Yadav has also stated that she was near the stage when the accused had come to the bridal couple to wish them.In cross-examination of Bhawna Yadav on the 9th of March 2007, the defence tried to establish that she was present at the gate of the Banquet Hall when the accused persons were leaving alone.Bhawna was closely related to Vikas and Vishal Yadav.If her testimony to this effect was true, why did she not tell these facts to the investigating agency when they were frantically searching for her brothers in February, 2002 till she was being cross- examined as a witness in 2007? Why did she not come forward about the mercedes vehicle for five years?Unmindful of the excuse attributed by PW-11 Shivani Gaur to Vikas Yadav for their early departure from the wedding that he had to go for some election work, Bhawna Yadav introduced the early exit of Vikas Yadav to the ground that he had to reach Karnal to attend some function manifesting that by 2007 when prosecution evidence was almost over, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 573 some shades of the defence case were taking shape.Of course the defence blundered even here.It is not the case of Vikas and Vishal Yadav that they went to Karnal from the wedding.They have put up a case that they had gone to attend a function in Ghaziabad itself after attending Shivani's wedding.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 573Despite stating that she never went out of the hall and stayed with the bride after her brothers had left the same, Bharti wrongly suggests that she saw her brothers leaving the marriage venue.The testimony of Shivani Gaur is also completely contrary to any normal conduct, especially given the admitted position that there were hundreds of guests (600 - 700) at the wedding who were moving around.There would have been lot of hustle bustle involving the guests trying to meet the bridal couple.It is therefore obvious that neither Shivani Gaur nor any other person including Bharti Yadav and Bhawna Yadav could have seen from the dias inside the Diamond Banquet Hall as to what was transpiring at place where the dinner was laid or at the venue gate.The prosecution had been able to completely demolish the defence suggestion that the accused persons were seen leaving the marriage venue at 11:00/11:30 pm on 16 th February, 2002 unaccompanied by Nitish Katara as it was Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 574 not possible to visualize the main gate of the banquet hall from the dias where the witnesses Shivani Gaur and Bharti were placed.It is also not possible to accept Bhawna Yadav's testimony on this point.Therefore the testimony of these three witnesses about the time of departure of Vikas and Vishal Yadav has to be rejected.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 574We may now examine whether the prosecution could establish that accused and the deceased were seen together outside the wedding venue.Four witnesses were examined in support of this submission.Jai Prakash Pandey and Umesh Sharma were examined as PW-19 and PW-31 respectively in Vikas Yadav's trial.The statement of Jai Prakash Pandey under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17th Feburary 2002 (Ex PW 19/A) and the statement of Umesh Sharma was recorded on 17th March 2002 (Ex PW 31/1).In the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., they had stated that they saw one boy wearing a red colour kurta, churidar pajama and white colour shawl shaking hands with some boys standing outside Diamond Palace and thereafter sitting in a long car/Tata Safari which vehicle went towards the west side at a fast Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 575 speed.While Jai Prakash Pandey (Ex.PW19/1) learnt the next day that one boy namely, Nitish Katara, whom he did not know, was missing from the marriage function, Umesh Sharma stated that he learnt the same after 2 - 3 days from the newspaper and TV.In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., these witnesses had confirmed that the victim was the same boy who was wearing the red kurta and churidar pajama who had gone in the Tata Safari vehicle.Both these witnesses resiled from their previous statements, were declared hostile and their testimonies have been completely rejected by the learned trial judge.Their statements have been brought to our attention.We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned trial judge.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 576The learned Trial Judge has also found conduct of Umesh Sharma, (PW-31 in Vikas Yadav's trial), who did not support the prosecution case, unbelievable.The learned Trial Judge has held that the his conduct of this witness shows that he had met somebody who had informed him of the manner in which he should give his testimony and therefore, he did not support the prosecution case.On the aspect of proving the presence of Vikas, Vishal Yadav, as well as Sukhdev Pehalwan outside the venue, the prosecution examined as a witnesses Ct.Inderjeet Singh and Ct.Satender Pal Singh in both trials.In Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial, they were examined as PW-28 and PW-32 respectively, while in Sukhdev Yadav's trial, they were examined as PW-12 and PW-10 respectively.It is in evidence that on the night of the 16th - 17th February, 2002, a police patrolling car bearing Chetak 13 was patrolling in the area covering the area of Chiranjiv, Kavi Nagar, Vivekanand Nagar and Shastri Nagar which includes the area in which Diamond Palace Banquet Hall is situated.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 577This patrol car was being driven by driver Ct.Satender Pal Singh.It was manned by Ct.Inderjeet Singh with two home guards.Both these constables have testified that at about 11:15 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., their patrol car was positioned near the Diamond Banquet Hall.Chetak 13 was on the road coming from Diamond Palace Banquet Hall and facing it.Satendra Pal Singh testified that the Chetak 13 was parked at a distance of 10/15 steps from the Banquet Hall at a turning.He testified that at about 12:15/12:30 while checking vehicles on the night of 16th February, 2002, they stopped a Tata Safari which was being driven by Vikas Yadav and there were two - three persons more sitting in the vehicle.Though he would not identify the deceased Nitish Katara in court when shown the picture, however he categorically stated that Vishal Yadav was seated in the rear portion of the Tata Safari.Despite extensive cross-examination on behalf of Vikas and Vishal Yadav, Ct.Satender Pal Singh (as PW-32) remained steadfast that the police vehicle remained at the location from 11.30 pm to about 12.45 am and that they had stopped the Tata Safari in which Vikas and Vishal Yadav were travelling at around 12:15/12:45 am.with two other persons.In his evidence, PW-28 Ct.He also admits that their car was checked between 12:00 mid night to 12:15 a.m. for arms, ammunition or anything objectionable.In answer to the court question PW- 28 also admitted that he had seen Nitish Katara in a Tata Safari vehicle when he was on duty on that road.The witness stated that when this Tata Safari was checked, "there were 2 - 3 persons in that Tata Safari - two in the front and one in the back and the person whose photograph was shown was in the front.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 578At this stage, the prosecutor pointed out that the witness was resiling from the statement made by him under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and he was permitted to cross-examine the witness.The prosecutor asked the witness PW 28 Ct.Inderjeet Singh if he had told anyone that he had seen the accused persons present in court as well as Nitish Katara in the same car coming from the Diamond Palace.This question was objected to by the defence, and this objection was overruled by the court.The observations of the court in the proceedings recorded on 25th April, 2003 with regard to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 579 what transpired in the trial are material and deserve to be extracted.The same reads as follows:-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 580In his evidence PW-32 Ct.Satender Pal Singh admits that on 4th March, 2002, the Investigating Officer Anil Somania, S.O. at PS Kavi Nagar made an inquiry from him in regard to the incident and that he had shown photographs Ex.PW11/5 (of Nitish Katara) as well as Ex.PW6/4 (photograph of Vikas and Vishal Yadav).The witness testifies that he had told the Investigating Officer that he had seen Vikas and Vishal Yadav in the Tata Safari as well as 2- 3 persons but he did not know all of them.The witness further clarified in the cross-examination that apart from Vikas Yadav, there were three more persons in the vehicle and that this is what he had said earlier.PW 32 Ct.Satender Pal Singh was even able to recollect the clothes worn by the accused on that night.He stated that one of the accused was in a black jacket and the other one in a white shirt.He was shown the wedding photograph Ex.PW6/4 and in that photograph Vishal Yadav is wearing a black jacket while Vikas Yadav was wearing light colour shirt.The witness stated that the accused Vikas Yadav and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 581 Vishal Yadav were wearing the same clothes in the photographs as they were wearing when he saw them on the night intervening 16th / 17th February, 2002 in the Tata Safari.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 581The photograph Exh PW6/3 is contextual and corroborates the oral testimony of Ct Satender Pal Singh who identifies the accused persons by these clothes when he spotted them after they left the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall that night.The witness also testified that the Tata Safari had a Punjab registration number.The recovered vehicle bore a Punjab registration number.Even though Ct. Satender Pal Singh had to be declared hostile, however, he unequivocally confirms the presence of the three appellants as well as a fourth person in a red kurta in the Tata Safari vehicle coming from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall on the fateful night.No doubt could be created on this part of the testimony in the cross-examination.The witness tried to create confusion about telling the Investigating Officer that one boy wearing red colour kurta who was sitting in the passenger seat next to Vikas Yadav in the front seat of the Tata Safari vehicle had a round face.He had also stated that later on it was learnt by him that the boy in the red kurta, who was seen by him in the vehicle of Vikas Yadav, had been kidnapped and murdered by them.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 582examination by the prosecutor, the witness stated that he had also not told the Investigating Officer that the windows of the vehicle, which was being driven by Vikas Yadav, were rolled down and that apart from Vikas Yadav there were three more persons in the car.It is important to note that the witness was confronted with the photograph of Nitish Katara Exh.The demeanour of the witness was also observed and noted by the court while recording his statement.The learned trial judge has noted on 29th of May, 2003 that during his testimony in between the witness has expressed his desire to discontinue as he was getting hopeless.The court gave him water and gave him assurance so that the witness continued thereafter.The sense of hopelessness expressed by the witness bears testimony to the pressure upon him with regard to his testimony.As his subsequent testimony reflects, even the trial court was unable to instill confidence or security in the witness to frankly and freely give an open account of what he had witnessed that fateful night.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 583Interestingly, his cross-examination was thereafter got deferred at the instance of the counsel for the accused persons.The witness was then subjected to extensive cross- examination with regard to his very presence at the spot; his assignments and duties.We may also consider the evidence of these witnesses in the trial of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan (the appellant in the Criminal Appeal No.145/2012).Satender Pal Singh was permitted to be cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor in Sukhdev's trial as well.In this cross-examination, the witness stated that he had learnt that Nitish Katara had been kidnapped and murdered and taken away by Vikas and Vishal Yadav in the Tata Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 584 Safari along with the accused (Sukhdev Pehalwan) present in court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 584In Sukhdev's trial also Ct.Inderjeet Singh (who was with Ct.Satender Pal Singh in the police patrol gypsy Chetak 13 in the night of 16th / 17th February, 2002) completely resiled from his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Just as in the first trial, he again attempted to create a dichotomy and introduced a story of two vehicles, one in which the appellants Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were travelling and the other in which the deceased Nitish Katara was travelling.Inderjeet Singh was again permitted to be cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor.In his cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, Ct.The witness also admitted that there was sufficient light at the T-point where they were stopping the vehicles.The testimonies of (PW-32 and PW-10 respectively) Ct.Satender Pal Singh and (PW-28 and PW-12 respectively) Ct.Inderjeet Singh in the two trials is eloquent of the manner in which these two police constables have been either won over or sufficiently intimidated by the defence so as to resile from Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 585 their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the truth from coming out.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 585We have noted the well settled principles applicable to witnesses who are declared hostile.The testimony of these witnesses has to be scrutinized on those principles.Despite these witnesses not stating the complete truth, certainly crucial facts noted above stand established even from such testimony and their cross-examination by the prosecutor.The learned Trial Judges have closely scrutinized the testimony of these witnesses and found them trustworthy on certain crucial facts.We have been taken through the testimonies and also find their evidence supporting the prosecution on some critical facts noted above.However, it is evident from his testimony that even this hostile witness admits that the accused persons and the deceased Nitish Katara had left Diamond Palace at the same time.The witness still establishes that Nitish Katara as well las one more person were in a Tata Safari.It is not even the defence case that Nitish Katara owned or had come to the wedding in a Tata Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 586 Safari vehicle that fateful night.On the contrary, it is Vikas Yadav father's company which owned the Tata Safari vehicle.It was subsequently recovered at the instance of the accused persons.He thus falsifies the testimony to this effect of Shivani Gaur (in both trials) as well as that Bharti and Bhawna Yadav (in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial).Most importantly, the witness established the fact that Vikas and Vishal Yadav as well as Nitish Katara and one more person were travelling on the same road in the same direction towards Hapur Chungi at the same time on the said night.It is obvious that the witness has not stated the truth in the witness box and has attempted to cloud the testimony of Ct.Satender Pal Singh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 586From the testimony of PW-32 Ct.Appearing as PW-10 in Sukhdev's trial as well, Ct.Satender Pal Singh categorically identified Sukhdev @ Pehalwan present in court as seated in the back seat of the Tata Safari.He also categorically Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 587 testified that the person who was sitting by the side of the driver was wearing a red kurta, though in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he had identified this fourth person as the deceased.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 587The testimony of Ct.Satender Pal Singh as PW 10 in Sukhdev's trial which has been challenged by counsel for the appellant Sukhdev Yadav Pehalwan on the ground that the witness was unreliable and there was delay of two weeks in recording his statement during investigation as well as contradictions between his testimony qua the testimony of PW-12 Ct.Inderjeet Singh. .Satender Pal Singh as against his testimony when cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor.We find that this objection was made in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial as well.These witnesses were police personnel who were present near the Banquet Hall and testified about what they had observed during the performance of official duty.There was nothing alarming in the fact that a Tata Safari was stopped by the police in which four persons including the deceased were seated.In fact given the publicity attached to the case and the preoccupation of the investigating officer with efforts to trace out the appellants and the missing person, these two constables should have revealed the information about what they had seen.But they did not do so.The IO would have no information about the events of that night.In these circumstances, the delay in recording the statement of these witnesses by the investigating officer during investigation cannot impact the veracity of their testimony.It is settled law that evidence on an issue is to be read as a whole.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 589 dissection of details in the evidence of each witness as is suggested on behalf of the appellants so as to discard the testimony of every witness.A holistic consideration of facts and circumstances established on record is to be effected by the trial judge bearing in mind human nature; its susceptibility to suggestions, influence, fear; oversight on account of passage of time between the occurrence and the date of testimony; relationship to and position of accused persons; normal tendencies of human beings to improvise and embellish; as well as the authority, influence, connections and outreach of the parties to the litigation which could impact the independence of the witnesses.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 589The evidence of Shivani Gaur, Bharti Yadav and Bhawna Yadav that Vikas and Vishal left the wedding venue alone at 11/11:30 pm, and that they saw Nitish Katara at the wedding venue around 1/1:30 am is clearly not worthy of any credence.He knew three out of the four persons in the Tata Safari vehicle.The witness identified these three as Vikas Yadav S/o Shri D.P. Yadav; Vishal Yadav S/o Shri Kamal Nath Yadav (identified as present in court) and the third being a stout Pehalwan named Sukhdev.So far as the fourth person is concerned, the witness stated that he did not know him and that this fourth person was wearing a red kurta and a shawl.Ajay Kumar further stated that Nitish Katara was sitting in the front seat adjoining the driver seat; that Vishal Yadav was sitting behind the driver Vikas Yadav, while Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was sitting behind the deceased.The Tata Safari being driven by Vikas Yadav was bearing the registration no. PB 07 H 0085 which number he had noted on a slip of paper.Ajay Kumar further stated that after he brought the scooter to one side of the road, the vehicle of the accused persons passed.On examination, he found that the plug of his scooter contained some dust/foreign material which he Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 593 cleaned and thereafter he started his scooter and also went on his way.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 593The witness has stated that he learnt about the involvement of Vikas and Vishal Yadav in the present case on 1st March, 2002 whereupon he went to the police station on 2nd March, 2002 but he could not meet the Investigating Officer (IO).He thereafter again went to the police station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad on 12th March, 2002 but could not meet the investigating officer on this date as well.He thereafter went to the police station on 18th March, 2002 when he met the IO and gave a statement to him about what he had witnessed.The witness has identified the Tata Safari seized by the police as being the vehicle seen by him on the night of 16/17th February, 2012 driven by the accused Vikas Yadav which was exhibited as Exh.In the trial against Sukhdev Yadav, the prosecution examined Ajay Kumar as PW-14 on 27th July, 2007 who reiterated the statement that he made as PW-33 in the trial of Vikas and Vishal Yadav.The witness additionally identified Sukhdev@Pehalwan present in court as sitting with Vikas Yadav on the rear seat.Ajay Kumar thus claimed to be at the spot per chance and gave unshaken testimony.The Supreme Court held that the veracity of PW-2 had been tested in cross-examination and his evidence was thus reliable.On the issue of chance witnesses, in para 27 of the report, the court observed as follows :-The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically.The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused.A dowry death was alleged.The conduct of the witness in only asking for the Investigating Officer Anil Somania at the police station and leaving when he was told that he was not there is unbelievable.He also draws our attention to the alleged statement of one Kamal Kishore brought on record allegedly recorded by the Ghaziabad police.In this statement it was stated that around 1/1.30 a.m. he had seen Vikas Yadav, the driver and a person in a red kurta.The car number would have been known therefrom.We now propose to examine the above objections of the appellants in the following seriatim:(A) Ajay Kumar is an interested witness as he hails from the same village as the father of the deceased (B) Whether a test identification parade (TIP) was mandatory to establish the identity of the accused persons? (C) The delay in recording statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Ajay Kumar by the investigating officer establishes that he was a planted witness rendering his testimony suspicious and unbelievable (D) Challenge to the implausibility of the occurrence on account of the width of the road (E) Whether the variance in testimony of Ajay Kumar and Investigating Officer Anil Somania about tearing of slip discredits his entire testimony?(F) Ajay Kumar was not a resident of Delhi (G) Whether the trial stands vitiated as the prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions to Ajay Kumar? (H) Prejudice caused to appellants by the ld.Nitin Katara as well as Ajay Katara have, in their respective testimonies, made unequivocal denials that they were related to each other or knew each other from before.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 609Both the mother of the deceased Nilam Katara as well as his brother Nitin Katara also categorically denied that they ever lived in village Bamroli.Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that Nilam Katara was the most natural witness to whom questions ought to have been put with regard to her family and relatives.Her testimony was recorded for the first time on 30th April, 2003 and then on subsequent dates.She was not cross-examined on any such aspect at all.Even in the trial of Sukhdev Yadav, where Nilam Katara appeared as PW-14, though some questions were put to her about the family of Ajay Kumar, no suggestion or cross-examination was put to her about whether he was related to her or not.There was no evidence as to how the police learnt that PW-4 was a witness to the incident.Delay in recording his statement remained unexplained while the recoveries were also doubted for having been made long after the incident.The testimony of PW-3 and 4 during trial was rejected in these circumstances and not merely because the witnesses were persons interested.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 619The witness stated that he usually kept visiting Ghaziabad as several people knew him and he was in the profession of preparing horoscopes and selling gems.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 623Appearing as PW-14 in Sukhdev's trial, Ajay Kumar has again reiterated that he knew Vikas Yadav from before since he was a known personality being the son of M.P. Shri D.P. Yadav and the whole of Ghaziabad knew him.Ajay Kumar further stated that he knew Vishal Yadav at that time since he used to roam around alongwith Vishal Yadav.Ajay Kumar in his testimony as PW-33 on 31st May, 2003 named the three appellants as seated in the Tata Safari vehicle and stated that he did know the fourth person with them.He identified the three appellants in their respective trials and Nitish Katara from a proven photograph.With regard to identity of this fourth person the testimony of the witness in the first trial is as follows:...The fourth person was not known to me, he was wearing a Red Kurta and shawl later on I saw his photograph on TV and learnt that he was deceased.I have seen the photograph Ex. PW 11/5 it was the same person, who was the fourth person in TATA safari and was wearing same clothes.Ajay Kumar thus recognized Nitish Katara as the fourth occupant apart from the appellants in the Tata Safari from his photographs.While explaining about the event of his scooter stopping, the witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that there was an electric pole near the spot where his scooter had gone out of order and a PCO booth which was closed.The witness denied the suggestion that normally there was no electricity on the road where the accident took place.Thus the witness proved illumination on the spot.The cross-examination on behalf of Vishal Yadav is on similar lines without any suggestion or question being put to him on his identification of the accused persons or that PW- 33's claim that he knew the accused persons from before was incorrect or to the effect that he had made a false deposition.Our attention has been drawn to the suggestion put to PW-33 in his cross-examination to the effect that prior to 16th February, 2002, he was not friendly to Vikas or Vishal Yadav or inimical to them or on visiting terms to them.It was never the witness's case that he was friendly with or on visiting terms with Vikas or Vishal Yadav.The witness has Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 625 merely reiterated identification of Vikas and Vishal Yadav in his testimony when he stated that on seeing the photograph of Vikas and Vishal Yadav, the correctness of their identity was reinforced.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 625So far as the identification of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan is concerned, in his trial, appearing as PW-14 Ajay Kumar stated that he knew Sukhdev as he used to look after the liquor shop of Shri D.P. Yadav at Bulandshahr and he had also seen him in the company of accused Vikas Yadav in Ghaziabad.The witness testified that he purchased liquor from that shop.Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for Sukhdev @ Pehalwan urged at length that the story of purchasing liquor from the shop in Bulandshahr was wholly implausible.We note that the defence does not dispute that Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was manning the liquor shop run by Shri D.P. Yadav or that the witness or the accused persons had not been going around Bulandshahr as well as Ghaziabad.Ajay Kumar further stated that he knew Sukhdev as he not only used to look after the liquor shop of Shri D.P. Yadav at Bulandshahr, but he had also seen him in the company of Vikas Yadav in Ghaziabad.The witness has explained the circumstances in which he would effect his liquor purchases from the shop.Ajay Kumar explained that he used to visit Crl.We have noted above also the suggestion by counsel for Sukhdev @ Pehalwan to Ajay Kumar Katara (PW-14) that Nitish Katara was sitting comfortably with the accused persons in the vehicle when he saw them at Hapur Chungi.It is submitted that it was for the accused person to come out with an explanation as to how and when they parted company with the deceased.The interaction lasted two minutes.Satender Pal Singh was also able to identify the occupants of the vehicle.The witness correctly identified the three accused persons present in the court room and the fourth from proven photographs.The witness denied the suggestion that he was seeing Sukhdev for the first time in court or that he had identified him at the instance of the police.The witness volunteered that he had seen him several times.The delay in examination of witnesses is a variable factor.It would depend upon a number of circumstances.For example, non-In the present case, it has come in evidence that the accused persons were absconding and the investigating officer had to make serious effort and even go to various places for arresting the accused, including coming from West Bengal to Delhi.Furthermore, the witnesses whose statements were recorded themselves belonged to the poor strata, who must be moving from one place to another to earn their livelihood.The statement of the available witnesses like PW 2, PW 4, PW 6, and the doctor, PW 16, another material witness, had been recorded at the earliest.The witness admitted the suggestion that he had told the investigating officer when he finally met him that on the television and in newspapers, the photograph of deceased Crl.The witness has further stated that he was also given security since 24 th April, 2002 under court orders after he made a complaint to the court and senior police officers and that he had security till date.As far as whether Ajay Kumar was speaking the truth with regard to the non-availability of Anil Somania on 2nd and 12th March, 2002 is concerned, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Krishnan, learned Additional Standing Counsel to the deposition of the investigating officer Anil Somania as PW-The investigating officer has explained that on 2nd Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 656 March, 2002, he had proceeded for investigation from the police station at 9.30 a.m. after recording GD No.14 (Exh.PW-35/29).The witness has stated that on 2nd March, 2002, he had returned to the police station only at 23: 25 hours.In this regard, GD No. 52 recorded in the police station was proved before the trial court as Exh.He returned to the police station at 21:35 hours and recorded GD No.42 (Exh.PW- 35/42) in this regard.This was also the day when Nitish Kumar's body was finally put to rest and he was cremated.It is in the evidence of Ajay Kumar that he did not know Anil Somania from before and he was able to meet the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 657 investigating officer only on the 18th of March 2002 when the investigating officer recorded not only his statement.It is noteworthy that the statements of Shivani Gaur and her husband Amit Arora, were also recorded on this date.Anil Somania also confirmed that the witness Ajay Kumar had informed him that he did not think it proper to inform the aforenoticed facts to anybody else or any other police official except the investigating officer because they were not trustworthy.The investigating officer has clearly stated that no constable told him that Ajay Kumar had come to meet him.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 658The witness further stated that he was unaware that Nishit Katara, husband of the complainant Nilam Katara belonged to Ajay Kumar's village Bamroli (actually called Bamroli Katara).No question has been put to the Investigating Officer that he knew about Ajay Kumar who was available and that he was deliberately marking time despite knowledge that the witness was available.Both Ajay Kumar Katara and the IO Anil Somania have explained the circumstances in which though Ajay Kumar went to the police station on the 2nd and 12th of March 2002, but he could not meet the investigating officer.Anil Somania has established that he did not know about the existence of Ajay Kumar prior to 18th March, 2002 and he Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 660 has recorded his statement on the same date.The appellants challenge the implausibility of the occurrence at Hapur Chungi on the ground that the width of the road was such that even if the scooter of the witness Ajay Kumar had actually broken down, there was more than enough passage for another vehicle to pass on its side.The witness states that he had crossed the round-about and was on the road leading to Delhi when the vehicle of the accused persons came along the road coming from Diamond Palace.The witness stayed firm on the aspect that no vehicle could Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 664 have passed without him removing the scooter from the place where the scooter had broken down.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 664Ajay Kumar has been extensively cross-examined on the aspect of the width of the road and that despite the scooter having stopped on the road, there was sufficient passage for another vehicle to pass without having to remove the scooter.The investigating officer has further stated that there was a sign board of the police station at the spot.The site position which emerges therefore is that on the right side of the vehicle was a divider while on the left side, the main road was flanked by a kuchha road.There was an electricity pole as well as a sign board of a police station at Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 690 and so he had at that time entertained the intention to report the matter.The testimony of the witness cannot be thrown out for this reason.In both trials, Ajay Kumar disclosed his address as House no.D-50/1, Gali No.10, Brahampuri, Shahdara, Delhi where he lived from September, 2001 to 2002 as a tenant of Harish Chand on the monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month for which no receipt was being issued by the landlord and for which there was no rent agreement.The witness claimed that the landlord of the house in Delhi in Brahmpuri was known to him and that he was in the profession of preparing horoscope and selling gems, for which he kept visiting people.As he lived for only a short period on rent in Delhi, no election card, ration card or any other document was prepared bearing his Delhi address.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 701The most startling aspect we came across from the record is that the criminal trial was unfair to the appellant and the procedure adopted in the trial is obviously illegal and unconstitutional.The Sessions Court in fairness recorded the evidence in the form of questions put by the prosecutor and defence counsel and answers given by each witness.He had worn a white Dhoti ... Did you notice his Dhoti? Yes.I had seen two or three drops of blood on his Dhoti.Suddenly I had a doubt.Similarly PW 4 also at that time Did anyone from Ramanattu House come for tea? Yes.Several other witnesses have given testimony on these very matters.Ajay Kumar's evidence in the first was completed on 31stMay ,2003 that is before the above order was passed.It is submitted that Vikas and Vishal Yadav sought to examine two witnesses namely Deepak Aggarwal and Dr. Manish Garg in defence to prove the deficiency in the eye sight of Ajay Kumar and that he was unable to see clearly in one eye.For this purpose, an application was filed for their dasti summons.This application was rejected by an order passed on 10th August, 2007 which reads as follows :As such the matter be adjourned at 12.30 pm.12.30 pm At this stage, Ms. Vandana, counsel for accused Vikas Yadav has appeared and has moved an application seeking dasti summons of two defence witnesses namely Deepak Agarwal and Dr. Manish Garg.She is directed to produce Mr. Bharti, adv.for showing relevancy of these two witnesses.At this stage, Sh.BS Joon, Spl PP for State.Kaushik Dey, counsel for the complainant, Accused Vishal Yadav on bail with Sh.S.K. Saxena, adv., Accused Vikas Yadav in custody with Sh.GK Bharti, adv.have appeared.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 715Mr. Bharti has submitted that both these wistnesses are relevant since through their testimony it is to be proved that PW Ajay Katara is a false witness.It is submitted that these doctors would also prove that Ajay Katara has an artificial eye of stone as he concealed this fact from the court.It is submitted that during his cross-examination the defence counsel wanted to question the witness regarding the fact that his right eye was having a general defect and there was white lining in his right eye but he was disallowed to put any such question.It is submitted that witness concealed this fact that he could not see from one eye.On the other hand the Spl.PP has submitted that the defence cannot be allowed to produce any such evidence since no such suggestion was given to the witness that he could not see from one eye or had an artificial eye.Further that Adv.Mr. Bharti was also sitting in the court and was advising Adv.Bajaj, counsel for accused Sukhdev Yadav when PW Ajay Katara was examined and cross-examined against accused Sukhdev but even at that time no such suggestion was given to the witness.After hearing the submission of both the parties and going through the material on record, I find that the defence was not allowed to put any question to PW 33 Ajay Katara with regard to any defect in his right eye and as such no evidence has come on record that PW 33 had an aritifical eye as claimed by the defence.At the same time witness Ajay Katara during his testimony has no where claimed that he could see with both eyes or could not see with both eyes, as such no medical evidence can be allowed to be produced by the defence to that effect, particularly when PW Ajay Katara would Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 716 not be available to rebut the same.As such both the doctors referred above are allowed to be summoned in defence only with regard to the fact that PW Ajay Katara is an interested witness and no such evidence shall be allowed through these witnesses that PW Ajay Katara has an artificial eye.Moreover it is of no consequence even if PW Ajay Katara has one artificial eye as it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused is totally blind and cannot see the happenings around.The defence counsel has submitted that today there are no defence witnesses to be examined today.Now to come up for recording the statement of these witnesses on 20/8/07 at 11 am.The defence is directed to produce DW Dayashankar and Jai Singh, adv.on 29/8/07 at 11 am.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 716The appellants accepted the correctness of the order dated 10th August, 2007 and did not challenge it any further.Another application was filed on 26th May, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 717 2008 regarding an alleged sting operation also under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 717The application of Vikas Yadav under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. moved on 12th May, 2008 was disposed of as infructuous at the instance of Shri G.K. Bharti, Advocate who did not press this application in view of the admission of the sting operation by Ajay Katara.However no application was filed by the appellants seeking the recall of Ajay Katara.In no application, the appellants made a prayer for recall of the witness with regard to questions which were earlier disallowed about the condition of the eyes of the witness.In the Sukhdev Yadav trial, while being cross-examined, Anil Kumar had denied the suggestion that on 31 st May, 2003 while his statement was being recorded (in the Vikas Yadav trial), he was wearing dark glasses and not spectacles.The witness further stated that the glasses which he was wearing at the time of deposition were plain glasses without Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 718 any number.The witness also explained that since he had hurt his right eye during childhood, he had to wear those glasses and that he had weak eye sight on the one eye.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 718The above narration from the record of the two cases shows that the appellants do not allege that Ajay Kumar was visually impaired and unable to see.In view of the above discussion, there is substance in the submission of the State that the appellants had made a conscious choice and abandoned all objections to the denial by the trial court of the opportunity to cross examine Ajay Kumar with regard to his eye sight.No objection on such ground can be legally pressed at this stage.An objection stands pressed before us that Ajay Kumar Katara was not asked to identify the Tata Safari vehicle at the police station.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 719 he could identify the recovered vehicle if shown to him and requested the court for showing the vehicle to the witness.This was objected to.The extract of trial court proceedings dated 31st May, 2003 in this regard reads as follows:-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 719The objection was rejected and the witness identified the recovered Tata Safari as the car seen by him on the night of 16th / 17th February, 2002 which was being driven by Vikas Yadav and occupied by the others noted earlier.It is not disputed that Ajay Kumar was also not a witness for the recovery of the Tata Safari.No question at all was put to the Investigating Officer Anil Somania in this regard who proved the recovery on the pointing out of the accused.In the circumstances, failure to get the vehicle identified cannot impact the prosecution case.The trial courts have accepted the testimony of Ajay Kumar on this aspect.The evidence Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 720Ajay Kumar's testimony about the identity of the persons in the Tata Safari on the fateful night has to be examined in the context of the disclosure statements of Vikas and Vishal Yadav both of whom had named the Pehalwan as their accomplice in the commission of the offence.Bharti Yadav in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exh.PW-35/AB) recorded on 2nd March, 2002 also stated that Sukhdev Pehalwan, an employee in their liquor business was her brothers, (Vikas and Vishal Yadav's) companion in the crime in the instant case.The testimony of Ajay Kumar establishes beyond any doubt that Vikas Yadav, Vishal Yadav, Sukhdev @ Pehalwan and the deceased Nitish Katara were actually travelling in the same Tata Safari vehicle at around 12:20/12:30 am (0020/0030 hours) on the road from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall.The vehicle was being driven by Vikas Yadav.Nitish Katara was seated in the front passenger seat, next to Vikas Yadav.In the efforts to establish that Ajay Kumar had made a false statement that he visited one Subhash Chand in the PAC barracks on the night of 16th of February, 2002 .Vikas and Vishal Yadav examined as DW-23, one Inspector Satyavir Singh.DW-23 had testified that he was residing in the residential complex of the 47th Battalion, Ghaziabad for the last about 14 years; that the 47th Battalion was equipped with sophisticated weapons to fight terrorism and fundamentalists which are stored in the armoury magazine.The residential complex was surrounded by a wall which an entry and exit point at which points police is posted for all 24 hours.A register is maintained to monitor the entry and exit of all outsiders to and fro residing in the complex.Particulars of date, names, particulars of the person whom they want to visit, time and purpose of the visit and whether the person was visiting the complex was on a vehicle was maintained in the register.The number of the vehicle is also entered in the register.The witness was not asked by the appellants if Subhash Chand was residing in this particular complex or if he could give information about the visitors to it on 16 th February, 2002! This witness was unable to give the area of the complex of the 47th Battalion.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 722 disclosure with regard to persons who visited the complex on 16th February, 2002 when Ajay Kumar claimed to have visited Subhash Chand.He does not produce any record of the register allegedly maintained at the entry point or record of gate passes which would have been issued to a visitor as claimed by him.In this background, the oral testimony of this witness unsupported by documents which he claims existed, does not controvert Ajay Kumar's testimony that he had gone to Ghaziabad to to visit Subhash Chand.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 722He testifies that there are about 1000 residential quarters in the complex and that he was not assigned guard duty at the gates.The accused in both the trials did not dispute the identity of Subhash Chand, his occupation or friendship with the witness.Anil Kumar Katara was cross-examined on behalf of Vishal Yadav when he denied that Subhash Chand was in PAS'.The witness stated that he was in the UP police and that he lived in police quarters and that the quarters of Subhash Chand was situated in the campus of Prantiya Suraksha Bal which had four gates.Anil Kumar had denied Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 723 being stopped at the gate at entry or that a register was maintained there.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 723In the trial of Sukhdev, Ajay Kumar Katara stated that Subhash Chand was a Hawaldar who was residing in the PAC compound, Ghaziabad which had 1500 quarters and that he was residing on the ground floor corner house.The witness denied knowledge about any register being maintained by the security guard and stated that he was never stopped while entering the blocks and had never been asked to make any entry.The witness statd that he used to enter the PAC compound from the side of G Block.Looked at from any angle, Anil Kumar Katara has remained steadfast about his visit to Subhash Chand in Ghaziabad on the night of 16th of February, 2002 in his testimony in both trials.This testimony could not be challenged by the defence.The evidence of DW-23 Inspector Satyavir Singh also does not dent the evidence of Ajay Katara at the Hapur Chungi on the fateful night at the stated time.Further evidence on this aspect would be a surplusage.Requiring the prosecution to further verify the address of Subhash Chand is unnecessary.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 724 be attached to the presence of the person at the spot for this reason.The learned trial judge has accepted his testimony.We see no reason to doubt the same.In order to establish the time of death, the prosecution examined Dr. Anil Singhal as PW-3 who had conducted the post-mortem (Exh.PW-3/3).This report has referred to a post-mortem conducted on an unidentified body on 18 th February, 2002 at about 3.00 p.m. According to this report, the proximate time of the death was around two days prior to the conduct of the post-mortem.Mr. R.K. Kapoor, ld. counsel for Sukhdev @ Pehalwan has relied heavily on this observation of the doctor to displace the prosecution case.Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Anil Singhal to the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 725 effect that the stomach of the deceased was empty at the time of conducting the post mortem/autopsy; that it was possible that the body on which he had conducted the post mortem might not have taken food for 24 hours or more but he could not say exactly how much.The speed at which it moves from one to another depends on the constituents of what was imbibed.No witness, including the mother and friends of the deceased were questioned on when or what did the deceased last eat.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 734There is evidence that the deceased was seen alive after midnight at the Hapur Chungi.The call records (Exh.PW- 21/1) of the phone of the deceased also establish that he was alive at this time.It is in evidence that Bharat Diwakar left the wedding venue alone between 02:00 a.m. - 02:15 a.m. on the 17th of February, 2002 and that he reached 7 Chelmsford Road at around 03:00 a.m. on 17th of February 2002 without Nitish Katara.The driver Shri Shadi Ram (PW 24) of the vehicle in which he returned proves this fact.As PW 25 Bharat Diwakar did not give any satisfactory answer about Nitish Katara to PW 30 Nilam Katara when he returned alone from the wedding, Nilam Katara tried to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 735 contact Nitish on his cell phone (which would be after 3:00 am.) but was unable to make contact.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 735She denied the portion marked W to W' of this statement where it was recorded that at about 0:00-2:00 a.m. when Bharti came to know that her brothers Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav along with Sukhdev Pehlwan had taken away Nitish Katara, she tried to contact Nitish Katara on his mobile phone but there was no response which increased her tension and thereafter she called on the residence number.This part of Exh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 736At around 05:30 a.m., PW 30 Nilam Katara woke up PW 25 Bharat Diwakar and told him that Nitish had still not reached home and that his cell phone was also switched off.It is in the evidence of PW 23 Virender Singh resident of village Kalakure that at about 09:00 a.m. / 09:15 a.m. of 17 th of February, 2002 he was going to Khurja in his jeep from his village and when he was about one kilometer before Khurja he saw one naked dead body lying on the right side of the road in a burnt condition and that the small crowd had gathered at the side of the road.From his cell phone, he made a call to the PS Kotwali giving information about the presence of the dead body and went on to Khurja.This dead body was subsequently identified as that of Nitish Katara.As per the call records, the last call received on Nitish Katara's cell no.9811283641 was at 1:11:58 am from mobile no.9810154964 (by PW-26 Gaurav Gupta) showing the tower location of Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.No call was made or received on it thereafter.Para 34 of the pronouncement deserves to be extracted in extenso and read as follows :-From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out.The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused.Thus the prosecution has discharged its burden so far as the proximity between the time at which the deceased and accused were last seen alive together evidence and the time of death in the present case is concerned.Let us examine the objection premised on the proximity of the place test.The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused persons in the middle of the night of 16/17th February, 2002 in a Tata Safari vehicle driven by Vikas Yadav with the other two appellants on the rear seat.It has been proved that the Tata Safari vehicle belonged to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 740 the company in which one of the directors was the father of Vikas Yadav, who was uncle of Vishal Yadav and employer of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan.The evidence on record establishes that the accused persons and the deceased were travelling in the vehicle.The conduct of Vikas Yadav reflects his resentment at being compelled to stop by Ajay Katara's scooter and the anxiety to move on.We have discussed above the call records which point towards Nitish not being permitted to receive calls.He has not been able to make any call from his phone.Kapoor contends that in the statement of PW-10 Nilam Katara, she had stated that she had identified the body as that of Nitish Katara from his face, left foot and left hand and made a statement that his right leg was missing.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 742We find that apart from the femur bone, the police had forwarded samples of various other parts of the body including blood stains, tissue samples etc. on which DNA profiling was undertaken by the laboratory and it was opined that the allele of the samples matched those of N.M. Katara as well as that of Nilam Katara.PW 3/3) does not mention that any leg was missing.Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the sketch of the body which forms part of inquest report Exh.PW-3/2A) proved by Inspector C.P. Singh, under the heading condition of the dead body', it is noted that the right leg was bent from the knees while the left leg was almost straight.This may be the reason for the confusion about the status of the leg.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 743Nilam Katara had appeared as PW 30 in the trial of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav and her statement was first recorded on 30th April, 2003 when she had testified that body recovered by the police on the 17th was that of her son, Nitish Katara.The post-mortem report, however, referred to a skull fracture and a lacerated wound 3 centimeter by 2 centimeters on left side of the head and about 7 centimeter above the left eyebrow which had a deep cavity.This witness Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 745 was examined as PW 2 in the earlier trial.The appellants are alleged to have taken the deceased Nitish Katara from the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall.The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellants in a Tata Safari vehicle bearing PB-07H0-0085 which was being driven by Vikas Yadav while the other appellant sat on the rear seat.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 772On 25th February, 2002, Vikas and Vishal Yadav made disclosure with regard to the place of commission of the crime; the spot where the body was burnt; the spot where the hammer used in the crime; as well as wrist watch and mobile phone of the deceased had been concealed.They disclosed that they had used a Tata Safari vehicle.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 773 three premises in Alwar, Rajasthan wherefrom the Tata Safari vehicles could be recovered.In this application he stated that he searched for the accused at their residences B-14 Gulmohar Park, New Delhi; R-4/16 Raj Nagar and other possible hideouts such as the Oswal Sugar Mill in Mukeria Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and an agricultural farm in Dhanari, Dist.While recording their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., we find that the accused persons have given the same Raj Nagar addresses as those mentioned by the police.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 783Our attention is also drawn to the testimony of PW-34 SI J.K. Gangwar who joined investigation for the first time on 19th February, 2002 and participated in the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer Anil Somania.PW-35 has clearly stated that he also pasted the notice of attachment of the properties at the houses of the accused persons.At the same time, the witness took steps for recording of the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as well as identification of the body recovered at Khurja.However, despite best efforts the witness was unsuccessful in arresting the two accused persons.The categorical statements by the Investigating Officer about the searches made by them have been not even remotely challenged by the accused persons.There is not a whit of cross-examination nor any suggestion that the investigating officers were making false statements that they visited the residence of the accused persons.So far as the knowledge of accused persons with regard to their being wanted in the present case is concerned, in their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., Vishal Yadav has volunteered as the answer to question no.217 to the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 784 effect that I remained in Ghaziabad till 19/2/02 and when I came to know that I was being framed in this case, I left for Allahabad on 20/2/02 where I had to meet my brother Vikas who had also left for Allahabad.We contacted Adv.A.N. Mishra, narrated the circumstances to him and he advised us that as we were being harassed, we should go and surrender before the local court at Ghaziabad.From Allahabad we took the next available train to Delhi to reach Ghaziabad, on the way alighted at Dabra for refreshments but were falsely implicated as stated above."The police personnel appear to have visited every known address of the two appellants, Vikas and Vishal Yadav.It is in evidence that they met their mothers on the 18th of February, 2002, went to execute warrants of arrest, pasted orders of attachment outside their houses.It is impossible to belive that the appellant were not informed by their family members (including mothers) on Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 785 17th February, 2002 that the Ghazibad police was searching for them.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 785In the statements recorded by IO Anil Somania under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Vikas and Vishal Yadav after they were arrested on the 25th of February 2002, there was disclosure of a third accomplice named Pehalwan'.Better particulars of this Pehalwan' were revealed by PW-35 Bharti Yadav in her statement recorded on 2nd March, 2002 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exh.PW-35/AB) when the Investigating Officer learnt his full identity as Sukhdev Pehalwan', an employee at their liquor business at Bulandshahr.The witness also stated that he searched for Sukhdev Yadav at Bulandshahr on the 3rd and 4th of March, 2002 and thereafter made an application for attachment of his properties under Section 83 of the Cr.PC as he was also evading arrest.We are considering the conduct and arrest of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan separately, hereafter.The case of the prosecution that despite best efforts, Vikas and Vishal Yadav were not found at any of their known addresses and were absconding is fully proved in the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 786 testimony of SI Anil Somania and SI J.K. Gangwar.Their action of abscondance is a relevant piece of evidence the value would be considered upon with the other facts and circumstances established by the prosecution.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 786The accused persons had been arrested by the Dabra Police under the Arms Act early that morning but had been taken for production before the Judicial Magistrate at his house at 11 p.m. in the night.On the night of 23rd February, 2002 itself, SI Anil Somania rushed with a handwritten application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Distt.Dabra, Gwalior, MP (Ex. PW-35/11A) to the effect that the accused Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were wanted in the present case; that because these two persons were being produced in the night at 11 p.m. before the judge, therefore, it was not possible for the Ghaziabad police to take any other steps and therefore, the two accused persons be not released on bail.On 24th February, 2002, the SO, Anil Somania moved an application (Ex. PW 35/13A) before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dabra stating that the accused persons have been named in FIR No. 192/2002 under Section 364 IPC (P.S. Kavi Nagar) prayed for two days transit remand of these two persons that they could be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in the present case.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 787The accused persons kept moving the frivolous applications before the Magistrate at Dabra to avoid their custody being handed over to the Ghaziabad police.. On the 24th of February, 2002 at 4:21 p.m. both Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav jointly filed an application before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class stating that the PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad had registered a case against them; that the police of Ghaziabad wanted to take them away on account of political pressure and in collusion with the opposition and that they planned to kill the applicants in a fake encounter.A prayer was made that the custody of the applicants be not handed over to the PS Kavi Nagar at night as they harboured apprehensions regarding their security.Vishal Yadav also filed objections on the 24th of February 2002 that under Section 79 of the Cr.P.C., the Ghaziabad police was required to mandatorily obtain warrants of arrest from the concerned magistrate as the police wanted to take the applicant from one state to another, which the Ghaziabad police was not having.A prayer was made that the Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad police be directed to obtain a warrant from the concerned court and to formally arrest only thereafter.In para 1 of the objections, Vishal Yadav mentions that Ghaziabad police wanted to arrest Vishal Yadav in the case under Sections 364, 302, 201 of IPC.XIII Whether defence evidence to prove alibi to displace the evidence of last seen and explain period of abscondance is believable?The discussion on this subject is being considered under the following sub-headings:(i) Ring ceremony at the Gandhis on the night of 16th February, 2002(ii) Ceremony at the house of the Diwan's in Karnal on the 17th of February 2002(iii) Vikas Yadav's visit to sugar factory at Mukeria at 7:10 pm on 17th February, 2002(iv) Alibi of Vikas Yadav with regard to the visit on 18th of February 2002(v) Visit of Vikas Yadav to Bisauli on the 19th and 20th of February 2002(vi) Defence plea that Vikas Yadav reached Allahabad on the 20th where Vishal joined him on the 21st of February 2002 to take legal advice(vii) Train journey from Allahabad Crl.To negate the prosecution allegation of abscondance against them, the appellants, Vikas and Vishal Yadav as well as Sukhdev @ Pehalwan have led defence evidence to establish their plea of alibi.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 792It is pointed out by Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the accused persons opted to lead their evidence and examined 26 witnesses ten of whom (DW-1 Sh.Ashok Gandhi, DW-3 Rajender Chaudhary, DW- 4 Pawan Kumar Diwan, DW-5 Adv Sh.Rajkumar Yadav, DW 6 Sh.Neeraj Gautam, DW-12 Arvind Mishra, DW-17 Sandeep Mishra, DW-19 Jai Singh, DW-21 Samar Singh, DW-22 Satpal Yadav) were practicing advocates.Dey has assailed the testimony of these witnesses as being false and that it failed to demolish the prosecution case.Proof of alibi to disprove their presence at the alleged place is relevant by virtue of Section 11 of the Evidence Act which states that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue, or relevant fact; or if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.Therefore the question as to whether the appellants were at Hapur Chungi at 12:00/12:30 pm in the night of 17th February, 2002 or on the Shikharpur Road where the crime was committed or any other place is a relevant fact.The question which has to be answered as to whether the appellants have been able to establish the defence pleas of alibi.The witness had testified that guests started coming at about 10 p.m. to his residence.The prospective parents-in-laws (Vijs) of his son were accompanied by Mrs.D.P. Yadav, mother of Vikas Yadav and the younger brother of accused Vishal Yadav whose name the witness did not know.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 797DW-1 Ashok Gandhi further stated that Vikas and Vishal Yadav reached his residence later on, though he could not tell the exact time because he was not wearing a wrist watch.He, however, could state that they were there approximately around 11/11.30 p.m. As per DW-1, they had told him that they had taken their meal at his house; stayed at a party for about 1 / 1 hours and left at about 12 / 12.15 midnight.DW-1 further stated that the ring ceremony was attended by 150-200 persons and that he had welcomed and seen off all the guests personally while remaining at the gate throughout till about 1.30 a.m., by which time all the guests had left.As per DW-1, while leaving, the accused persons had touched his feet and he had offered a packet of sweets which his servant had kept in Vikas's vehicle.Vishal Yadav was handed over the packet of sweets as he was residing at a walkable distance and that he walked away towards his house with the packet of sweets in his hand.The witness also stated that the car to which the sweets were sent through the servant was an exclusive saloon car and that it must have been a Mercedes.So far as his acquaintance with the family of Sh.Ashok Gandhi stated that his two Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 798 children studied with Vikas and Vishal in the same school (Delhi Public School).A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 798DW 1 was clear that Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were not invited to the ceremony either by him or by his son, Amit Gandhi.DW-1 also stated that his son had invited only his friends to his ring ceremony.DW-1 produced an invitation card (Exh.DW-1/D-1 to 5) in evidence.It is noted in the impugned judgment that Ex. DW-1/D-1 to 5, produced by DW 1 ran into 5 sheets.The cards for the functions do not mention celebration of any ring ceremony on 16th February, 2002 in the house of DW-1 Ashok Gandhi.As per DW1, the ring ceremony was a small function.This function was to be performed at the residence of the groom to be.If such a function was actually held, the bride's side (the Vij's) would normally take only close relatives and friends.The invitation card would then be from the Vij family, not the Gandhis, and such invitation ought to be in the invitees possession.Vikas or Vishal Yadav were guests of Vij.Therefore, the appellants ought to have produced a card by which they had been invited by the Vij's family.they No such card has been produced or proved in evidence.The witness produced no photographs of the function which contained any other family member of either of the two accused persons, even though DW-1 had claimed that Mrs.D.P. Yadav and the younger brother of Vishal Yadav (who he wrongly named as Kunal) had attended the ring ceremony.While Mrs.D.P. Yadav is the mother of Vikas Yadav, we are informed that Kunal is actually the name of the younger brother of Vikas Yadav.From this testimony, it is evident that DW-1 Ashok Gandhi could not even distinguish between Vikas or Vishal Yadav.In the witness box, DW-1 stated that the function was both video-graphed and photographs were also taken.When his statement was recorded on 3rd July, 2007, the witness produced three photographs without negatives and, therefore, they were given the mark DW-1/D1 to D3 by the trial court.In his testimony, the witness also described the contents of the photographs.The witness did not produce the video cassette / CD of the ring ceremony function stating that it was in the custody of the father-in-law of his son, whom he had given another set as he had wanted the same and that since they were out of station and reached home yesterday, he could not collect the same.The trial judge deferred the further examination-in- chief of this witness for want of negatives.On 4th July, 2007, DW-1 again stated that he could not bring the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 801 negatives of the photographs as undertaken the previous day since he could not locate them.He stated that he would try to locate the negatives from the concerned photographer and sought 3-4 days time to do so.It was only on the 9th July, 2007 that DW-1, Sh.Ashok Gandhi produced three negatives which was accepted on recorded as Exhibit DW-1/D4 - 1 toA.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 801The photographs were consequently also given exhibit marks as Exh.None of the photographs contained the house number or the name plate of the witness to enable identification of the place where these photographs had been taken.In Ex. DW-1/D3, there is a third person also a lady who was identified by DW-1 as being the wife of Sh.Rajender Gandhi, his elder brother.In his cross-examination on 9th July, 2007, the witness stated that he brought the negatives from his house which he obtained from his samdhi' (son's father-in-law).The witness did not know where these negatives were collected from.The witness denied the suggestion that the negatives have been prepared from the positive photographs which the witness had produced.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 802The oral testimony of the witness shows that after repeated adjournments, the witness had produced three single negatives.In answer to question as to how many negatives were there in one roll of photographs, the witness had stated that he had received the negatives in strips containing five negatives.The witness was further cross-examined that he had produced only three negatives out of strips.In answer, the witness stated that the other two negatives were pertaining to his son and daughter-in-law and that after cutting out those two negatives, he has produced three negatives in the court.The witness, therefore, himself stated that the negatives had been tampered with.The witness had neither brought the other two negatives which he claimed to have cut nor did he bring any payment receipt of the photographer or the bill.The witness was unable to give the name of the photographer who took the photographs, (Exh.DW-1/D1 - D3) when questioned and took the excuse that the photographer was engaged by the family of his daughter-in- law! This by itself is unbelievable - for a function in his house, DW-1 Ashok Gandhi had not engaged any photographer.Though DW-1 denied the suggestion to this effect, we find substance in the objection that the photographs were morphed and not genuine.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 803So far as the photographs Ex. DW-1/1 to 3 are concerned, the learned Trial Judge has held that the defence has failed to prove that these photographs were clicked in any ring ceremony or that they were actually taken on 16 th February, 2002 between 11.30 pm and around 12.30 of that night.No photograph of the actual ring ceremony or the roka ceremony was produced on record.Other than three photographs, no album or any video cassette of such function was produced on record.DW 1 Ashok Crl.Despite reading the said news, he did not approach the police or any court to inform the higher authorities that the accused persons could not have committed the offence as they were attending the function at his house at the said night.The defence witnesses 1 to 5 came forward with an omnibus version that ten to fifteen persons armed with rifles and guns came from the east of the police picket and began firing after surrounding the picket.Some of them stated that they noticed some persons inside the camp falling to ground after receiving the shots and further stated that they noticed some policemen running away.According to the witnesses, none of those alleged miscreants could be identified by them.The trial Court at paras 18 and 19 discarded their evidence on a critical analysis and probabilities.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 807 period of more than five years from the night of 16th/17th February, 2002 till 3rd July 2007 when he came to court.Even though it has been repeatedly said that people on the street are reluctant to get involved in the problems of other persons, however DW-1 was not merely a member of the public.He was a lawyer by training and profession and has claimed that he was a practitioner on the income tax side.Satender Singh, Ajay Katara or the IO, namely, Shri J.K. Gangwar or Anil Somania that Vikas and Vishal Yadav could not be present outside the Diamond Palace Banquet Hall or at Hapur chungi at the stated time for the reason that Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 810 they were attending a function of the ring ceremony at the house of DW-1 Ashok Gandhi.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 810In the judgment dated 28th May, 2008, the learned Trial Judge has carefully analysed the evidence on record and has found that though DW-1 has referred to a ring ceremony, the presence of the girl who was to be engaged has not been proved in the ceremony.DW-1 also does not make any reference to the presence of Megha Vij but refers to the fact that her parents came to the ceremony along with Mrs. D.P. Yadav and the younger brother of Vishal Yadav.He also refers only to the departure of family members of my daughter-in-law.At no point of time, till the examination of DW-1, did the appellants make any reference to any function which Vikas Yadav had to attend in the house of DW-1 Ashok Gandhi.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 811We have disbelieved the testimony of Shivani Gaur, Bharti and Bhawna Yadav that the two appellant brothers Vikas and Vishal Yadav left at 11:00 am.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 813The witness stated that the Paryojan function relating to the marriage of his son Manuj Diwan (DW-14) was organised on 16th February, 2002 in his house in 204-L, Model Town, Karnal.The Sagan ceremony was scheduled for the morning of 17th Feburary, 2002 following by ring ceremony at the Highway Green, Karnal on the Chandigarh Road.The witness stated that the family of Shri D.P. Yadav was invited in the aforesaid functions.As per DW-14 Manuj Diwan the ring ceremony started at about 9.30 or 10 am and lasted till about 4 pm.He claimed that Vikas Yadav had reached the venue before they reached it for attending the function and remained there till around 3 pm.DW-4/B was marked by the police.The witness had stated that his children also told him that some photographs were taken away by police.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 8151491. DW-14-Manuj Diwan, son of DW-4 states that he was at home when the police came.The learned Trial Judge has carefully analysed the evidentiary value of the photograph Ex. DW-14/A. DW-14 produced the entire album relating to his ring ceremony Ex. DW-14/A is the only photograph in the entire album featuring the accused.Though DW-4 Pawan Kumar Diwan had produced the photographs Exh.DW-4/A and B (later exhibited as Ex. DW-14/C and D).However, neither the photographer nor bills relating thereto were produced.The learned Trial Judge has noted that Ex. DW-14/A and the photographs marked Ex. DW-4/B (later Ex. DW-14/D) are one and the same.On the contrary, his son Manuj Diwan (DW-14) who met the police, stated that the album was with him when the police came to their house and he had procured copies of Ex. DW-14/C and D prepared by the photographer from the negatives, which were taken by the police.The witness was unable to produce the negatives of the photographs produced by him and rendered the convenient explanation that the negatives were misplaced by the photographer since he had shifted his shop.The camera man who would have taken the video recording has not been examined as a witness.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 818In the instant case as well, a suggestion of a possible alibi is set up for the first time in the cross-examination of PW 42 Bhawna Yadav.He is said to be wielding a ballam in his hands.The plea of alibi has been raised on his behalf.The burden of proof for such a plea lies on the person who raises it.The plea of alibi raised on behalf of accused Ram Chander and Rajinder Singh does not inspire any credibility.About accused Rajinder Singh we have already made reference about this.His presence at the scene of occurrence has been established by overwhelming evidence which we have no reason whatsoever to doubt.These accused have failed to lead any reliable evidence regarding this plea when the onus was squarely upon them in this behalf.The defence were bound to prove their pleas of alibi with certitude in order to displace the prosecution case of their being guilty for the commission of the offence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 821In cross-examination, Shri Ombir further improved on his testimony and stated that on 18th February, 2002, the accused Vikas Yadav had again visited the factory at about 11.00 a.m. for a meeting which started at about 11.30 a.m. and Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 823 lasted for about two hours.Nothing to this effect was said in his examination-in-chief.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 823He was not informed that Vikas Yadav was at the sugar factory.It was claimed to have been maintained at one of the multiple gates of the factory.DW- 11 himself doubts the correctness of the register which shows that DW-11 had left the factory at 04.45 p.m. (and entered again at 09.20 p.m.) when he denies the suggestion that he was not present in the factory between this timing.Nothing can be more suspect than the fact that the register which contains a single Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 824The register was not paginated.as noticed by the trial court.The witness knew Shri D.P. Yadav, father of the accused and could identify him.Therefore, if Vikas Yadav had actually visited Bisauli on the 19th, he would have been arrested by the P.S. Bisauli.The defence further examined DW-17, Sandeep Mishra, an advocate from village Sirtaul, district Badaun who stated that during the elections in 2002 he was Vikas Yadav's legal advisor; that Vikas Yadav met him at about 09.00 a.m. on 19th February, 2002 in the election office at Bisauli as counting agents were to be appointed.The meeting in the SDM's office for this purpose was scheduled at 1.00 p.m. on that date.The witness stated that at around 10.45 a.m., Vikas Yadav had told him that he had lost the bag which contained photographs of his agent etc. and that he had accompanied Vikas Yadav for lodging a complaint with the P.S. Faizganj Behata in this regard.A written complaint (Ex. DW-17/A) in this regard written by somebody else but signed by Vikas Yadav, was also given.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 828In cross-examination, the witness stated that there was a police station at Bisauli also known as PS Bisauli.The complaint Ex. DW 17/A contains signatures in hindi.The witness denied the suggestion that Vikas Yadav signed only in English or that DW-17/A was not signed by him.No FIR was registered based on the complaint.DW-17 further admitted that he was associated with Sh.DW-17 denied the suggestion that he has given false deposition in favour of the accused as he was a lawyer for his father.DW-17 Sandeep Misra has admitted that there was over-writing in the date in Ex.DW-17/A. There was also over- writing as regards the month of the receipt of the complaint.The court has noted that initially the number 1' for the month of January was mentioned which has been converted into 2' for the month of February.DW-17 also admitted that in the complaint Ex.DW-17/A, there was no date below the signature purporting to be that of Vikas Yadav.He had also not given any residential address.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 829The complaint Ex. DW-17/A bears only a date and does not bear any kind of registration number or time.It was not put to any authority or before any court.No attendance of the persons who attended the office of the SDM was marked.The prosecution witnesses including the investigating officer have not been cross-examined on this aspect at all and no suggestion in terms of the testimony of DW-17 has been put to them.To support his plea of ignorance about the present crime, the witness stated that he had not read the newspaper or watched the television since 17th February, 2002 nor had knowledge about the information given on 19th February, 2002 by PS Kavi Nagar to PS Bisauli that Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav are wanted in a case.If the complaint had been given to the police, Vikas Yadav would have been arrested in Bisauli.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 830 Yadav and DW-17 on the 19th either in Bisauli or at the SDM's office.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 830DW17/A did not see the light of the day since 19th February, 2002 till the examination of DW 17 on 20th August, 2007 in the court.DW 19 Shri Jai Singh, Advocate deposes on the same lines with regard to the advice of Shri Giri, Senior Advocate.As per the defence, Vikas and Vishal Yadav were returning by train to Ghaziabad when they were arrested at the Dabra Railway Station, Distt.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 831The evidence of DW-12, Sh.DW-12 stated that he already knew Vikas Yadav as he had met him in connection with a case pending against him in that court.He met the accused on the 20th of February 2002 between 8:00 and 9:00 am for about 10-20 minutes when leaving for his office in relation to the present case.Thereafter on 21st February, 2002 both Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav met him and told him about the case which had been fabricated against them.DW-12 testified that he had advised them to surrender before the concerned court and also to meet Sh.A.D. Giri, Senior Advocate of the High Court at Allahabad.He stated that he knew Shri D.P. Yadav, that since on TV he had Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 832 seen the news that Vikas Yadav was his son; he recognized him.DW-12 also submitted that he had learnt about the present case before 20th February, 2002 through the media.He also stated that he had not charged any consultation fee.The witness had no record of the visit.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 832On the 21st February, 2002, DW-12 Shri Arvind Mishra stated that, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav had come to his residence for 10-12 minutes at about 08.00 a.m. where they stayed for about 10-12 minutes.They had proceeded to the house of Sh.A.D. Giri between 08.30 to 08.40 a.m. when Sh.Jai Singh, Advocate had met them on the way.A.D. Giri had met them on 21st February, 2002 who also advised them to surrender before the concerned court.The witness has also stated that Sh.Jai Singh, Advocate was with him at that time.It is stated that Sh.A. D. Giri also did not charge any consultation fee for meeting of about 15-20 minutes.No record of this meeting with Sh.A.D. Giri, senior advocate has been produced.Prem Prakash, Advocate, practising Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 833 in Allahabad High Court, was his senior.The witness also claimed to be an associate of Sh.J.S. Senger.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 833DW 12 has stated that his Senior Shri Prem Prakash, Advocate had moved proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused persons in the present case before the High Court.The bail application of the accused persons and the same was moved on their behalf by Sh.J.S. Senger, Advocate which was later argued by late Sh.A.D. Giri, Senior Advocate.DW 12 was therefore working with Shri Prem Prakash, counsel for Vikas and Vishal Yadav.He named only counsel conducting their cases.He denied the prosecution suggestion that the accused persons did not meet him for which reason he was unable to produce any record with regard to the meetings.We may now examine the testimony of DW-19, Jai Singh also an advocate practicing at Allahabad.He does not disclose as to how he knows Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav.So far as the 21st of February, 2002 is concerned, he refers to it as a chance meeting with them while they were going to the house of Sh.A.D. Giri, senior advocate when he was coming out of it who had advised them that they would not get any relief from the Allahabad High Court and that they should surrender before the concerned court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 834In his cross-examination, the witness admits that he was a member of the Legislative Assembly in the year 1989 during which period Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav was also a member of the Legislative Assembly.As per DW-19, the accused persons were introduced to him by DW-12 Sh.Arvind Kumar Mishra.The witness denied the suggestion that he had given false testimony being a friend of Shri D.P. Yadav to save the accused persons.From their testimony, it is established that DW-12 Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Advocate and DW-19 Shri Jai Singh, Advocate are associated with or known to Shri D.P. Yadav and have therefore testified in court.The appellants Vikas and Vishal Yadav have claimed that they were returning to Ghaziabad by train.Neither of the accused persons disclose the mode of their travel from Ghaziabad to Allahabad.No documentary proof in the nature of tickets etc. have been placed.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 835The oral testimony of DW-12 Shri Arvind Mishra and DW-19 Shri Jai Singh is pitched against the documentary evidence of two applications filed by the two accused persons Vikas and Vishal Yadav before the CJM, Ghaziabad during the same period.Our attention is drawn to an application dated 21st February, 2002 (Ex. DW-6/1) moved by Shri Neeraj Gautam, Advocate (DW 6) in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.This application was filed under the signatures of Vishal Yadav as well as Vikas Yadav.A plea was taken therein that the police station Kavi Nagar was harassing the two applicants even though they had not committed any offence.A prayer was made that a report be called by the court as to whether any case had been registered against the two applicants.A report dated 22nd February, 2002 was submitted by PS Kavi Nagar to the effect that the applicants were wanted in Crime No.192/2002 under Section 364, IPC (Ex. DW-6/3).Fully aware of the police case against them, on 22nd February, 2002, Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav moved a second application before the CJM, Ghaziabad (Ex. DW-6/7) stating that the applicants were ill for which reason they were unable to remain present in the court.In these Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 836 circumstances, the applicants prayed for an adjournment of three days.The above applications were filed jointly by Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav manifesting that they were together in Ghaziabad and unwell.They were certainly not in Allahabad.The defence also examined Sh.Neeraj Gautam as DW-6, an advocate practicing in the Ghaziabad courts.He has claimed to have moved the applications (DW-6/1) at the instance of Shri Rajinder Yadav (a cousin of Vikas Yadav) without telling Vikas or Vishal Yadav before moving this application.It is pointed out that the applications are not in the handwriting of DW-6 but in the handwriting of one Shailesh Sharma, Advocate.The witness admitted that the application dated 22nd February, 2002 did not mention any intention on the part of the accused persons to surrender.We find that the applications are signed by Vikas and Vishal Yadav who do not deny their signatures on the application (DW-6/1 and 6/7).DW-6 - a practicing advocate was oblivious of the fact that by then the proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. stood initiated by the same court against the accused Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 837 persons.Warrants of arrest were pending against them.He could give neither the date when the accused persons were arrested nor when they were produced in court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 837Our attention has been drawn to the fact that no suggestion was put to the investigating officer that the accused persons were not absconding and were in their residences or undertaking their regular work or that they were at Allahabad.Further the evidence of the investigating officer about his repeated visits to the residences of the accused persons and other places which they frequently visited and their non-availability at these places is unchallenged.We are informed that Allahabad and Ghaziabad are separated by more than 600 kms.It is also impossible for one person to be in these two places at the same time.These appellants therefore could not have been at Allahabad during this period.In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in rejecting the case of Vikas and Vishal Yadav that they had gone to Allahabad.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 838We may also examine the evidence with regard to the travel of the appellants from Allahabad.So far as the exact geographical positioning of Dabra is concerned, as per the rail line map placed by Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the complainant, coming north from Bina Jn.towards Agra Cantt.(then on to Delhi), Dabra falls between the Jhansi Jn.and Gwalior Jn.Mr. Dey points out that Gomati Express runs between Lucknow and Delhi and not between Allahabad and Delhi.In reply, Bharti Yadav stated that it was correct that she did not meet them during this period but she could not say that they never visited home.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 841So far as arrest of the accused is concerned, it has been shown as having been effected on 23rd February, 2002 at 04.30 a.m. at Dabra.The prosecution has examined PW-29, Constable Brij Mohan Mishra from Police Line, Gwalior, MP who stated that in February, 2002 he was posted at PS Dabra.On 23rd February, 2002 while on patrolling duty at 03.00 a.m., he was asked by Inspector Ashok Singh Bhadoria the town Inspector in PS Dabra, to accompany the police team for checking at the railway station.While checking near the maalgodam adjoining the railway station, the two accused persons (Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav) present in court were apprehended by this police team.Initially these two persons gave their names as Raj Kumar and Sushil Kumar to the police.In answer to the court question as to why these persons were arrested, the witness stated that they were arrested because the two persons ran away from the maalgodam and the police had suspicion on them.On their personal search, six cartridges of .38 bore were recovered from the accused Vikas Yadav and four cartridges from the accused Vishal Yadav.The accused persons gave their correct names whey they were interrogated before recovery.The accused persons were apprehended at about 04.20 a.m. Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 842 in the presence of two public witnesses, Lallu @ Hoshiar and Shehzad.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 842Mr. Dey has argued that as per Vishal Yadav, they got down from the train to have refreshments.The accused persons were not arrested from the railway station but from the maalgodam.It is unbelievable that anybody would get down at a small railway station as Dabra, that too at 04.00 a.m., for refreshments.It is even more improbable that anybody would get down for refreshments from the train and move towards maalgodam which, as per the arresting police, was beyond the railway station, if they were to continue on any train towards Delhi.Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Dey to the rail route which shows that if the accused persons had really boarded the train at Kanpur, the train would have first stopped at Jhansi before moving to Dabra.It is pointed out that Jhansi is a big junction and any prudent person would take refreshment at Jhansi and not wait to reach Dabra, a small station.We find that a suggestion was put to PW-29, Constable Brij Mohan Mishra (Dabra) on behalf of the accused persons that the Maha Kaushal Express train had reached the railway station, which he admitted.Vishal Yadav has therefore made a false statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they were travelling on the Gomti Express.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 846The time table also discloses that there was a direct main line train route being Delh-Allahabad-Howrah (Kolkata).Dabra was on the Delhi-Bhopal-Chennai train route.He talked to the concerned SSP informing him about the news.The SSP telephonically confirmed the news of the arrest of the accused persons at Dabra and directed PW-35 to proceed to Dabra.PW-35 made DD Entry No.20 (Exh.PW-35/10) which was signed by him in the General Diary dated 23rd February, 2002 at 12.25 p.m. In the police party, which proceeded to Dabra, PW-35 had joined SI J.K. Gangwar and a few constables.The police party proceeded to Dabra by a private vehicle, reaching PS Dabra (District Gwalior) at 11 p.m. Crl.We have noted the manipulation by Vikas and Vishal Yadav even thereafter and how they successfully delayed their being produced before the court after their arrest in the early morning.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 847It appears that with regard to this incident on the 11 th of February 2005, FIR No. 56/2005 was registered under Section 307 IPC / 7 of Crl.This witness denied the suggestion that Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was not arrested in the manner stated but picked up from his residence in the village or that he was available at his residence at all material time.Inspector Anil Somania, PW-22 corroborates the testimony of PW-21 and testified that he had received a FAX message Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 853 (Exh.PW-22/A2) as well as a telephone call from the Devariya SO's office that Sukhdev Yadav had been arrested.Anil Somania, therefore, took steps to produce him before the CJM, Ghaziabad for obtaining the production warrant (Exh.PW-22/A3).This witness also denied the suggestion that he had not made any effort on 2nd or 3rd March, 2002 to arrest Sukhdev Pehalwan.He also categorically denied that Sukhdev Pehalwan, since 2002 and until his arrest in 2005, was residing in his village in District Devariya.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 853In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., Sukhdev @ Pehalwan has stated that on the night intervening 16th / 17th February, 2002 and thereafter he was in his native village and that this fact was known to the police.He simply denied all other facts relating to his having absconded.In answer to question No.1 relating to whether he was working in the liquor vend of Shri D.P. Yadav on or before 16 th February, 2002 at Bulandshahr, UP, Sukhdev Yadav admitted that it was correct that he was earlier working in a liquor vend in Bulandshahr.We may also note the defence evidence led by Sukhdev Pehalwan.He has examined one Shri Keshwar Singh, Pradhan of village Tamuwa as DW-1 who has tried to make out a case that Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan was a wrestler by profession and that from 2002-2005 used to be there in the village.In cross-examination, he stated that prior to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 854 2002, Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was a wrestler in the area and not engaged in any avocation.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 854DW-1 Keshwar Singh further contradicts himself in his cross-examination when he admits that attachment warrants in respect of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan were executed in the village in 2002-2003 and he had learnt that they were concerning a case from Ghaziabad.The prosecution on the other hand has established the concerted effort made by the police to trace out Sukhdev @ Pehalwan who was not traceable at all his known addresses and despite the wide publicity given to the same.The investigating officer had to go to different places i.e. Sodhpur and Delhi to arrest the accused persons.The appellants were away from their normal place of residence as well as business.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 866 examination under Section 313 against the established facts, that can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 866It has also been urged before us that the appellants have failed to render any reasonable explanation with regard to the incriminating circumstances which were established in the evidence against them.The prosecution examined Ms. Rewati Lao, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 868The witness testified that on the 25 th of February, 2002, she had gone to the Ghaziabad court to cover the present case accompanied by the NDTV cameraman.Several press reporters were also present, one of whom asked questions of Vikas Yadav which were recorded by the NDTV cameraman in her presence.The tape recording was proved in her testimony on record as Ex.The witness testified that she was present on the spot when the questions were being asked and answers recorded in Exh PW 36/1 were given by Vikas Yadav and she had herself heard the conversation.PW36/1, what you have to say?I cannot reply the question without seeing the cassette.The accused were subjected to medical examination.They were produced before the CJM on the 27th of February 2002 when the IO, application for remand was considered.15, 25, 33, 34, 40 and 45 along with their answers read as follows: -What have you say?A: Myself and accused Vikas Yadav had attended the marriage but accused Sukhdev Yadav was not with us.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that you and your co accused Vikas Yadav as well as your uncle DP Yadav were against the relationship of Nitish Katara with Bharti Yadav due to which you alongwith your co accused persons abducted Nitish Katara on the intervening night of 16/17.2.2002 from outside the Diamond Palace Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad and thereafter murdered him and burnt his body so that same could not be identified and tried to destroy the evidence.IO also prepared search memos Ex.PW 35/2 and Ex.PW 35/3 respectively.You were not found present even at 15, Balwant Rai Mehta Lane in Delhi Government accommodation allotted to your uncle Mr.DP Yadav being an MP.So far as the examination of Vishal Yadav under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, Question Nos. 18, 20, 23 to 25 and 40 also deserve to be noticed and read as follows: -A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 899Ques Do you know Nitish Katara? Ans.I do not know Nitish Katara the deceased.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that Nitish Katara (now deceased) was present at Diamond Palace on the intervening night of 16/17.2.02 in the marriage function of Shivani Gaur and was wearing a red coloured kurta and while coloured churidar pajama with a white shawl on his shoulder.What have you to say?Ques: It is further in evidence against you that outside the Diamond Palace banquet hall your co accused Vikas Yadav had a quarrel with deceased Nitish Katara (now deceased), what do you say?A. It is incorrect.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that thereafter you alongwith your co accused persons Vikas Yadav and Sukhdev Yadav took the deceased Nitish Katara in Tata Safari bearing No.PB 07 H 0085 towards Hapur Chungi.What have you to say?A: It is incorrect.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that you and your co accused Vikas Yadav as well as your uncle DP Yadav were against the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 900 relationship of Nitish Katara with Bharti Yadav due to which you alongwith your co accused persons abducted Nitish Katara on the intervening night of 16/17.2.2002 from outside the Diamond Palace Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad and thereafter murdered him and burnt his body so that same could not be identified and tried to destroy the evidence.What have you to say?A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 900A: It is incorrect.I did not even know Nitish Katara.Ques: It is further in evidence against you that on 17/02/02 complainant lodged a complaint Ex.PW 1/1 in the PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, UP, against you and your co accused persons regarding the abduction of Nitish Katara, from Diamond Palace.What have you to say?A: I came to know later on that a false report had been lodged against me and my cousin Vikas Yadav.In the instant case, the accused persons were fully put to notice on the charge against them and the allegations which they had to meet.The accused persons understood the same rightly and clearly.No argument at all was laid on any prejudice resulting to them.In his statement, he has stated that he later came to know that the person was named Vishal.When this evidence was put to Vishal Yadav in the Section 313 examination as Question Nos. 16 to 20, 22 to 26 and to Vikas Yadav as Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 902 Questions Nos. 22 to 28, 30, 32 to 36, they took up a stand that they did not even know Nitish Katara and merely denied the entire evidence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 902In order to displace the prosecution story of Nitish having been abducted by the appellants, Mr. Ram Jethmalani has heavily relied on a statement attributed to Nitish Katara in a phone call on the fateful night.Accompanied by his friends Bharat Diwakar and Nitish Katara, Gaurav Gupta had gone for taking the meal around 12/12.15 on that night.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 904While having dinner together, he had gone to replenish his plate and when he returned, Nitish was gone and only Bharat was there.The witness further states that at that time, they had not finished their meal.We have already noticed in detail the prosecution evidence with regard to Nitish Katara abruptly leaving the company of his friends at dinner.The witness also stated that as he did not have roaming facility on his mobile phone, he had given the phone number of Bharat or Nitish to his friend Yashoman Tomar who had informed vide a message about 10/15 minutes after he had replenished his plate that he (Yashoman) was waiting for him outside the Banquet Hall.Gaurav Gupta has testified that he left the marriage pandal around 12.45 a.m. or 1 a.m. in the night with Yashoman Tomar.As Nitish had not returned, before leaving Gaurav had tried to call Nitish Katara on his mobile from the marriage venue.The witness was unable to recollect as to whether he had used the cell phone of Yashoman Tomar or that of Bharat Diwakar to bid farewell to him.Before considering the truth of the testimony of Gaurav Gupta, it is necessary to consider a few essential facts about his evidence.Gaurav Gupta testified that he was able to connect with Nitish's cell phone at that time and that he had Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 905 asked Nitish where he was and also told him that he was leaving.As per Gaurav Gupta's testimony, Nitish told him that he was at the IMT and that he would contact him.This was an improvement over his previous statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 905The witness was consequently confronted by the ld.Special PP with portion A' to A' of his statement to the police recorded on 26th March, 2002, (Exh.PW-26/1) wherein Gaurav Gupta had stated that maine Yashoman ke mobile phone no.981122691 se Nitish Katara ke mobile par baat ki aur maine kaha ki tum to bina bataye hi chale gaye to Nitish koi sahi jawab nahin de paya tha aur tab tak telephone cut gaya tha (which translates as: he had told Nitish that he (Nitish) had left the marriage pandal without informing; that Nitish could not give any correct answer and by that time the telephone got disconnected").PW-26/1 clearly indicates that Nitish Katara was under pressure and unable to respond to calls received on his cell phone.After going through the statement, the witness stated that Ex.PW26/1 was the statement made by him to the police except that he had contact with Nitish Katara on the cell phone.On the 10th of July, 2003 while recording the evidence of the Investigating Officer SI J.K. Gangwar (PW 34), the ld.Trial Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 906 Judge had put court questions to him.In answer to one court question, SI J.K. Gangwar has disclosed that Gaurav Gupta was the son of a retired High Court Judge who had called him to their Gomti Nagar in Lucknow for recording his son's statement.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 906SI J.K. Gangwar has stated that Gaurav Gupta's father was sitting along his side at the time of recording Exh.However, while testifying Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 907 as PW-25 in the first trial on 3rd April, 2003, Bharat Diwakar had also attributed a cell phone contact between Gaurav Gupta and Nitish.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 907It is in the evidence of Investigating Officer that the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded in the case diary as per the requirement in U.P. They were not on any loose paper.We have noted that investigation in the present case was throughout subjected to judicial scrutiny.As against this improved testimony, we have the evidence of Ajay Katara who testified that he had seen the accused persons with the deceased between 12:20 and 12:30 a.m. near Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad.They were moving in the Tata Safari vehicle driven by Vikas Yadav.In this regard, our attention has been drawn to the call record details proved by the prosecution which shows that at around 12:58 am, Nitish was in the Raj Nagar area.Though no site plan has been placed on the trial court record showing the location of Diamond Palace, Banquet Hall; Hapur Chungi and the IMT, all counsels appearing in the matter have placed reliance on maps of the area which are in the public domain.It is evident from these that Diamond Palace, Hapur Chungi and IMT are in the same area and in close proximity.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 908The location of Nitish's phone as per the tower details when the call at 12.58 a.m. was received on it, thus proves that the deceased was present in the Hapur Chungi area at that time.Rather than contradicting the testimony of Ajay Katara, this call in fact fortifies the testimony of the witness.Even if we were to accept that Nitish told Gaurav Gupta at 00:58 hours that he was IMT, this statement does not establish that Nitish was comfortably ensconsced in pleasant company.IMT is not a hotel or restaurant or a public place open to the public all night.It is an educational institute which would be opening and closing during regular day light hours.It is common experience that colleges and school simply empty out gradually after the last bell rings.The appellants do not say that the IMT was any different.In the middle of the night, there would be little possibility of presence of any people.So if he was actually there, what were the appellants and Nitish Katara doing in an empty educational institute in the middle of the night? If Nitin actually spoke to Gaurav Gupta, it was the last conversation anybody had with Nitish.In our view, this by itself is an extremely suspicious circumstance which points to the culpability of the appellants who having abducted Nitish took him to a lonely educational institution in the middle of the night.The Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 909 statement attributed to Nitish by Gaurav Gupta therefore nowhere suggests the innocence of the appellants.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 909So far as attempts to reach Nitish on the cell phone are concerned, reference also deserves to be made also to the testimony of Bharat Diwakar (PW-25 in the first trial) who stated that at about 12:00 - 12:15 a.m. (night of 16th /17th February, 2002) he had noted that Nitish had not re-joined them at dinner and that he was also not at the wedding venue.He states that we (Gaurav Gupta and Bharat Diwakar) called up Nitish around 12:00 - 12:15 a.m. on his cell phone but could not get through.Interestingly, contrary to the evidence of the call records as well as his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., Bharat Diwakar has also attempted to introduce contact between Gaurav Gupta and Nitish Katara.He made no disclosure of any such information about Nitishs location to Nilam Katara after he returned alone to her home despite her worried queries to him.It is intriguing that Gaurav Gupta does not even recollect whose phone he used to call Nitish, i.e., whether it was Yashoman Tomar's cell phone or Bharat Diwakar's cell phone.Yet he attributes a definite statement to Nitish.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 910 Gupta did not attend his funeral or visit the family to pay their condolences.Thereafter there are two calls from Yashoman Tomar's cell phone to Nitish Katara in close succession.The first call is at 00:43:14 hrs which lasted 00:25 seconds while the second Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 912 call at 00:46:27 hrs was for 00:07 seconds.PW-26/1 that he was unable to speak.Was it something related to his relationship with Bharti? Or was it a matter concerning Bharti which would have been of extreme concern? Or relating to their alliance? Whatever be it, it was of such imminence and urgency that he left his dinner as well as his friends without even disclosing where he was going for how long, with whom or why! So was he positioned thereafter that he could not even inform these friends, or family for that matter, as to where he was or what was he doing.The defence has to show something more.The prosecution led its evidence in support of the charges.No question or suggestion to this effect was put to any witnesses of last seen or the investigating officers to this effect.The same was the position with regard to the claim of the accused persons that they had gone to Allahabad and were returning Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 922 to Ghaziabad when they were arrested at Dabra.(iii) The appellants' stand on Kamal Kishore before the trial court(iv) Whether prosecution had performed its duty and discharged its burden?Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for Vishal Yadav has argued that a statement attributed to one Kamal Kishore (a guard at the house of Shri D.P. Yadav at 15 Balwant Rai Mehta Lane, New Delhi) as having been recorded by the investigating officer Shri Anil Somania under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 18th February, 2002 has been exhibited on record as Exh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 929Anil was driving the vehicle which was long with the back portion raised; the colour of the vehicle was perhaps green; the third person was fair; clean shaved and wearing a red kurta.So far as Kamal Kishore is concerned, the investigating officer Anil Somania PW-35 has stated that, in the efforts to trace the accused persons as well as the deceased Nitish Katara, on 18th February, 2002, he had gone to Kothi No. 15, Balwant Rai Mehta Lane, New Delhi which stood allotted to Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav.He was unable to trace the accused persons or the deceased at this place.PW- 35 stated that he met one Kamal Kishore at these premises, he was brought to the police station and his statement was recorded.The statement Exh.PW-35/4 was recorded at the police station.PW-35 Anil Somania further testified that Kamal Kishore was working as a security guard of Shri D.P. Yadav, M.P. at Delhi.Anil Somania was cross-examined on Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 938 this statement by the learned counsel on behalf of Vikas Yadav when the witness stated that he had recorded Exh.3.7.2003 Present: Both the accused persons in JC with S/Sh.S.K. Sharma, K.N.Balgopal, G.K. Bharti, Adv.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 939PP for the state with Sh.Witness Nitin Katara was to be examined but a letter has been received stating that his father was critically ill and was admitted in Appollo Hospital.The other witness to be examined today was Kamal Kishore.He has not been served.SI J.K. Gangwar from UP Police states that at the address of Kamal Kishore he is not available.He was working with Sh.D.P. Yadav, father of accused Vikas Yadav and SI Gangwar states that as per his inquiry he has left service of Sh.D.P. Yadav.He has given address of Village Kharpara PS Ahahar, Distt.A constable was sent there and the report is that he is not living there.SI Gangwar is given the responsibility of finding out the whereabouts.Thus on 3rd July, 2003, the court noted that Kamal Kishore remained unserved as he was not found at his given address.Thereafter in the order dated 2nd August, 2003, the learned trial judge has clearly recorded that Kamal Kishore was evading the service of the summons.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 940 returnable for 11th August, 2003 for his appearance were issued by the court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 940It appears that a fax message purportedly sent by Kamal Kishore to the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Gangwar.The order dated 7th January, 2004 records a direction by the trial judge to SI Gangwar to file the fax message sent by Kamal Kishore.This contention was not raised before the High Court.It was no doubt agitated in the trial court and was rightly rejected.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 947 defence that the prosecution was deliberately not serving this witness or summoning him.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 947The contention before us that Kamal Kishore was a vital witness and that he was not examined with malafide intention has also to be scrutinised in the light of the stand of the accused persons before the trial courts.There is no dispute at all that Kamal Kishore was an employee of Shri D.P. Yadav, the father of Vikas Yadav.We have noted above that Vishal Yadav had filed an application dated 11th October, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 949 2002 under the signatures of his counsel before the learned trial judge seeking production of certain documents by the police and admission/denial.The assertion made in this application on behalf of the applicant so far as the alleged statement of Kamal Kishore was concerned, also deserves to be noticed and reads as follows:-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 949That the applicant/accused further prefers to seek indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of direction to produce documents by the aforesaid I.O./Inspector Shri Anil Samania, which were sent by way of telegrams and letters by the witnesses, Ms. Bharti Yadav and the witness Kamal Kishore, the Watchman whose statements is alleged to have been recorded at P.S. Tilak Marg.The relevance of these telegrams and representation clearly suggest that police of U.P. (Ghaziabad) fabricated and introduced false information and false contents, though the witnesses never depose about these facts before the police.The applicant/accused has come to know about these telegrams, letters and the version of the witnesses from the various newspapers, some of news clippings are annexed as Annexure.The prosecution has urged that the documents filed with the charge sheet were furnished to the accused persons and therefore, the alleged statement of Kamal Kishore was filed on record with the charge sheet and had duly been furnished to the accused persons.It was Vishal Yadav's stand as back as on 11th October, 2002 that the statements were fabricated, introduced false information and its contents were false.As noted above, Vishal Yadav had categorically stated that the witness had never testified about these facts before the police.The above-noticed suggestions to the investigating officer in his cross-examination as well as the application dated 11th October, 2002 show that the arguments before this court to the effect that Kamal Kishore was a witness to last seen are contrary to the defence set up by Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav before the trial court.They have set up pleas of alibi and led common defence completely denying any interaction with the deceased Nitish Katara.PW21/1, Nitish Katara received a call at his cell phone at 22:24:05 hrs from the phone of Yashoman Tomar which lasted 1:08 seconds when it was in the Ghaziabad area.The contents of Exh.PW-35/4 are also in contradiction to the testimony of Shivani Gaur, Bharti Yadav as well as Bhawna Gupta as they stated that Nitish Katara was at Shivani's wedding till 1:30 am.Clearly Kamal Kishore was not a reliable witness.It was suggested that he was really a plant, perhaps intended to name somebody else, but erroneously named Vikas Yadav.The appellants have examined as a defence witness, another cited prosecution witness who was not examined as a prosecution witness.Nothing precluded the appellants from so examining Kamal Kishore as well.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution cannot be faulted for the non-examination of Kamal Kishore as a prosecution witness.Accused Joginder and Kulwant then gave Kripan blows to Arur while he was lying on the ground.Harwant, Kulwant, Joginder made a concerted attack on Arur.Harwant attacked him with spear, Kulwant and Joginder attacked him with kripans.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 975The prosecution evidence in the present case has to be examined in the light of the above principles.Vikas Yadav is the brother of Bharti Yadav.The deceased was already present there.It is plausible that the intention to get rid of the deceased developed when the accused saw him at the wedding.It is in the testimony of Shivani Gaur PW-11 that in the end of March, 2001 her wedding was fixed with Shri Amit Arora.Her engagement ceremony on 4th June, 2001 in Le Meridian Hotel was attended by Nitish Katara, Bharti Yadav/Singh and Bharat Diwakar.There is categorical evidence with regard to distribution of the invitation cards Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 976 for the wedding.Nilam Katara corroborates this testimony.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 976Shivani Gaur (PW - 11) also states that either her brother or her father had gone to the house of Vikas Yadav for giving the invitation to them.Even Vishal Yadav does not state that he was invited to the wedding.Vishal Yadav's stand on the contrary is that he did not know Shivani Gaur at all.In the statements made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. by both Vishal and Vikas Yadav, they have stated that they were not aware of the fact that Shivani Gaur was a student of IMT College, Ghaziabad alongwith Bharti Singh.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 977Where was the occasion for him to attend a stranger's wedding? Yet he not only accompanied Vikas Yadav to the venue but also proceeded to the dias and got himself photographed with a bridal couple whom he did not even know.It is important to note that Vikas Yadav did not go to the wedding with his family members.Instead he goes to the wedding in the company of Vishal Yadav and Sukhdev Pehlwan neither of whom had been invited to the wedding.There is evidence on record which would also suggest that the two brothers do not appear to have gone to the venue as guests at a function.The photographs on record depict the guests at the wedding as attired in formal business suits.Nitish Katara was dressed in a traditional red kurta with a churidar and a shawl.Bharat Diwakar was also dressed in a business suit and a tie.The defence has claimed that the two together attended a function at the Gandhi residence at Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad after attending Shivani Gaur's wedding.They did things together.The police was groping in the dark as to what exactly had happened to Nitish Katara till the arrest of Vikas and Vishal Yadav in the present case and had no clue of the manner in Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 979 which he had been abducted and murdered.Anil Somania has revealed that a trap was accordingly laid for arrest of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan in Bulandshahr on 3rd March, 2002 but he could not be arrested.However the police was able to seize a guarantee card (Ex. PW-22/A1) bearing the photograph of Sukhdev @ Pehalwan with his complete address.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 981In his testimony, Ajay Kumar/Katara stated that he could identify Sukhdev @ Pehalwan for the reasons that he had found Sukhdev @ Pehalwan conducting business in the liquor shop run by Shri D.P. Yadav and the accused persons in Bulandshahr area and that he was also seen in the company of Vikas and Vishal Yadav in the Ghaziabad area.Just as Vishal Yadav, Sukhdev @ Pehalwan was again a person not invited to the wedding.He gives no explanation for what he was doing with the two brothers at the Diamond Palace, Banquet Hall or for why he was there.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 982The prosecution had led evidence of the spontaneous utterance early in the morning of the 17th of February 2002 of Bharti Yadav to Nilam Katara.The evidence to this effect has been held to be admissible by us.It is in evidence that Nitish Katara had worn a red Kurta to the wedding.There is categorical evidence of Ajay Kumar Katara that it was the deceased who he had seen in the company of the three appellants in the Tata Safari vehicle around the same time at the Hapur Chungi.The deceased was found murdered shortly thereafter and his body discovered within a few hours.No particulars or details of any witnesses were mentioned.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 985The application was contested by the prosecution which filed a reply dated 22nd May, 2008 inter alia contending that the case was required to be decided on the basis of evidence recorded during the trial and not on the basis of evidence created through the media as the same lacked genuineness and authenticity and was not reliable.The allegations in the applications were denied as false and the application was stated as motive to malign the complainant as well as Ajay Kumar.Reference was made to his statement on oath on the 27th of July, 2007 in the trial of Sukhdev trial wherein the witness had stated that close relative and goons of Shri D.P. Yadav were pressurizing and threatening him to change his statement.The witness also referred to the following police reports filed by him:-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 987- FIR No.129 of 2007 under Section 307, 147 IPC dated 01.06.07 against Dinesh Singh Gurjar, Virendra Singh Laur and others.Accused are henchmen of Shri D.P. Yadav.that Shri D.P. Yadav through his accomplices administered poison to Ajay Kumar.- FIR No.938 of 2007 under Section 467/468/471 IPC dated 15.09.07 against Shri D.P. Yadav and Ors.that they falsely tried to prove that Ajay Katara and Ajay Prashad/Sharma are the same person.- FIR No.115 of 2008 under Section 307/120-B IPC dated 25.01.08 against Shri D.P. Yadav and Ors.that they at the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 988 instance of Shri D.P. Yadav, attacked him with deadly weapon.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 988- Several other complaints and FIR were registered against Shri D.P. Yadav and his henchmen.So far as the alleged sting operation is concerned, the witness referred to an incident on 25th March, 2008 when he claims that he was with Subhash Yadav with whom he consumed liquor.As Subhash Yadav was asking him inquisitive questions related to the case, in a bid to confuse him, Ajay Kumar claims that he made certain absurd, false and unnecessary statements as he knew that Subhash had connections with Shri D.P. Yadav and that whatever was stated, would reach him.On 23rd April, 2008, Ajay Kumar claimed that Subhash again called him as he was interested in getting into the property dealing business.The witness says that when he reached Subhash Yadav he was offered drinks .Under the total influence of liquor, Subhash Yadav again asked the witness about the case.In drunken bravado and to misguide him, the witness stated that he again made some unwarranted, unnecessary and absurd remarks which were not true.So far as reasons for doing so is concerned, the witness stated that he made these remarks keeping in view the welfare and safety of his son as he was being threatened that in case he did not help them, his son would Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 989 be killed.The witness submitted that he had not seen his wife and son for more than eight months and was terrified about his son's safety.The witness stated that Subhash Yadav had laced the drink.The witness denied all contents of the conversation which was part of the sting operation.Ajay Kumar testified that statements were made in extreme fear and in an inebriated condition.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 989The trial court noted that from the affidavit dated 23rd May, 2008 of Ajay Kumar, it was clear that he was admitting the contents of the CD.In these circumstances, on the 24th of May, 2008, Shri G.K. Bharti, counsel for the appellant submits that he did not want to press the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. as the same had become infructuous.The order dated the 24th of May, 2008 of course was not challenged before any court.Thereafter a second application was filed on the 26th of May, 2008 by Shri G.K. Bharti, Advocate on behalf of Shri Vikas Crl.This application was considered and dismissed by the court and by its order dated 27th May, 2008, it was observed that the trial stood concluded and that the judgment was to be pronounced on the next date.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 992 date all of them turned hostile and resiled from their previous statement.Another eye witness PW-4 had filed an application before the trial court that he had been threatened and intimidated by the accused not to depose against them.It was, however found that even on re-examination they supported the genesis of the incident and resiled from their previous statements only with regard to the identity of the accused.Their cross- examination was recorded after about one year of the recording of their examination-in-chief.In cross-examination, the witnesses turned hostile as PW-1 has turned hostile in this case.The averments in the affidavit are rightly rejected by the High Court and also the Sessions Court.Once the witness is examined as a prosecution witness, he cannot be allowed to perjure himself by resiling from the testimony given in Court on oath.It is pertinent to note that during the intervening period between giving of evidence as PW 1 and filing of affidavit in court later, he was in jail in a narcotic case and that the accused persons were also fellow inmates there.It is noteworthy that in the joint trial of Vikas and Vishal Yadav, the evidence of PW-33 Ajay Kumar was recorded as back as on 31st May, 2003 and he was extensively cross-The statements attributed to the witness in an alleged sting operation on 25th March, 2008 would be akin to the witness Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 996 being recalled and testifying against his earlier testimonies in, not one, but two trials.The witness explained the reasons for making such statement was that on that day (31st of May, 2003), Shri D.P. Yadav with his goons were present outside the court room, though within the court premises, and he made such statement out of fear.In his evidence, the witness volunteered that on 7th August, 2007, he was asked by Sh.Jitender Yadav, the real nephew of Shri D.P. Yadav to give an affidavit in court that he had made a false statement in court and they would spare his life and asked him to take as much money as he want but he refused to take the same.The witness further stated that he had recently made a complaint to the police that some persons at the instance of Shri D.P. Yadav had administered poison to him.He denied the suggestion that he, in connivance with rival politicians of Shri D.P. Yadav, was trying to ruin Shri Yadav's political career.The learned Trial Judge has noted several prior complaints by Ajay Kumar with regard to the apprehension to the life of his own and his son at the instance of Shri D.P. Yadav.The Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 998 learned trial judge has noted that the stand of the witness in his affidavit dated 23rd May, 2008 was not being taken for the first time and was not an after thought.The trial court has held that the statement in the sting operation is actually misleading.In the sting operation, the witness has allegedly stated that the blood on the hammer was that of the mother of the deceased and the hammer had been planted.The learned Trial Judge has noted that in the entire conversation on the CD (i.e., the sting operation), the witness does not say that on the night of 16th/17th February, 2002, he was busy in election and that he had not seen Nitish Katara in the company of the appellants in the Tata Safari bearing no.DB- 07H-0085 at the Hapur Chungi at midnight.No contradictions between his two statements could be pointed out by the appellants.The trial court passed an order dated 19th February, 2009 dismissing this application.M.C. No.670/2009 was dismissed by an order dated 6th April, 2009 passed by this court.This order has attained finality.So far as Sukhdev @ Pehalwan is concerned, this issue also has received a quietus.The learned trial judge in her judgment dated 28th of May, 2008 has recorded that the IO was under the influence of the family of the accused persons.It is pointed out that even though Nilam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara has shown 85 greeting cards, album, etc. to the IO which showed that Bharti and Nitish were in a deeply romantic relationship, he had taken the two most innocuous cards which too were suggestive of a mere casual friendship.The investigating officer PW-35 Anil Somania admits that Nilam Katara had shown him the cards and the bed sheet.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1001 was recovered on 17th February, 2002 for a chemical examination.The testimony of Nilam Katara and other witnesses reflect several important facts which have not been recorded by the police in the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. made to it.The lapse of the investigating agency to seek the opinion of the doctor with regard to the recovered hammer during investigation has also been pressed in arguments.Dey has pointed out that the revision petition was vehemently opposed on behalf of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, who were separately represented by Senior Counsel who had contested even the maintainability of the revision.The investigation was also stated to be defective since the gun was not sent for forensic test.The appellants have also challenged the Crl.During the course of hearing, we find the parties have made a reference to multiple litigations, applications and orders passed thereon.Thus the investigation till 1st of March 2002 (which included the disclosure statements dated 25th February, 2002 and recoveries effected on 28th March, 2002) was on the record of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.(iii) A criminal revision was filed by the police before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad against rejection of their application for remand by the order of 1st of March, 2002 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.(v) Crl.(vi) Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav challenged the order dated 8th March, 2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad granting police custody remand w.e.f. 2:00 pm on 9th March, 2002 till 2:00 pm on 11th March, 2002 before the Allahabad High Court.Despite our queries, the appellants have not placed either the pleadings or the proceedings thereon before us.(vii) The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.Though we asked parties for details of this case, nothing is forthcoming.(viii) The chargesheet was filed on 6th April, 2002 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.After completion of proceedings under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., on 16 th April, 2002, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge.Thereafter, the case was fixed for 3rd May, 2002 for appearance of the accused persons.By an order dated 22nd May, 2002, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the Trial Court and finally by an order dated 23rd August, 2002 directed transfer of the trial to Delhi.It is also in evidence that S.K. J.K. Gangwar joined investigation as early as on 19th February, 2002 and was Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1020 closely associated with S.I. Anil Kumar Somania throughout the investigation.Keeping in view the intricacies of the case on the 7th of March, 2002, S.I. J.K. Gangwar and S.I. Rakam Singh were appointed co-investigating officers.S.I. J.K. Gangwar was examined as PW34 in the trial of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav and as PW19 in Sukhdev Pehlwan's trial wherein Anil Kumar Somania was examined as PW 35 in the trial of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav and as PW22 in Sukhdev Pehlwan's trial.Learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate have made extensive submissions that S.I. Anil Somania conducted the investigation dishonestly.Reference has been made to a court order wherein adverse comments have been made with regard to the conduct of investigation by this police official in some other case.In this regard, the defence had examined DW21 Advocate Samar Singh who adverted to tussles with the Investigating Officer when he was posted in District Sambhal which was Mr. Yadav's constituency because Shri Yadav had refused to supply liquor free of cost to the police.Writ No.21955/2004 (Ex.Before the learned trial court, the accused persons also asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case by political rivals.In the given facts and circumstances, it is not possible to believe that the complainant, Nilam Katara could be influenced by political opponents of Vikas Yadav to falsely implicate accused persons for the gruesome murder of her elder son.Nothing has been pointed out to us to enable us to take a contrary view.We have also noticed heretofore the fact that Anil Somania was not the sole investigating officer in the present case; that his work was being conducted under the supervision of Shri Prashant Kumar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and that the investigation was being conducted under strict judicial scrutiny in several proceedings initiated not only at the instance of the accused persons but the complainant as well.The other ground urged in support of the challenge to the fairness of the investigation conducted by Anil Somania is the allegation by the appellants that he was under the influence of the complainant whose father was a senior police officer for which reason he had manipulated the case against the accused persons.There could thus be no question of influence of Nilam Katara's father over either the investigating officer or the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1023 investigation.First and foremost, Inspector Anil Somania was not the only Investigating Officer.In every step taken during the investigation, right from recording of statements of persons under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (including the examination of the appellants under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.); arrests of the appellant, conducting raids, recording of statements, effecting searches and recoveries; pursuing the several petitions and cases filed by the complainant as well as the appellants in the Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi; High Court of Judicature of Allahabad; the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and court at Dabra, Distt.Gwalior, Inspector Anil Somania was assisted by other police officials, and was under scrutiny of higher officials as well."28.2.2002 Present : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal with Mr. Arvind Nigam and Mr. Abhijat for the petitioner.Mukta Gupta for respondent No.5 Crl.Meanwhile respondent No.5 is directed to take all requisite steps to extent police protection to petitioner and her immediate family members and report compliance.List on 01st March, 2002 at 2:00 PM Order be given dasti to all parties.(B.A. Khan) Judge (V.S. Aggarwal) Judge February 28, 2002"On 14th March, 2002, this court passed the following order in the presence of counsel for the appellants and the SSP Prashant Kumar, Ghaziabad:"14.3.2002 Present : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal with Mr. Arvind Nigam for the petitioner.Mr. K.K. Sud, ASG with Mr. Navin Chawla for respondent no.1/ UOI Mr. Ashok Shrivastav, standing counsel for UP with Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh for Respondents no. 2 to 4 SSP Prashant Kumar Ghaziabad SI Anil Kumar PS Kavi Nagar Inspector V K Dham, SHO Paharganj Ms Mukta Gupta for Respondent No. 5 Mr. K N Balgopal with MR G N Bharti for respondent no. 6 to 8 Crl.W.No.247/2002 SSP Ghaziabad, present in person, has submitted the investigation status report which shows the steps taken on day to day basis by the investigating agency in the matter so far.The report also discloses that DNA and fingerprint tests stand submitted to the Learned Magistrate at Ghaziabad.Also recovery of one wrist Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1029 watch, one hammer and one Tata Safari car was also made allegedly at the instance of accused and statements of 14 witnesses recorded till date including that of Km Bharti.A hunt was on for locating the other accused Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan who was absconding and against whom proceedings were initiated for declaring him proclaimed offendor.At this stage UP State Counsel Mr Shrivastava complained that pursuant to 48 hour police remand order passed by Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad, about 19 hours time was lost by the investigating agency due to the alleged casual and dilly dallying approach adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, Dabra (Gwalior).Shri R K Gondly who had passed several orders on one plea or the other without implementing any one of these and resulting in delay of 19 hours in handing over of accused from Dabra jail to investigating officer which had hampered and slowed down the investigation and that is why full recovery could not be made.He invited our attention to the orders passed by this Magistrate to show the casual manner in which he had proceeded in the matter.It was also pointed out by him that at one stage a wrong information was furnished to him that Honble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court was seized of some petition by the accused which was only intended to delay the handing over of the accused to Ghaziabad police.It shall also be open to the investigating agency to approach the competent forum for further extension in police remand to make up for the time lost in the facts and circumstances of the case and it shall be, in turn, for the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate orders under law.SSP, Ghaziabad, who is seized of the investigation in the case, had prayed for two weeks further time for completion of investigation as far as practicable and for taking appropriate follow up action in the matter including presentation of charge sheet before the competent court.Time prayed for is granted.SSP is directed to file second status report on the next date showing the progress of the investigation.List on 3rd April 2002."Before the Division Bench hearing Crl.Writ No.247/2002, Vikas and Vishal Yadav were jointly represented.No reference was made to any communication or application dated 26th of February, 2002 sent by them to the CJM, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1031 Ghaziabad.No dispute was laid to the fact that the recoveries were effected by the police at the pointing out of the accused.The consideration by the learned trial judge can be divided into the following headings:(A) The accused had set-up a false plea of alibi that at the time when Ajay Kumar/Katara had spotted the deceased in the company of appellants, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were at the house of DW-1 Ashok Gandhi and subsequently their alibi from 17th to 23rd February, 2002; while Sukhdev Yadav set up an alibi that he was in his native village.(B) Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav led false evidence to the effect that they had gone to attend the marriage of Shivani Gaur on 16th February, 2002 in a Mercedes car and not in Tata Safari bearing no.(C) The appellants Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav made every possible effort to avoid appearance of Bharti Yadav, a Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1032 material witness before the trial court resulting in substantial delay in trial as well as pressurised her into withholding material evidence and giving testimony which was prevaricatory and false.(D) Intimidation of witness : Ajay Kumar/Katara, the public witness of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the three appellants has been threatened and pressurized by and at the instance of the appellants and their family members.(E) Witnesses deposed either out of fear, pressure, threat or because of the influence of their relationship with the accused persons.(F) Vikas and Vishal Yadav deliberately misled the police with regard to the recovery of the Tata Safari vehicle.(G) Every effort was made to intimidate the Special Public Prosecutors to prevent them from discharging functions and obligations freely and fairly.(H) Manipulation of court record - Applications dated 26th February, 2002 falsely claimed to have been filed by Vikas and Vishal Yadav before the CJM, Ghaziabad.We now take up each of these above headings hereafter in seriatim:A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1033 (A) The accused had set-up a false plea of alibi that at the time when Ajay Kumar/Katara had spotted the deceased in the company of appellants, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav were at the house of DW-1 Ashok Gandhi and subsequently their alibi from 17th to 23rd February, 2002; while Sukhdev Yadav set up an alibi that he was in his native village.and (B) Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav led false evidence to the effect that they had gone to attend the marriage of Shivani Gaur on 16th February, 2002 in a Mercedes car and not in Tata Safari bearing no.These points have been discussed at length earlier in this judgment and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat the same.We have only noted these here pointing out the conduct of the appellant in one place.(C) The appellants Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav made every possible effort to avoid appearance of Bharti Yadav, a material witness before the trial court resulting in substantial delay in trial as well as pressurised her into withholding material evidence and giving testimony which was prevaricatory and false.(i) The learned trial judge in the judgment dated 28th May, 2008 notes the efforts made to avoid the appearance of Bharti Yadav, who finally appeared as PW 38 before the Court.The learned Trial Judge has referred to several orders wherein the court had noticed the conduct of Bharti Yadav and her non - appearance before the Court despite repeated summons and coercive process.The Court also noticed the intimidation of the witness during the trial.(ii) At this stage, reference requires to be made to certain incidents and proceedings which have been highlighted by learned counsel for the complainant.It is in evidence that soon after Nitish Katara went missing in the night intervening 16th/17th February, 2002, Bharti was sent to Faridabad in Haryana, i.e., out of Ghaziabad, U.P. jurisdiction.Thereafter to avoid her testifying in court, in end of September/October, 2002, she was sent to U.K.(iii) The instant case is a prime example of the tyranny of well placed accused persons over the criminal justice system and how they treat the complainant, the investigation agency, the prosecution as well as the trial court.To appreciate the complete disrespect with which these two educated as well as well to do appellants treated the orders of the court and executed their malicious design to prevent Bharti Yadav from testifying in court as well as to protract the trial, it is essential to set down a summary of some of the court proceedings which we do so hereafter.(iv) In the instant case, the appellants Vikas and Vishal Yadav are brother and first cousin of Bharti Yadav - the prosecution witness who was to provide the evidence of motive.They are similarly related to Bharti's sister Bhawna Yadav.During much of this period the trial came to a halt - while the Vikas and Vishal Yadav kept the prosecution entangled in applications before the trial court and petitions before this court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1035(v) On 29th April, 2003 (C/414), the trial court has noticed that the summons issued to witness Bharti Yadav had come back with the report that she has gone to England and her mother refused to disclose her address.The court had noted that it intended to send summons for the appearance of the mother and father of Bharti Yadav for disclosing her address, at which the counsel for the accused persons stated that the address of Bharti Yadav will be informed by them in court.Yet the address was not furnished.However, counsel promised the court that they would furnish the address the very next day.(vi) In her testimony recorded on 3rd March, 2003, Nilam Katara as PW-30 had tendered several cards album and bed sheet in evidence.These cards were written by Bharti Yadav to Nitish Katara as noted above.The counsels for Vikas and Vishal Yadav had objected to their production on the ground that the witness was not the author of the cards and could not accept these cards.The trial court noted that Nilam Katara had stated that produced cards had been shown by her to the IO which he unfortunately did not seize.The trial court also observed that the author of the cards was another witness Bharti Singh who was a sister of the accused persons and had been cited as a witness.It was further observed that the summons had come back with a report that she had been sent to London for studies.So far as appearance of Bharti Yadav was concerned, the court noted that page 161 (A)"Though before us, an effort has been made to suggest that the parents cannot be faulted for the delay in appearance of Bharti Yadav as she was an adult and acting in her own right.However, the record of the trial court suggests to the contrary.Her relative Shri Bharat Singh and her father Shri D.P. Yadav appeared on her behalf in court clearly points towards influence which her family including the accused persons had over her.The order dated 30th April, 2003 records that the counsel for the accused persons had supplied the address of Bharti Yadav Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1036 in Nottingham, UK by way of a slip which was taken on record.(vii) On 6th May, 2003 the court observed that PW-30 Nilam Katara had identified the handwriting and signature of Bharti Yadav and proved about 74 greeting cards, two letters and an album on record.The defence had made a suggestion that the letters and greeting cards were not written or sent by Bharti Yadav to Nitish Katara.The court noted that Bharti Yadav was cited as a witness by the prosecution and a direction was given to the accused persons to help in producing her in court as she was their sister, and had been sent to England.(viii) Notice was also issued to Bharti Yadav through the High Commissioner in London at the address furnished by the counsel for the accused persons.(ix) On 17th July, 2003 it was observed that Bharti Yadav had not appeared despite the summons which had been sent by post and she had also not been produced in the case by the accused persons despite specific directions.(x) Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the complainant has placed before us an application dated 28th August, 2003 purporting to have been filed by one Shri Bharat Singh, the maternal uncle of Bharti Yadav through Sh.C.K. Sharma, Adv.for placing on record the facsimile message sent by Bharti Yadav.In this application, it was stated that Bharti Yadav expressed her willingness to appear before the court though she had not received summons for today and had learnt about the date from her family members.It was Crl.A request was also made for a direction to the prosecution to make arrangements for her travelling expense.Necessary orders were accordingly sought.(xi) Thereafter, on 8th October, 2003 Sh.C.K. Sharma, Advocate for uncle of the witness Bharti Yadav produced the letter wherein the witness had stated that the time was too short and she should be given two months to appear before the court.The court directed handing over of the necessary process for appearance of the witness Bharti Yadav on 15th November, 2003 to Sh.C.K. Sharma, Advocate.(xii) It appears that in the meantime Crl.It was further urged that the matter was at the stage when the appearance of Bharti Yadav was being awaited and a prayer was made before the Court that appellants be granted interim bail till the time she is examined by the learned Trial Court and that they may apply for regular bail again after her statement is recorded on the ground that prosecution was delaying the trial.This was opposed by the State.It was pointed out that Bharti Yadav being the sister of the accused persons could have Crl.The prosecution witness Ms. Bharti Yadav, who has gone to U.K. for pursuing her studies appears to be under the control of the petitioners and their family.If the petitioners had been keen to have her statement recorded, they could have easily persuaded her to come to India and go back after making statement.Possibility cannot be ruled out that in case the petitioners are enlarged on interim bail at this stage, they may influence Ms. Bharti Yadav and exert more pressure on her to make a statement in their favour.This Court, therefore, finds no good grounds for releasing the petitioners on interim bail at this stage.C.K. Sharma, Advocate appeared on her behalf and stated that she was unable to attend the court.A request was made that the case should be fixed in the month of January, 2004! An application dated 15th November, 2003 was also moved under the signature of her maternal uncle, Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1039 Shri Bharat Singh for recording of her evidence through video conferencing.(xv) In this application Bharti Yadav was stated to be a student in London School of Marketing, London.(xvi) The application on behalf of Bharti Yadav dated 15th November, 2003 for video recording of her testimony was rejected by the trial court by an order dated 23rd December, 2003 and she was directed to appear in the court on 27th February, 2004, which was the last opportunity for this purpose.(xvii) The order dated 23rd December, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also assailed before the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of Crl.No.43/2004 titled Bharti Yadav v. State of U.P. In the hearing on 21st January, 2004 in this revision, the learned Single Judge had asked Shri C.K. Sharma, counsel of Bharti Yadav, to ascertain from her as to when she can come to India to depose before the Court.On that date, no information was provided to this Court when the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe as under:-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1040 Counsel for the petitioner has not yet been able to tell me the date when the petitioner will be coming to India to depose.He is dilly-dallying and insisted upon video conferencing.Obviously there is more than meets and eye.Counsel is given one final opportunity to comply with the earlier order, failing which action in accordance with law will be initiated (xviii)Thereafter on 9th February, 2004, Shri C.K. Sharma, counsel for Bharti Yadav stated that he did not want to argue the matter and only wanted to withdraw the revision petition.The same was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.The matter, however, did not stop here.Shri C.K. Sharma, who was representing the witness was directed to inform the witness through her maternal uncle Shri Bharat Singh, who had filed the application on her behalf about the order and directed fresh summon as well.(xx) In the proceedings on the 27th of February, 2004, Bharti Yadav still did not appear.Her counsel put forth the excuse that she required permission from her university to remain absent for the duration of the recording of evidence.At that stage, counsel for Bharti Yadav stated that the date should be towards the end of April.The court directed that Bharti Yadav should appear Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1041 on 21st April, 2004 failing which the court would have to issue non-bailable warrants for her appearance.In this background, on 21st of April 2004, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000/- were directed to be issued against Bharti Yadav.In view of this undertaking, though the court deferred issuance of the warrants, however, the summons were directed to be issued to her through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and failing service, the Under Secretary (Legal) of the Ministry of External Affairs was directed to report presence in the court and to explain the delay.The court also directed Shri Bharat Singh to furnish the written undertaking till 4 p.m. of the same date.(xxiii) On 24th May, 2004, Bharti Yadav still did not appear despite the undertaking by her maternal uncle.An application with a copy of her medical certificate was made by Mr.Bharat Singh stating that Bharti Yadav had a fall from stairs and received injuries on her back and leg.Bharat Singh was directed by the trial court to appear on the 27th of May, 2004 and to furnish the correct address of Bharti's hospital and her residence.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1042 (xxiv) In the hearing on 27th May, 2004, Shri Bharat Singh, maternal uncle of Bharti Yadav moved an application furnishing communication address of Bharti Yadav, not her residential address.A direction was issued to him to furnish her residential address and to file the same in court within 48 hours.Summons for next date was also given to the officers of the Ministry of External Affairs.The court directed Bharti Yadav to contact the Additional Public Prosecutor on his phone to show evidence of her availability.(xxvi) In yet another attempt to avoid Bharti's appearance and despite the rejection of the prayer at Bharti's instance up to this court, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav filed a Crl.Case No. 2159/2004 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for recording the evidence of Bharti Yadav through video conferencing or by commission.This petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 25th September, 2004 by the court, noticing that Bharti Yadav, the real sister of the accused, a material prosecution witness, who had gone abroad for pursing her studies, was under the control of Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1043 petitioners (Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav) as well as their family members; and that the recording of her evidence through video conferencing or by commission would be highly prejudicial to the prosecution case.The court also noticed that such application filed by Bharti Yadav stood declined by the trial court by the order dated 23 rd December, 2003 as well as by this court.The court also observed that despite withdrawing her Crl.No.43/2004, the witness still did not appear before the trial court on 27th February, 2004 on the pretext that she had suffered some spinal and foot injuries by fall.This Court observed that the witness has not refused to come to India, but it appeared that she was evading her appearance before the Court for some reason or the other.The petition was consequently dismissed.(xxvii)Before the trial court, at this stage, Bharti Yadav filed two applications dated 22nd September, 2004 - one seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that she Crl.(xxviii)Bharti Yadav filed Crl.Case No.2158/2004 in this court against issuance of the non-bailable warrants, which was dismissed by this court by an order dated 25th September, 2004 (xxix) On 11th October, 2004, the accused persons now filed an application for examining Bharti Yadav on commission on the ground that the prosecution had not been able to effect service upon her.The applicants submitted that they had given an undertaking before this court that they were ready to bear the expenses of the commission.It was complained that the accused persons were languishing in jail to the lethargy of the prosecution which is causing delay in the examination of the said witness through Cr.P.C.. Interestingly, an application was also filed on behalf of Bharti Yadav stating that she had suffered spinal injuries and was not permitted to go for a long walk or to take a long journey and that she was undergoing treatment through a doctor of Harley Street, London; that no official summon had been served on the applicant nor communication made with the University; that the prosecution agency is more interested in the harassment and humiliation of the applicant/witness and the complainant is harassing the witness socially as well as morally through the learned prosecutor; that she had showed her willingness in the month of September, 2003 when no interest was shown by the then prosecutor and no steps were taken by the court.A prayer was made that she should be examined through commission and the warrants issued against her be stayed or cancelled.(xxx) Both the applications dated 11th October, 2004 were rejected by an order dated 25th October, 2004 by the learned trial judge.It was directed that the NBWs already issued be Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1045 executed.Shri Bharat Singh also furnished an undertaking to produce Bharti Yadav.Vikas Yadav pressed this application urging that the prosecution had to take effective steps for procuring presence of Bharti Yadav to record her statement.In this regard, the observations of the Court in the order dated 4th January, 2005 may usefully be considered in extenso and read as follows:On this account, perusal of trial court record, however, indicates that the prosecution is not to be blamed for delay in examination of Ms. Bharti Yadav before the trial court.She is stated to be pursuing her studies in University of Nottingham, UK.The record shows that it is, in fact, Ms. Bharti Yadav, who appears to be evading appearance to make her statement before the learned trial court in spite of being aware of pendency of proceedings and different dates being fixed requiring her attendance to record her statement.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1046 In para 6, the learned Single Judge noted the several applications and petitions in the interregnum.It was further observed as follows:Finding that the witness was not appearing in spite of information about various dates fixed for the purpose, a bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against her.Later, however, on maternal uncle of Ms. Bharti Yadav appearing and undertaking to produce her on 24th of May, 2004, issuance of bailable warrant of arrest was dropped.Ms. Bharti Yadav was, however, not to appear even on 24th of May, 2004 in spite of an undertaking by her maternal uncle.Consequently, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued in addition to initiating proceedings against the maternal uncle for acting in breach of undertaking furnished by him to produce Ms. Bharti Yadav on the date fixed.(Underlining by us) (xxxiv)On 27th January, 2005, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted a letter dated 7th January, 2005 addressed to the Court from the Ministry of Home Affairs in response to the pending warrants which were issued on 20th December, 2004 to bring Bharti Singh @ Bharti Yadav through non bailable warrants.It was stated that the Indian High Commission required at least eight weeks to effectively execute any process through the UK Home office.The learned Public Prosecutor had informed the court that he had talked to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1047 Bharti Yadav and she had told him that she was not interested in coming and deposing as a witness in the Court.(xxxv)On 27th January, 2005, the learned counsel for the accused persons made a plea that the prosecution evidence may be closed by the order of the court.The court examined the matter and observed that there was no unjustified delay and that interests of justice demand that further time be granted to the prosecution for executing the NBWs for the appearance of the witness.At the same time, an application was moved by Shri Bharat Singh on the same date to produce Bharti Yadav in view of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the witness has stated that she had given her statement to the SSP, Ghaziabad and to the media and that she did not want to say anything more.(xxxvi)On 30th March, 2005, the learned trial court noticed the receipt of the letter from the Government of India which recorded that the non-bailable warrants against Bharti Yadav could not be executed.The learned Public Prosecutor further stated that by reason of her being the real sister of accused Vikas Yadav and cousin sister of accused Vishal Yadav, she was not likely to support the prosecution case.In view of the fact that the Government of UK had refused to execute the non bailable warrants and he had no other means to procure her attendance under these circumstances, and therefore he had no other alternative but to drop her and proceed with the trial.In this background, the learned Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence.(xxxvii)On 21st April, 2005, at the stage when the matter was fixed for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the complainant Nilam Katara moved an Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1048 application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on which the order dated 21st April, 2005 was passed.(xxxviii) The complainant Nilam Katara also filed Crl.Her depiction will have an important bearing on the outcome of the trial.PP placed on record a copy of the order dated 7 th March, 2006 whereby the High Commission of India had revoked the passport of Bharti Yadav.At 11.30 a.m., Shri D.P. Yadav, father of the witness Bharti Yadav appeared before the court and made a request to take up the case again.PP for the State was called.The court records that:Shri D.P. Yadav had submitted that he had he had gone abroad and had met his daughter at London in a function arranged by one of his friend and he discussed the matter with her at length.As such she is not in a position to appear before the Court.At this, Sh.DP Yadav has been directed to disclose the present address of Bharti Yadav but he has submitted that he is not aware of the same as she was called to attend the function by his friend.He has been asked to disclose the address of his friend which he has refused on the pretext that he does not remember.The State's application dated 23rd September, 2006 under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. for attachment of the properties of the witness on account of non-appearance in response to Section 82, Cr.P.C. proclamation was also kept pending for the next date of hearing.(xliii) On 6th October, 2006 Sh.The court consequently fixed the matter for her appearance and recording of her evidence on Crl.The evidence of this witness was recorded in camera and directions were issued by the trial court to the court staff from giving any interview to the electronic or print media with regard to the court proceedings.Vikas Yadav did not attend the court proceedings even though he was present in the lock up on 29th and 30th November, 2006, when Bharti Yadav was examined as witness.We are appalled at the indulgence given to the accused persons and this witness and pained at the manner in which these accused persons have treated the orders directing production of their sister for a period of three and a half years.Bharti Yadav was a highly educated and empowered adult as per the material on record.Not only were her movements after the night of Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1053 16th February, 2002 under their control but she was also deprived of any means of communication.Her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was permitted to be recorded only in the presence of her father Shri D.P. Yadav.Despite repeated assurances as well as undertakings to the court she deliberately did not appear for this considerable period.Undertakings were given on her behalf as well as several assurances that she would appear and give her testimony.The brazenness of the accused was to the extent that even though she was studying in London, the accused disclosed an address in Nottingham, U.K for her.The court thereby was compelled to keep issuing process for appearance at this Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1054 address.No change of address of the witness was informed.Even her father who appeared before the court to avoid issuance and execution of NBWs, feigned ignorance of the address of his daughter.This statement, to say the least, is completely unbelievable and reflects a deliberate attempt to keep the witness away from the court.The record of the Trial Court shows that she appeared in court only after steps for revocation of her passport stood taken.We may be accused of presuming that the appellants contributed in any manner to the efforts of the Bharti Yadav to stay away from the court and that there is no basis for this presumption.Realities cannot be ignored and we would fail in our duty if we were to close our eyes to the hard fact that Bharti Yadav was the sister of Vikas Yadav and the first cousin of Vishal Yadav.Her father and uncle Shri Bharat Singh actively engaged on her behalf and appeared several times before the court.Most of the defence witnesses including witnesses who were advocates, are closely associated with Vikas Yadav's father.It is established that the Tata Safari vehicle stood registered in the name of M/s Oswal Sugar Ltd. and Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav was one of its Directors.The vehicle was recovered at the instance of the accused persons at the premises of A.B. Coltex, Karnal, a firm in whose management Shri D.P. Yadav had interest.Before us, it was suggested that the appellants have nothing to do with Bharti Yadav's conduct.An unfortunate stand, given the identity of the objective pursued by all of them as well as the aim sought to be achieved.Closely related, assisted by father and maternal uncle Mr. Bharat Singh (from whose phone lines, Nitish Katara had also received phone calls), the above narration is a prime example of what literate, well to do and politically connected individuals are able to do to prevent justice in a criminal trial, and then bemoan mistrial and delay.The influence, reach and sheer arrogance of the accused persons is writ large on the face of the record.The impunity with which court orders have been flouted and undertakings to produce the witness have been repeatedly violated, reflect the mindset of the accused persons.Brazenly the parent of the witness has avoided providing contact details of his own daughter.The court was deliberately misled by providing an address in Nottingham when Bharti was studying in London.They have acted with the misplaced confidence that nothing, even the court, can touch them, an attitude confident that their wealth and position places them above other citizens who are duty bound to abide by constitutional values, the law, and court orders.The above narration manifests that for the appearance of one witness closely related to Vikas and Vishal Yadav, the trial Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1056 court had to wait for three and a half years.The appellants were in custody.It can reasonably be expected that if innocent, they would have wanted to get acquitted of the charges and be released from prison at the earliest.This conduct of and on behalf of the accused points towards guilt of these appellants.(D) Intimidation of witness : Ajay Kumar/Katara (a public witness to the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the three appellants) has been threatened and pressurized by and at the instance of the appellants and their family members.It has been argued before us that in order to pressurize him into not giving a statement and, thereafter, withdrawing it, the only public witness Ajay Kumar / Katara with regard to the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the appellants, was threatened with dire consequences by and at the instance of Shri D.P. Yadav father of Vikas Yadav.He was also roped into false and frivolous complaints and criminal cases initiated at the behest of persons who were allegedly either stooges of or related to Shri D.P. Yadav in Ghaziabad and elsewhere.We propose to consider the material on this aspect in detail as it is this aspect which is one major cause for the reluctuance of members of the public in coming forward to give evidence.We summarize the position qua Ajay Kumar Katara hereafter:A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1057(i) Appearing as PW-33, Ajay Kumar in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial has stated that he did not tell any police vehicle passing the road on 16th February, 2002 about the registration number of the Tata Safari as the accused was the son of an M.P. of the area and there was terror of the M.P. in the area which is well known.(ii) It is in the evidence given by Ajay Kumar as PW-14 in Sukhdev's trial that he left the address of D-50/1, Gali No. 10, Brahmpur, Delhi in April, 2002 for the reason that this address was available with the police and the witness was apprehending an attack from Shri D.P. Yadav.(iii) It appears that Ajay Kumar/Katara expressed grave apprehensions to his life and security in view of threats received by him at the instance of the accused persons.(iv) Since 25th April, 2002, Ajay Kumar was provided with the security of one gunner as he felt danger to his life because he was a witness in the case.A court question was put to the witness as to when he felt endangered.The witness answered that he felt endagered because of his being a witness against the sons of the M.P. who are involved in the case.(v) On 30th of May, 2003, Ajay Katara made a request to the Inspector General, Meerut Zone for his safe escort to court.According to Ajay Kumar, the IG gave direction to the SSP, Ghaziabad in his presence to provide security to Ajay Kumar for going to court.(vi) Even on the 31st of May, 2003, the day the witness Ajay Kumar was examined as PW-33, he had moved an application before the trial court that he was being Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1058 pressurized by the accused persons not to appear as witness and that there was a threat to his life and property and that he was unsecure.It was stated that he has one gunner since April, 2002 provided by the UP Police but at least two gunners be granted to him; stating that there was tremendous pressure on him for not deposing in court.Ajay Katara stated that he felt danger to his life and was feeling insecure and that the security of one gunner already granted to him was insufficient.On this application, the court had observed that the fear expressed by the witness Ajay Katara did not seem to be unfounded and consequently had directed the Director General of Police, Lucknow, UP to do the needful for the security of the witness and to see that no harm is caused to him.The court specifically directed that if the witness suffered physical harm, the court would hold the Director General responsible for the same.(vii) The matters did not end with Ajay Kumar's deposition.On the 22nd of July, 2003 - another application was made by Ajay Katara stating that a conspiracy was being hatched against him and that the police of Ghaziabad was trying to implicate him in a false case; that some Daroga and Inspector of PS Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad were threatening him day and night.The witness stated that on 20 th July, 2003 he was taken to PS Vijay Nagar and made to sit there by the SO of Vijay Nagar; that there he was physically tortured and told that he had taken cudgels with a powerful man and he would get his face displayed in the TV and newspaper so that he could be identified by the goons of that powerful man and done away with.The witness also stated that a case of eve-teasing would be made against him and he would be shown on TV and implicated in this case.It is also stated by the witness that he has informed the DIG, Meerut Zone of the entire matter and then only the SO, Vijay Nagar allowed him to go out of the station.The SO made him sign on some blank papers and that SO, Vijay Nagar and mahila SI Praveen Saxena have threatened him and, therefore, he had come to the court.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1059(viii) By the order dated 22nd of July, 2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi had issued the following directions:-A letter be written to DIG to see to it that witness Ajay Kumar should not be harassed by other police officials.Issue notice to SO and Lady SI Parveen Saxena of Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad to appear in person to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for giving threats to the witness.(ix) The order recorded by the court thereafter on 30th July, 2003 speaks for itself and also deserves to be noted in extenso and the same reads as follows:-On notice given by this court both police officials from Vijay Nagar, Gh'bad appeared.Copy of complaint made by witness Ajay Katara was supplied to them.They had filed written reply to the complaint which has been taken on record.Witness has made specific allegations against these two police officers.SO states that about 800 persons had gathered at his police station when he picked up three persons against whom Mr. Ajay Katara had made a telephonic complaint.The very fact that 800 persons had gathered and merely picking up of three persons shows that it was a pre-organized show.The complaint of Smt. Saroj Yadav also smells of malafide.I consider that it is a matter in which the DIG should hold an enquiry as to why the witness is being subjected to this kind of police action.(xi) The matters did not end even with all these orders and the police protection.On the 15th of October, 2007, the case was taken by the court on yet another application moved by the witness Ajay Katara about harassment being meted out to him at the hands of Shri D.P. Yadav, father of the accused Vikas Yadav.It was alleged in the application that the witness had been implicated in various false cases by or at the instance of Shri D.P. Yadav and now was being threatened with being killed along with his family members.By the order dated 15th October, 2007 this application of the witness was also sent in original to the DIG, Meerut Zone for making the necessary investigation of the allegations leveled by the witness Ajay Katara against Shri D.P. Yadav and to take action as warranted.(xiv) The impugned judgment notices that in the application, Ajay Katara had also stated that he was being threatened of being crushed under a truck and to be burnt with his family in a brick kiln.He alleged that on 1st July, 2007, the goons of Shri D.P. Yadav had fired at him with the intention to kill him.Thereafter on 11th July, 2007 he was administered poison in snack food by the goons of Shri D.P. Yadav regarding which a case was registered with PS Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad and that three persons were also arrested in the case.The witness complained that Shri D.P. Yadav was looking for an opportunity to kill his wife, son and his parents-in-law and then falsely implicate him in the case.The witness alleged that on 10th October, 2007 he had learnt that Shri D.P. Yadav had levelled false allegations against him in a press conference and that further he was informed about the threats to his life from Shri D.P. Yadav by the President of Rashtriya Parivartan Dal.(xv) On 29th October, 2007 the file was again taken up by the trial judge on yet another application of the witness Ajay Katara about the threats to his life and to the members of his family at the hands of Shri D.P. Yadav, the father of the accused Vikas Yadav.This application was also sent by the trial court to the DIG, Meerut Zone with the directions to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1062 investigate the matter and to provide him additional security.(xvi) The witness alleged that 8 times attempts have been made on his life at the instance of Shri D.P. Yadav.The witness alleged that his wife Tanu Chaudhary and son Priyanshu Katara were under the influence of Shri D.P. Yadav who had threatened to kill them as well as her family members.It was reported that keeping in view the above, provisions had been made for the security of the witness.The appellants have referred to an alleged sting operation conducted on this witness when the case of Vikas and Vishal Yadav was at the stage of hearing of final arguments.The trial court has noted the explanation of the witness and doubted the operation.We have agreed with the ld.Trial Judge.It would seem that despite his testimony having been recorded as back as on the 31st of May 2003, Ajay Kumar Katara was subjected to threats, continues to be under pressure and threat for having appeared as a witness.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1063 (E) Witnesses deposed either out of fear, pressure, threat or because of the influence of their relationship with the accused persons.The record reflects that the accused persons in the present case wielded political influence as well as economic and physical power.He was assisted by S.I. J.K. Gangwar.Different witnesses have given narrations of different aspects of the matter.The facts told to the police in the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. contain details which would be within the knowledge of a person who had made the statements alone and nobody else.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1064 Cr.P.C. have been recorded in the case diary as per the police.He refused to identify the occupants in the Tata Safari in which he claimed the deceased was sitting.Vikas Yadav stopped when he saw our policewalla and then took the vehicle towards Hapur Chungi.' Portion B to B The window panes of the vehicle were open and I saw that in the vehicle, apart from Vikas Yadav, three more persons were sitting.Out of them, one person wearing a red coloured kurta, who had a round face, was sitting in the front seat next to the driver.On the 4th of March 2002 when Exh.PW-28/A was recorded in the case diary by the Investigating Officer, he had no clue about the existence of Ajay Kumar, a person who sited the Tata Safari at the Hapur Chungi.In his testimony in court recorded on 25th April, 2003 he resiled from the above statement.Satender Pal Singh (PW-32 in the first and PW-10 in the second trial) who was with Ct.Satender Pal Singh had identified the deceased being the fourth passenger in the Tata Safari apart from three accused persons on the night of 16th/17th February, 2002, in his testimony in court, he expressed inability to identify the fourth person.Rohit Gaur was a witness of the fact that Vishal Yadav had called away Nitish Katara while the three friends were eating dinner at Shivani Gaur (his sister)'s wedding.Unfortunately on the 3rd of April 2003, he had to be dropped as a witness on the instructions of the IO who was present in the court on the ground that the witness seemed to be won over.Despite this position, Rohit Gaur was examined on 13th September, 2006 as PW-8 in Sukhdev @ Pehalwan 's trial wherein he completely resiled from his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW8/PA).Vishal took Nitish Katara outside the Diamond Palace.Vikas Yadav son of Shri D.P. Yadav was standing outside with his vehicle.On reaching outside, Nitish Katara talked to Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1068 Vikas Yadav and thereafter Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav seated Nitish Katara in the vehicle and after shaking hands with their friends, took him towards the west.Vikas Yadav was driving the car.Nitish Katara did not return thereafter.His friends Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta kept waiting for him for quite some time.Portion B to B Bharti Yadav, sister of Vikas Yadav had a deep friendship with Nitish Katara.This friendship was not liked by her relatives.I therefore, suspect that after abducting Nitish Katara, Vikas and Vishal Yadav may have murdered him.Vikas Yadav had come to my sister's wedding in a Tata Safari.Nitish Katara had a mobile phone in his hand and he had been wearing a watch.In his court testimony, Rohit Gaur went to the extent of saying that he could not even recognize that who accompanied Vikas Yadav to the wedding.This witness further went to the extent of denying that he had made any statement to the police.Bharat Diwakar (PW-25 in Vikas Yadav's trial) and Gaurav Gupta (PW-26 in Vikas Yadav's trial) make the same material improvement in their court testimony over their previous statements! In court, they attribute a statement as having been made by Nitish Katara in Gaurav Gupta's cell phone conversation with him at 1:11:18 hrs on 17th February, Crl.Both of them for the first time testified in court that Nitish said that he was at the IMT, whereas they mention no such thing in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta also did not give the complete truth with regard to their efforts to contact Nitish Katara over the telephone.Bharat Diwakar had gone silent when questioned on a material aspect of the case for a long time before giving a reply which was intended to assist the accused persons.He certainly suppressed information given by him to the police.This was information with regard to Nitish Katara having been taken away from his company.Bharti Yadav had reacted about this as well when talking to Nilam Katara on the morning of the 17th of February 2002, therefore, in the most critical area of identification.Bharat Diwakar again an educated and well to do person, a friend of the deceased failed to do justice to his deceased friend and in the witness box, gave wishy washy evidence, setting up loss of memory at the critical juncture.The son of a police officer of U.P., we find substance in the submission of learned Additional Standing Counsel that he had succumbed to influence and pressure.PW-23 Virender Singh has been held to be completely under the influence of the accused persons.Moreover, the order Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1070 dated 23rd December, 2003 of the trial court records that Raghu and Aslam were won over.The trial court record reveals several incidents of interference with the recording of evidence of the witnesses.These instances include instances of blatant tutoring; giving answers to questions; shouting in the court; preventing proper recording of testimony.While the evidence of PW- 20 Yashoman Tomar was being recorded on the 7th of March 2002, the trial court has made the following observations:Three advocates for accused person are not allowing the testimony of witness to be recorded properly and Sh.G.K. Bharti is unnecessarily shouting in the court, the moment the witness states something or the chart is shown to refresh his memory, all the three advocates start murmuring and started interfering and making it difficult for the witness to depose in the court.Such over bearing conduct is certainly not conducive to instilling confidence in the witness.We have noted the court proceedings on 25th April, 2003, when Ct.Inderjeet Singh (PW-28) was under examination in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's case.Bharat Diwakar was examined as PW-25 in Vikas and Vishal Yadav's trial and was declared hostile and had to be cross-examined.The ld.Trial judge has also noted that after DW-3 Rajender Chaudhary testified that he had been verbally directed by the court to accompany the accused persons during the police custody remand, the counsel for the accused persons put questions to the witness which were suggestive of the answers and he agreed to the suggestion by counsel that he was chosen to accompany the accused persons with the consent of lawyers of Vishal as well as Vikas Yadav.It is in evidence that the defence counsel has also told the answers to the questions put to the witness.We find that that while DW-1 Shri Ashok Gandhi was being examined by the court, there was interference by defence counsels and the court notes that at every question there is interruption by the defence counsels.They are warned to be careful in future.PW-15 Vikram Garg was examined by the defence on the 8th of August 2007 in an attempt to establish that the photograph ExPW6/D3 is an original photograph while photograph Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1073 Ex.Thereafter, by the order dated 23rd August, 2002, the Supreme Court transferred the case from the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad to the Sessions Court in Delhi.The Supreme Court while transferring the matter as back as on 23rd August, 2002 also express the reservations of the Supreme Court:From seeking a proper DNA examination to confirm the identity of her son's body to ensuring police investigation and then seeking transfer of the trial from the court at Ghaziabad, UP to Delhi, this mother has moved heaven and earth to keep the wheels of justice rolling.Sitting alone in the courtroom, crowded with relatives and well wishers of the accused persons as well as their teams of experts, she has made no grievance against the pressure she must have faced and influence to which witnesses have been subjected.We have considered the conduct of the appellants with regard to the recovery of Tata Safari at length earlier in this judgment, especially the manner in which they did their utmost to frustrate the police remand for effecting the recovery of the vehicle and also the manner in which they misled the Investigating Officers and the police team with regard to the location of Tata Safari.Vikas and Vishal Yadav deliberately misled the police on the 28th of February, 2002 when they took the police to three places in Alwar for recovery of Tata Safari even though they were aware of the fact that the vehicle was not there, only with the intention of wasting the limited 24 hour police remand granted by the court for effecting the recovery.Thereafter again to waste time, they first took the police to a taxi stand behind a cremation ground, Panipat and only thereafter led the police party to the A.B. Coltex premises in Karnal and got the Tata Safari recovered.At this stage, when the sessions trial was almost complete, an order dated 28th January, 2004 was passed whereby Shri Saxena was removed from the post of the Special Prosecutor.The Delhi Government submitted before the court that as the case was being tried by the Sessions Judge at Patiala House, New Delhi, a Special Prosecutor could be appointed by the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1082 Delhi Government and that the name of Shri K.K. Singh, a senior prosecutor was available for conducting the case.The accused persons appeared as intervenors before the Supreme Court and stated that they would have no objection to such an appointment.The Supreme Court directed fixation of the remuneration payable to Shri K.K. Singh and directed that the same shall be paid by the State of U.P. It was further directed that the trial be expedited and completed at the earliest.It appears that after the case was transferred, the complainant filed a W.P.(Crl.)No.25/2004 before the Supreme Court which was disposed of with the following observations:The counsel for the Delhi Government submitted that that as per Sessions Case is being trial by the Session Judge at Patiala House, Special Prosecutor could be appointed by the Delhi Government.The Government of Delhi is having a panel of names, and among these one Shri K.K. Singh, Senior Prosecutor is available for conducting the case as a Special Prosecutor.The counsel for the accused submitted that accused may not have any objection if Shri K.K.Singh being appointed as a Special Prosecutor.It appears that the matter did not end here and a further application being Crl.M.P. No.6186/2005 was necessitated in this writ petition before the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court directed that if Shri B.S. Joon is appointed as Chief Prosecutor for conducting the trial, the court may proceed with the matter and complete the trial as early as possible.It is submitted that the accused did their utmost to browbeat the Special Public Prosecutors during the trial as well to prevent them from discharging their duties which conduct deserves to be noted.In this regard, the undisputed facts are brought to our attention:(i) So far as Mr. S.K. Saxena, the Public Prosecutor is concerned, Vikas Yadav filed a complaint dated 9th March, 2004 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against him and others including employees of the Indian Express and Chronicle Press, Printers and Publishers.When Shri Sharma was questioned by the journalist of the Indian Express Newspaper with regard to his removal from the case remarked that he could only say that he was not convenient to the accused.The complaint further stated that it was a matter of record that on most occasions, whenever the case was listed, the newspaper would specify the name of the petitioner/complainant as the accused and that as soon as the news with regard to the removal of the Special Public Prosecutor featured in different newspaper, the readers of the newspaper understood the use of expression accused in the statement as referring to the petitioner.It was contended that the Crl.The Supreme Court passed an order dated 5th May, 2004 issuing notice to the respondent and in the meantime stayed the further proceedings in both the cases.(iv) We may notice the manner in which Shir B.S. Joon was treated.A legal notice dated 16th November, 2006 was sent on behalf of both Vikas Yadav as well as Vishal Yadav by Shri Rajender Chaudhary, Advocate to Mr. B.S. Joon alleging that he had given misleading interview to the various TV channels and print media and made defamatory allegations against the said appellants and required the learned Special Public Prosecutor to pay a sum of Rs.20 crores as damages within three days and publish in print/electronic media an unconditional apology failing which, action for damages and criminal action could be initiated.(v) On the very date of receipt of this notice, Mr. Joon, Special Public Prosecutor was compelled to file an application dated 18th November, 2006, complaining that the notice was an attempt on part of the accused persons to overawe and intimidate the Prosecutor so as to hinder and obstruct him from conducting the case properly and in a fair Crl.(vii) On 18th December, 2006 in Crl.M.C.No.7756/2006, the learned senior counsel for Vishal Yadav stated that they shall withdraw the notice dated 16th November, 2006 served on Shri.It is noteworthy that Vikas and Vishal - the accused persons were both being represented by Shri Rajender Chaudhary (DW - 3) and he had issued the legal notice dated 16th November, 2006 on their behalf to the Special Public Prosecutor .The letter dated 20th November, 2006 withdrawing the same was also issued by him on their behalf.During the arguments on behalf of the appellants, they also did not assail the findings of the trial court that this conduct amounted to interference with the due course of justice and it was an attempt made by the accused persons to pressurize the Public Prosecutors from discharging their professional duties enjoined upon them towards the State.The only submission in these proceedings on behalf of the appellant is that these findings were not put to the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The above findings have been arrived at by the ld.Trial Judge on Crl.Long after arguments of the appellants in the present appeals, the State and the complainant were complete and the appellants were being heard in rejoinder, Mr. Sumeet Verma, ld. counsel appearing for Vikas Yadav on instructions submitted that Vikas and Vishal Yadav had sent separate applications to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad through the Jail Superintendent on 26th of February, 2002 informing the court Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1089 that they are being falsely implicated and that they had not made any statement to the Investigating Officer, PS Kavi Nagar.It is further submitted that this was also submitted before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and an order was passed on 27th of February, 2002 thereon which takes note of this contention of the defence counsel.Four separate sets of advocates filed two applications - one on behalf of Vikas Yadav and the second on behalf of Vishal Yadav wanting to accompany the accused persons during the police investigation while they were on police remand.There was not a single word in either the applications or proceedings recorded on 27th of February, 2002, either on the order passed on the remand application or in the orders passed on the applications by the appellants, of any protest to the effect that they were being falsely implicated or that they had not made any statement to the IO.No reference therein was Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1090 made to any previous application filed on 26th of February 2002 by the accused.Thus at no point of time did the appellants oppose the applications of the police for remand on the ground that no disclosure statements were made by them.On the contrary, they, with alacrity, only sought permission of the CJM Ghaziabad that their counsel be permitted to accompany them while they were on police remand.The order of the Sessions Court dated 6th of March, 2002 extracted by us notices the recoveries pursuant to the disclosures and that the Tata Safari vehicle was yet to be recovered.But for the appellants taking the police to three places in Alwar on 28th February, 2002 and thereafter on 10th/11th March, 2002 to different places till finally the vehicle was recovered on the pointing out of the appellants at Karnal, the police would have been groping in the dark with regard to the location of the vehicle.Even while arguing the application for police remand, the accused persons make no reference to these two applications as would be evident from the order dated 6th March, 2002 of the Sessions Judge and 8th March, 2002 of the CJM, Ghaziabad.We find that on all applications, filed before it, the CJM has called in report from the police and also endorsed orders thereon.These two applications came to be addressed to the court.No order is endorsed thereon.On the contrary based on the disclosure statement, the applications by the police for remand for effecting recoveries of the disclosed articles were accepted by the court as well as by the accused persons who merely sought leave that they may be accompanied by counsel.Where is the question of any court permitting police remand if allegations of false implication and fabrication of statements were received by it? If such applications were actually made by the appellants on 26th of February, 2002, the accused persons would have objected against the police action before not only the CJM but the Sessions Court and the High Court as well, which the appellants did approach to challenge the second order of police remand.Notice stood issued on 28th February, 2002 in Crl.Writ No.247/2002 filed Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1092 by Nilam Katara in which the two brothers were a party.No protest was lodged by the accused.These applications dated 26th February, 2002 have not been placed before the learned Trial Judge in the opening statement by the Senior Counsels who have argued at length before this court.We find substance in the submissions made by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that no such application was made.This suggests Crl.Because of the influence of these appellants, it took three and half years for their sister to enter the witness box while they mocked at every direction passed by the trial judge ordering her appearance.Not only these two brothers but their family members who appeared on her behalf facilitated the delay in her appearance.Does this conduct by itself not unerringly point towards the fact that the appellants were aware that the true testimony of these witnesses supported the prosecution and hence to prevent the truth being brought out, they systematically influenced and manipulated the witnesses resulting in denials, prevarications, concealments and lies by the witnesses from the truth being brought out.The evidence of Dr. Anil Singhal, Ct.Inderjeet Singh, Ct.Satender Pal Singh; Shivani Gaur; Bharti Yadav; Bhawna Yadav; Sultan Singh; Bharat Diwakar; Gaurav Gupta and amongst others exemplifies the manner in which the influence of these appellants has prevented the complete truth being revealed.Instead, false evidence has been Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1097 introduced through related witnesses.While Ct. Satender Pal Singh told the trial court he was feeling hopeless in the witness box, Bharat Diwakar went silent for a long time when asked by the prosecutor to name the persons suspected by the mother of the deceased.The only public witness Ajay Kumar who could not be influenced and stood by his statement has needed court orders for police protection and is being subjected to multiple criminal complaints by relatives of the appellants or persons associated to them.The fact that all these complaints and cases arose only after he surfaced before the police speaks for itself.The accused persons also misled the police during investigation and deliberately led it on an inter state chase for recovery of the Tata Safari vehicle, causing wastage of valuable human resources, unwarranted expenditure from public funds and diverted course of investigation.We have tried to answer the question raised by Mr. U.R.Especially one who was also perceived to be of a lesser economic status.Thereafter after searching for the same amongst the clump of pattel' bushes, which were two to three feet high, Vikas Yadav got recovered an iron hammer with blood stains on its narrow end.Vishal Yadav searched in another clump of pattel bushes and got recovered therefrom a wrist watch of the make Espirit.A joint recovery memo of the articles was recorded on the spot itself which was signed by Vikas and Vishal Yadav and given to the counsel Shri Satpal Singh Yadav there and then who acknowledged its receipt on the document.(xix) On the 28th of February 2002, Vikas and Vishal Yadav thereafter deliberately misled the police and took them Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1121 to three places in Alwar (Rajasthan) to search for Tata Safari vehicle which was obviously not there.(xx) On the 11th March, 2002, Vikas and Vishal Yadav jointly misled the police to the taxi stand behind Shamshan Ghat (cremation ground) in Panipat to search for the Tata Safari which was again not there, and, enroute to Chandigarh for the same purpose, got recovered the Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration no.PB-07H 0085 recovered from the burnt down factory premises of M/s A.B. Coltex Limited.The management of this firm was controlled by Oswal Sugar Limited, a company in which Shri D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav was a Director.The recovered Tata Safari Vehicle was also owned by the same company.This wrist watch was identified by Nilam Katara, mother of the deceased as the watch worn by the deceased Nitish Katara on 16th February, 2002 to the wedding.(xxiii) The appellant Sukhdev @ Pehalwan remained absconding for over three and half years despite Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1122 extensive searches, raids; issuance of coercive process; attachment even at his native village.He could be arrested only on the 23rd of February, 2005 after he fired at police patrol party.We have noted above the submissions of ld.Additional Standing Counsel for the State premised on the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the reversal of burden of proof.We have also discussed the explanation of the appellants and the evidence led by the defence and that the appellants miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof upon them to show as to what happened to the deceased after he was last seen alive in their company.The appellants were required to establish that they parted company with each other and/or the deceased, and the circumstances in which they had done so as well.The appellant have failed to discharge this burden.The conviction Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1177 was challenged on the ground that the accused had an immunity against being called as a witness.for the complainant.This application came up for hearing on the 25th of February 2013 when Mr.Dayan Krishnan, learned Additional Standing Counsel sought time to take instructions.In the meantime we had issued directions for production of the medical record of Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1182 the appellant as well as details of his treatment from the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi.Pursuant to our orders, a report dated 25 th February, 2013 of the Senior Medical Officer of the Central Jail, Tihar as well as the Superintendent of Central Jail No.5, Tihar Jail was placed before us.By our orders dated 28th February, 2013, we had directed that a more detailed report with regard to the treatment administered to the appellant as well as requirements for treatment of the conditions noted in the report submitted be also brought on record.Pursuant to the said order, a report dated 6th March, 2013 was received from Superintendent, Central Jail No.5 to the effect that the patient had already recovered 80% and that his general condition was satisfactory.The application has thereafter not been pressed before us.No other complaint has been made before us with regard to either the health of the appellant or the treatment which he may be requiring.This application has been filed by Vishal Yadav seeking permission to lead additional evidence and summoning Kamal Kishore as a court witness in Crl.This application dated 18th February, 2013 has been filed for summoning a person to testify about the events which took place in the night intervening 16th/17th February, 2002 i.e. eleven years ago.The application was filed at a stage when arguments on behalf of all the three appellants; the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State as well as Shri P.K. Dey, the learned counsel for the complainant, stood concluded.The trial court record shows that Kamal Kishore was cited as a prosecution witness and extensive steps were taken to summon him.During the course of arguments in the appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the present applicant that the case against Vishal Yadav deserves to be rejected for the reason that a material witness who established his defence namely Kamal Kishore has not been examined by the prosecution.The prayer in the application rests on a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. dated 18th February, 2002 attributed to Kamal Kishore.The prosecution and the complainant have answered the appellant's case on the non-A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1184 production of Kamal Kishore.Several serious anomalies in the statement attributed to him have been pointed out.During arguments on the appeal, when this submission was pressed before us, we had queried learned senior counsel for the applicant as to why Kamal Kishore could not have been examined as a defence witness.The applicant opposed the same placing judicial precedents in support before us which we have considered.The applicant had argued that it was legally impermissible for the appellant to summon Kamal Kishore as a defence witness.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1185We have recorded detailed observations about the statement attributed to Kamal Kishore in the main appeal.The reasons apply to this application as well.By this application, the applicant has prayed for directions to search for photographs which were exhibited on trial court record as Exh.DW-1/1 to Exh.DW-1/2 to Exh.DW-1/3 as well as negatives on record.Our attention was drawn to an envelope which was placed at page 531 of Vol.13 of LCR on which it was noted as follows:-On the cover page (table) of Vol.13, it was indicated as follows:We had directed that the tape on the envelope be opened.However the envelope was found to be empty.We had passed an order dated 18th December, 2012 on the present application directing Ms. R. Kiran Nath, Registrar (Vigilance) to take steps to trace out the photographs Exh.DW-1/D1 to Exh.Pursuant to our order, the Registrar (Vigilance) has filed a detailed report dated 19th January, 2013 after recording statements of four persons which included the Ahlmad of the learned trial court; concerned Senior Judicial Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1187 Assistant from this court as well as Project Manager and Supervisor in the Scanning Branch of this court where the lower court record was digitalized.The operative part of the report reads as follows:Thus, from the statement of all these witnesses, it emerges on record that the Ahlmad of the learned trial court examined as IW-1 had apparently put the documents, the marriage card and envelope Ex.DW1/5-1 to DW1/5-5 as also the missing documents i.e. photographs Ex.DW-1/D1 to DW- 1/D-3 and negatives Ex.01 to 03 in the said Government stationery envelope, a copy of which is Ex.The said Government envelope was folded into four folds sealed and cello tape affixed and then tagged at the end of this file.The holes made by the said tagging through the said four folds can also be seen clearly.The marks A' to A' and B' to B' in green on the said envelope government stationery envelope numbered 531 in the file also show that the seals had been put in the fashion as explained by the Ahlmad.IW-1/1 is the photocopy of the scanning of the Government stationery envelope having the printed matter On India Government Service written on top of the said envelope.Thus there arises a possibility of their having taken out the documents lying inside this envelope as a result of which the documents Ex.IW- 1/2 came to be scanned on record.It thus appears that the documents were there in the said sealed envelope Ex.IW-1/1 when the same was sent to the scanning branch; the seals were opened there and the contents of the documents contained inside the envelope Ex.IW-1/1 were apparently mishandled in the scanning branch.The digitalized record of a card which was also lying in the above sealed cover is available on the file.This shows that in the scanning branch the sealed envelope was opened and the photographs have been mishandled there at that point.The photographs were produced before the learned court and had been exhibited by the trial court.In the judgment dated 28th May, 2008, the learned trial judge has commented on the photographs.The learned Trial Judge has commented on the same.We have found that the appellants produced morphed photographs in the defence evidence before the trial judge.The loss of documents from court record is undoubtedly a serious matter and we propose to refer a report of the Registrar (Vigilance) to the Registrar General for placing the report before concerned Committee of this court for examining the matter and taking action.This application has been filed on 28th July, 2008 under Section 311 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant, seeking permission to lead additional evidence by examining/re- examining/cross-examining the following witnesses; (i) Shri Subhash Yadav (ii) Shri P.L. Sharma, allegedly present at the time of the alleged sting operation conducted upon a prosecution witness; Ajay Katara and his security guards (i) Sanjay Kumar (ii) Shiv Kumar (iii) Pankaj Kumar (iv) Tanu wife of Ajay Katara and her parents Radhey Shyam and Smt. Urmila.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The said Natarajan has alleged that he is an educated unemployed person, that he came to know through a person that this petitioner is capable of securing jobs for the unemployed, that therefore, he met him at Madras and explained his difficulties as he is unemployed, that the petitioner stated that he is having influence and connection with political personalities and it would not be difficult for him to secure a job for the complainant, that he obtained his bio-data and asked him to meet at intervals so that in the meanwhile, he could arrange for his job, that on 6-9-1987, he took him to Vellore P.W.D. office stating that he had arranged for a job as M.N.R., that making him to wait outside the P.W.D. office, he alone entered into the office and came out within 10 minutes telling him that he had told the officer to appoint him in the same office and the orders would be issued in two or three days and before that he should meet him at Madras.It is further stated in the complaint that he did not go to Madras to meet him, but even after two weeks as he did not receive the order of appointment, he met the petitioner, who scolded him for not meeting him within two days as directed and unless he was paid Rs. 4,000/- as bribe, he would not get the order of appointment from the P.W.D. office, that the complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs. 4,000/- as he is very poor and thereafter the petitioner ultimately asked him to pay Rs. 500/- within two days and pay the balance after the receipt of the orders for the job.The prosecution version is that on this complaint of the complainant, a trap was arranged and the petitioner was caught by the Inspector of Police when he received Rs. 500/- from the complainant.The petitioner accused would challenge this proceedings on the ground that as he did not abuse his position as a public servant in discharging of his duties for securing a job to the complainant, that as the job offered to the complainant was in the P.W.D. office at Vellore with which he has no connection, that as he is working as Junior Accountant in the office of the Director of Accounts, Tamil Nadu Postal Circle, which has nothing to do with the P.W.D. office in Vellore.This petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 5/88 pending on the file of the VII Additional Special Judge, Madras.The petitioner was working as Junior Accountant in the office of the Director of Accounts, Tamil Nadu Postal Circle, situated in Commander-in-Chief Road, Madras, and the respondent police has filed a charge-sheet against him for the offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on or about 13-10-1987, he demanded and collected Rs. 500/- from one Natarajan as illegal gratification promising to secure a job for him at P.W.D. office at Vellore, by abusing his position as a public servant.The prosecution has been launched against this petitioner on the complaint of one C. Natarajan.Criminal misconduct.Petition dismissed.

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee,J.)

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the prosecutionstory, on 6th October, 2011 while the prosecutrix (PW 10) was on herway carrying meals for her parents who were working in the fields,the appellant approached her from behind when she was going onthe road in between his fields, and started abusing her.When sheprotested, the appellant overpowered and pushed her as a result ofwhich she fell down on the ground.N.V. RAMANA, J.This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 3 rd March,2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the orderpassed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting theappellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506,IPC.The facts giving rise to this appeal are that at the instance ofthe prosecutrix (PW-10) an F.I.R. dated 6 th October, 2001 was lodged 2at the Police Station Old Faridabad, Haryana against the appellantinvoking Sections 376 and 506, IPC.The appellant then gagged hermouth and forcibly took her to the nearby ‘arhar’ fields and committedrape on her.After the case was registered, investigation commenced andthe prosecutrix was got medically examined on 6 th October, 2001itself.The accused appellant was arrested on the next day and hewas also got medically examined.After recording the statement ofprosecutrix under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the case property was sent toForensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and the case wascommitted to the Court of Session.Subsequently, charges underSections 376 and 506, IPC were framed against the accusedappellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.While the prosecution in all examined as many as 12 witnessesto substantiate its allegations against the accused, there were twodefence witnesses.Dr. Meenu Kapoor, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad(PW 8) who medically examined the prosecutrix opined that therewas possible sexual intercourse, but there was no external injurymark anywhere on the body of the prosecutrix.She deposed beforethe Trial Court that human semen was detected on undergarments ofthe victim.Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW 2 who examined the accused appellantfound nothing which could suggest that the accused could notperform sexual intercourse.He also noticed bone injuries on the rightforearm, left hand, right shoulder and right leg of the accused, whichare simple in nature.7. PW-11, father of the victim supported the prosecution story.Hedeposed that after hearing the noise of his daughter, he reached thespot and saw the accused running.When he tried to apprehend theaccused, he ran away.It is the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that theprosecutrix had intentionally implicated him in this case as she had 4developed personal grudge against him because he along with hisfather (DW 1) and one Zile Singh (DW 2) visited the house of theprosecutrix and made a complaint to her father the she had beenkeeping bad company with some boys and asked her father to keepan eye on her.This resulted in an altercation between them andconsequently the prosecutrix warned them that she would implicatethe appellant in a false case.The Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of thecase, more particularly relying on the FSL report (Ext. P1), came tothe conclusion that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidencein order to bring home the guilt of the accused, and accordingly, theappellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, indefault, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of oneyear, for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC.For theoffence punishable under Section 506, IPC the appellant wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay afine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twomonths.However, the substantive sentences were directed to runconcurrently.Dealing with the appeal preferred by the accused, the SingleJudge of the High Court fully concurred with the order of the TrialCourt convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences.TheHigh Court, therefore, referred the matter to the Juvenile JusticeBoard to find out whether on the day of incident, the appellant wasornot.Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge ofthe High Court, the appellant approached this Court by this appeal.6This Court, while granting special leave to appeal on 3 rd September,2012, directed the appellant to be released on bail.Before us, it is strenuously contended by the counsel for theappellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the defenceof the appellant who was falsely implicated in the case.It was on account of thealtercation that took place when the appellant party brought to thenotice of the father of prosecutrix about her illicit relationship withsome boys, the prosecutrix warned the appellant that she will takerevenge by implicating him in a false case.He also submitted thatthe Courts below have erred in relying on the statement of prosecutrixthat the appellant pushed her twice, gagged her mouth and draggedher holding both hands on the dry field of the Arhar and forciblycommitted rape.The other ground taken by the counsel is that the prosecutrixhas falsely implicated the appellant as his father (DW 1) hascomplained to her father that she was roaming around with thecompany of some boys and hence she has threatened that she willimplicate the appellant falsely to take revenge for complaining againsther, but this plea has also no basis.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Shanthi and is a practising lawyer.They were living at No.15, Post Office Street, Sholinghur.P.W.7, the daughter, and P.W.8, the son, were all residing at Bangalore during the relevant time.P.W.3 was working as a servant-maid in the house of P.W.1 for more than three decades.P.W.2 was working in a medical shop just opposite to the house of P.W.1. P.W.4 was residing in the next house to that of P.W.1. P.W.4 and the deceased Shanthi were moving closely.Shanthi used to take bath by 6'O Clock daily, go and do the house work.Whenever P.W.1 goes to the Court, the deceased used to stand and send him to the Court.(b) On the date of occurrence that was on 23.4.2004, P.W.1 as usual, went to the Court work.P.W.3 after finishing her work, left the place.At that time, the deceased alone was in the house.P.W.4 after doing her work on 23.4.2004, prepared some eatables in view of the birthday of the child and went to the house of the deceased and knocked the door, but it was not opened.Then she entertained a doubt and went to the backyard of the house which was kept open.She got inside and found the deceased lying.When she went near, she found her dead.M.O.2, chair, was found placed on her face.Then P.W.4 raised alarm, and P.Ws.2 and 5 rushed.They immediately informed to P.W.1, who rushed over there, and immediately took his wife in an auto of P.W.9 to the Government Hospital, where she was declared dead.(c) At about 1.00 P.M., P.W.1 went to the respondent police station where he gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by one Anbazhagan, the Inspector of Police, who was on duty that time, in Crime No.271 of 2004 under Sections 454, 380 and 302 of IPC.The express FIR, Ex.P33, was despatched to the Court.(d) The said Inspector of Police Mr.Anbazhagan took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then he recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.He conducted inquest on the dead body of Shanthi in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.A requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy.(e) The autopsy was conducted by P.Ws.10 and 11, the Assistant Surgeons, attached to the Government Hospital, Sholinghur, on the dead body of Shanthi and have issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.The same was recorded.Consequent upon the same, the material objects were recovered.He gave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded.The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.The fine amounts if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II)2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:P4, with their opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia probably due to strangulation.(f) Pursuant to the orders passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned, the investigation was taken up by the CB CID from 9.7.2004 onwards, and it was taken up by P.W.30, the Inspector of Police.Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by one Kirubanandam, the Inspector of Police.He examined P.Ws.16, 17 and 18 and recorded their statements.(g) P.W.33, the Inspector of Police, attached to the CB CID, took up further investigation.He examined P.Ws.16 to 18 and recorded their statements.P.W.16 was also a co-convict.Also P.W.17 saw both A-1 and A-2 nearby the place of occurrence, and P.W.18 is the person to whom A-2, the appellant herein, gave a confessional statement.He gave a confessional statement voluntarily.They were sent for judicial remand.(h) Pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, polygraph, brain mapping and NARCO analysis were conducted for A-1 and A-2, and reports were also received which were marked as Exs.P35 to P39 respectively.All the material objects were sent to the Forensic Sciences Department for the purpose of analysis, which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P17, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P18, the serologist's report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed.Pending trial, A-1 died, and hence the trial was proceeded so far as A-2, the present appellant, is concerned.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 33 witnesses and also relied on 49 exhibits and 19 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the charges levelled against the appellant and hence found him guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.Commenting on the same, the learned Counsel would submit that P.W.16 himself was a convict; that apart from that, he has categorically admitted that A-2 came out on bail even before he came out, and under the circumstances, there is no question of A-2 making any confession just one day prior to P.W.16 coming out of prison, and on that ground, it has got to be rejected.6.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as P.W.17 was concerned, according to the prosecution, he saw both A-1 and A-2 near the place of occurrence; that the occurrence has taken place on 23.4.2004; that as far as this witness is concerned, his statement was recorded after a lapse of number of months and it has reached the Court along with the charge sheet; that if really P.W.17 had seen both A-1 and A-2 nearby the place of occurrence and it also came to the knowledge of everybody and that too in a public place, and he actually died within a short span of time, one would expect P.W.17 or a reasonable conduct of a prudent person to go and inform the same, but not done so; that this would also be indicative of the fact that P.W.17 could not have seen both of them at the place of occurrence; that as far as P.W.18 was concerned, according to the prosecution, it was he to whom A-2 made a confessional statement; that it would be quite evident from the reading of the same that his signature which was actually found therein, was not marked; that P.W.18 has categorically stated that the statement was actually made by him in respect of the act of A-1 and not in respect of the act of A-2; that it would be quite clear that it cannot be considered to be a confessional statement made by A-2 or anything inculpatory, and under the circumstances, his statement cannot also be accepted.7.As far as the recovery of ingot is concerned, the learned Counsel would submit that it also casts a doubt; that according to the Investigator, A-1 was arrested on 2.3.2007, and he was kept in custody for number of days, and then he came forward to give a confessional statement on the strength of which A-2 was also arrested, and it was recovered; that it is pertinent to point out that P.W.22 is the witness in that regard; that according to him, A-2 at the time of confession, came forward to state that all the material objects recovered, were actually in the custody of P.Ws.24 to 26; that if it is found to be correct, the recovery of the ingot allegedly made, cannot but be false; that there are lot of discrepancies also found in the evidence in respect of the alleged confessional statement and recovery of the ingot; that all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that under the circumstances, he is entitled for acquittal, but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest made by the Inspector of Police, Anbazhagan, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.Ws.10 and 11, the Doctors, who have given a categorical opinion as a witnesses before the Court and also through the contents of the postmortem certificate that she died out of asphyxia due to strangulation.The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution before the trial Court was never disputed by the appellant.Under the circumstances, the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so.10.In order to substantiate that the appellant/accused along with the other deceased accused made criminal trespass into the house of the deceased, caused her death and also stolen her jewels, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.First of all, the appellant and the other accused made a confessional statement to P.W.16, a co-convict, who is actually in prison at Vellore.According to P.W.16, 10 or 15 days prior to his release, A-1 and A-2 were brought in.Though he has stated in the chief-examination that A-1 and A-2 made a confessional statement in respect of the incident in question one day prior to his release, he has candidly admitted at the time of cross-examination that A-2 was released from jail even before he was released.Thus it would be quite clear that A-2 could not have made any confession at all.On that ground, his evidence is liable to be rejected.11.Insofar as P.W.17, he would claim that he saw A-1 and A-2 nearby the place of occurrence.If to be so, after coming to know about the death of Shanthi, the wife of P.W.1, which was also known to the public, one would expect P.W.17 to bring the same to the notice of anybody, but he has kept silent all along the period, and his statement was recorded by P.W.33, the Inspector of Police, CB CID, after he took up investigation, and that too, after a long lapse of time, and it also reached the Court along with the charge sheet.The long silence on the part of P.W.17 would clearly belie his evidence.12.As far as P.W.18 is concerned, according to him, A-2 was known to him, and he also made a confessional statement and the same was to be relied upon, according to the prosecution before the trial Court.Hence this part of the evidence could not be used by the prosecution.13.The last piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution, was the recovery of M.Os.15 and 16, ingots, which were actually recovered.P.W.22 is the witness examined for that purpose.According to him, A-2 identified P.Ws.24 to 26 with whom all the material objects were given custody.If to be so, the evidence as claimed by the prosecution that these articles and the contraband were also with the same person cannot be accepted.Hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal, and the judgment of the trial Court has got to be made undone by upsetting the same.16.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II) Ranipet Through The Principal District and Sessions Judge Vellore Vellore District3.The Inspector of Police CB CID Sholinghur Police Station Vellore District4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Vellore6.The District Collector Vellore District Vellore8.The Section Officer Criminal Side Section High Court Madras 600 104

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

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

Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.116/2018 registered at Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal, under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, between 11.2.2018 to 14.2.2018 a theft occurred in the residential house of complainant Shabbir Khan situated at Ekta Bilal Colony under the jurisdiction of Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal.On the morning of 14.2.2018, when the neighbor of the complainant informed about the theft to the complainant, the complainant and his son have reached their house, they found that some jewelry items of gold and silver including cash were stolen after breaking the doors of the house.Complainant Shabbir Khan had lodged the report against unknown person.Later on, during the course of investigation applicant and other co-accused persons have been arrested.On interrogation, the applicant has admitted the commission of theft.On his information some of the stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.The applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application.He is ready to furnish adequate surety and The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-14734-2019 (JAVED Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him.There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.The charge sheet in the matter is yet to be filed and the trial will take long time to conclude.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the applicant and also looking to the period of detention of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Ramkishan Prajapati, is allowed.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2019.04.16 17:59:26 +05'30'

['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The accused and the deceased were married three years prior to the occurrence.They were closely related but the marriage was an unhappy one and there had been frequent quarrels between the couple, the accused often indulging in acts of violence on the deceased.There is evidence that, about month prior to the occurrence, at a Panchayat convened, the parties agreed to sever the marital relationship and the accused left for Bangalore.On the day of occurrence, 15-9-1964 when the deceased, with 15 other women, was transplanting paddy seedlings in the field of one Muthammal (P. W. 8) at about 10 a.m. the accused came on the scene and called the deceased out.As she was delaying response to his call, the accused entered on the puddled field and dragged her out by the tuft to a place three fields off.There while the deceased was tying up her dishevelled hair, the accused pulled out a koduval which he had concealed1 under his clothes and delivered on her several1 cuts indiscriminately on the neck, right shoulder, left wrist and so on.The women folk who had been transplanting seedlings along with the deceased got frightened and raised hue and cry; and the accused left the place, proceeded to Melpadi police station and presented himself, with the koduval before the Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 30) who was then in charge of the station.The deceased had fallen on the puddled field.JUDGMENT Natesan, J.The villagers who gathered there lifted and placed her on acot under neighbouring banian tree.There were multiple injuries on the deceased, one of the cuts practically severing the left hand.Blood was oozing from the wounds.P. W. 30, the Sub-Inspector of Police, reached the scene of occurrence at about 12-45 p.m. and the deceased was immediately sent to the Government Pentlar Hospital, Vellore.The woman Civil Asst.Surgeon attached to the hospital Dr. Bhuvaneshwari (P. W. 10) examined the deceased at about 4-45 p.m. and noticed her seven external injuries.The first injury was an incised wound on the back of the left forearm, all the extensor tendons cut and the left hand lying loose attached by the skin and facie of the anterior aspect of the forearm, The second was a lacerated injury over the right shoulder about 5 inches by 4 inches exposing the shoulder joint, head of the humerus being exposed with two cuts in the head of the humerus.According to P. W. 10, injuries 1 and 2 were grievous and the others, simple.She gave her opinion that, if the seven injuries were not attended to, they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The cause of death was stated to be,.on post mortem examination by P. W. 10, "septicaemia caused by delayed complications of multiple injuries".One Dr. Jayalakshmii (P. W. 17) actually treated the deceased.the date of the occurrence, shortly after the admission in the hospital, the services of a Magistrate were requisitioned and a dying declaration of the deceased recorded.On 15-9 1964 itself after the dying declaration had been recorded, the left wrist was amputated.There can be no doubt whatsoever that the injuries on the body of the deceased were inflicted by the deceased.some of the women who were transplanting seedlings along with the deceased, are eye witnesses to the occurrence.P. W. 12 is another eye witness.P. C. and on death the charge was converted into one under Section 302, I. P. C.In view of the overwhelming evidence of the eye witnesses who had seen the accused inflicting the multiple injuries with the koduval (M. O. 5) on the deceased, the occurrence taking place in broad daylight, there need be no hesitancy in the finding that the accused gave the cuts on the deceased with the koduval (M. O. 5) one of the cuts practically severing the left hand.It is necessary also to refer here to the evidence of P. W. 13 who is a close relation of the accused.On the day of occurrence, when P. W. 13 was ploughing his field, he saw the accused who had left for Bangalore after the forma] divorce at the caste Panchayat coming that day.When he questioned, the accused stated to P. W. 13, in a vexed tone that he had neither wife nor child, that it was immaterial whether he lived on this earth or was dead, and that he would that day settle with Anusooya in one way, or other.P. W. 13 deposes that he had advised not to do anything hastily.It is after this conversation that the accused proceeded towaids the field where the women were transplanting with the deceased.On the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused went there to inflict the injuries with the intention of causing them, and that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, He, therefore, concluded that the accused was guilty of an offence coming under the third clause of Section 300, I. P. C. Taking into consideration the age of the accused and the unhappy married life, the learned Sessions Judge felt that the circumstances did not warrant the extreme penalty of law and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life.The injured died 50 days after the occurrence in question.She had been taken to the hospital with promptitude and according to the medical witnesses all available medical help was rendered.The deceased had meanwhile been in the hospital putting a gallant fight for life.

['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A Statutory Auditor of the Chalisgaon Peoples Cooperative BankLtd., Chalisgaon (hereinafter referred to as "bank") by name NarayanDruptrao Gadhekar lodged the FIR with Chalisgaon police inter alia allegingthat the Chairman, Directors, Managers, staff and few borrowers haveindulged in forgery, fabrication of record and have misappropriated anamount in aggregate of Rs.5,51,23,000/- of the bank.He alleged that theChairman and the Directors of the bank disbursed loans to their near anddear ones without obtaining necessary security against the loan.2. Rule.The Rule is made returnable forthwith.Learned A.P.P.waives service for the respondent No.1/State.With the consent of both ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 2 criwp980-2018the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::So far as thepetitioner is concerned, he alleged that he along with his brother Ajit werethe partners of a firm namely M/s Uma Agencies.Ajit applied for a loan ofRs.10,00,000/- with the bank on 31.03.2004 for and on behalf of thepartnership firm.The loan was sanctioned on the same day and withoutobtaining any security, it was also disbursed and thus, on the date of the ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 3 criwp980-2018filing of FIR, the firm was due and payable to the bank an amount ofRs.19,01,761/-.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::The petitioner filed an application (Exh-236) seeking dischargeunder Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, by the order dated28.10.2014, rejected the application.By the impugnedjudgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the Revision.Hence,this Writ Petition.The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that thoughthe petitioner was a partner in the partnership firm M/s Uma Agencies, hewas inducted in the partnership when he was barely nine years old.Hisbrother Ajit and the mother were the two active partners.He was residing inMumbai since 1997 and was in a permanent employment.He was neverconcerned with the activities of the firm which was running a petrol pump atChalisgaon.She would submit that even he resigned and stood retired fromthe firm with effect from 01.04.2004 and necessary information was alsogiven to the Registrar of Firms.The learned Advocate would then submit that though Ajit hadapplied for the loan stating it to be for and on behalf of the partnership firm,there was no record to show that the firm had derived any benefit or hadactually received the money.Assuming that Ajit had declared that he was ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 4 criwp980-2018applying for loan for and on behalf of M/s Uma Agencies, that would not bebinding on the firm.He was not directed or authorized to avail of the loanfor and on behalf of the firm.In his application on the basis of which theloan was sanctioned to him, it has been clearly mentioned that he wanted themoney for construction of a complex and his such need had no nexus withthe business of the partnership firm.Therefore, at the most, it would be apersonal liability of petitioner's brother Ajit and the firm cannot be heldresponsible for the debt much less for any criminal liability.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::Merely because the loan was applied for andon behalf of the partnership firm only a day prior to his resignation from thepartnership firm, he cannot be held criminally liable to face the prosecution.Considering the ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 5 criwp980-2018liability as a pious obligation, Ajit's son accepted the liability and repaid theloan together with interest to the bank on 18.02.2016 and also obtained a nodues certificate from the bank.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::Thus, according to the learned Advocate, when even in thematter in hand the petitioner is not signatory to the application for loan andthere is no other material prima facie showing that he had also taken part inthe alleged misappropriation, there is no substance to frame the charge and itbeing groundless, he may be discharged.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::6 criwp980-2018The learned A.P.P. supported the orders passed by both the Courtsbelow and submitted that when the two Courts below have taken aconcurrent view about existence of prima facie material, this Court shouldnot invoke the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The learned Advocate for the respondent No.2, which is thebank, submitted that there is enough material to show that Ajit had appliedfor the loan for and on behalf of the partnership firm.In fact, he had availedof several other loans in his individual capacity as well as for and on behalf ofother establishments apart from the partnership firm M/s Uma Agencies.Several other criminal cases of similar kind were initiated against him even inrespect of those loan transactions.He would submit that the loan in questionwas specifically applied for and on behalf of the partnership firm and merelybecause of the fact that the petitioner resigned on the next day or that theamount of loan has been repaid with interest would not wash out thecriminality.Not only the Chairman, Directors and office bearers of the bankbut even the borrowers have indulged in criminal activity and have duped thebank by misappropriating the public money by disbursing loans withoutinsisting for any security.The learned Advocate would submit that it wouldbe a convenient plea for the petitioner now to claim discharge by feigningignorance.When he has been a partner in the firm since the age of nineyears and allowed the activities of the firm to continue till he resigned on01.04.2004, he cannot be allowed to be heard for not being aware about the ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 7 criwp980-2018activities of his brother Ajit, particularly when, even according to thepetitioner, he was not actually taking part in the day-today affairs of thefirm.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::I have carefully gone through the papers and the orders passedby the two Courts below.The charge as against the petitioner is to the effectthat he along with his brother Ajit has managed to obtain the loan ofRs.10,00,000/- without furnishing necessary security and this they have doneby sharing common intention with the Chairman, Directors and officers of thebank.Taking into account the fact that the respondent No.2, which is a bankand the FIR has been lodged by its Special Auditor, one can safely proceed onthe premise that he must have gone through the entire record of the bankwhile arriving at such a conclusion of the partnership firm having obtainedthe loan of Rs.10,00,000/- without furnishing security.The details thereofhave been clearly narrated in the FIR.It would not be out of place to mention at this juncture that it isnot an isolated instance in respect of the present loan transaction.The FIRrefers to various such transactions wherein number of borrowers have availedthe loans without furnishing security and details of those transactions havebeen given in the FIR.Needless to state that taking into account the modusoperendi, it cannot be a handy work of a person or two.The Chairman andDirectors as well as officers of the bank must have acted in unison with the ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 8 criwp980-2018borrowers without which it could not have been possible for so manyborrowers to obtain loans in a similar fashion without furnishing securities.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::It does appear that in fact, only the brother of the petitioner -Ajit had applied for the loan while submitting the application on 31.03.2004.Pertinently, the chargesheet also contains a letter addressed by the Managerof the bank to its Chairman of the same date wherein it has been mentionedthat Ajit had submitted an application on that day requesting for a loan ofRs.10,00,000/- on behalf of M/s Uma Agencies, the partnership firm.It refersto some discussion between the Manager and the Chairman and that Ajitwanted that money for enabling him to deposit it against a loan obtained forconstruction of a complex which was outstanding with Jalgaon JanataSahakari Bank.It then refers to Chairman having called the Manager to hisshop and having asked him to pay the loan in the name of the firm withoutinsisting for security of fixed deposits.This writing clearly indicates that theChairman and the Manager have consciously, sharing a common intentionwith Ajit, managed to disburse the loan without insisting for any security.This prima facie shows that it is indeed a matter involving criminality.According to the petitioner, he has been serving in Mumbaiwhereas the firm has its business at Chalisgaon and that the firm has been inexistence and he was inducted therein at the age of nine years.On the dateof the petition he is aged 56 years.At this juncture it cannot be believed thatAjit, who was his brother, was carrying on the activities of the partnership ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 ::: 9 criwp980-2018firm without any consultation with the petitioner.It is also not clear as towhy and how the petitioner resigned from the partnership firm on the verynext day of obtaining the loan in question.It cannot be a sheer chance.Atleast there is nothing to demonstrate that it was merely a coincidence.Besides, the petitioner also has not made clear as to what prompted him toresign on the very next day.Again there is no material to show that soon aftertendering resignation from the firm, at any moment during the lifetime ofAjit, who unfortunately died in 2013, when the FIR was lodged in the year2004, he had taken any action against Ajit for obtaining such loan undermisrepresentation, may be to avoid any liability.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::The learned Advocate for the petitionerhas, therefore, requested to adopt a similar course even in the matter inhand.In support of her submission, she also placed reliance on the decisionsof the Supreme Court in the cases of Sharon Michael and Ors.I find no sufficient and cogentreason but to subscribe to the concurrent view taken by the two Courts belowand do not find that the charge to be groundless.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::12 criwp980-2018The Writ Petition is dismissed.The interim relief granted standsvacated.The Rule is discharged.[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGEnpj/criwp980-2018 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:05:28 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

/307/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Sk.Asfar Ali Mondal @ Asphar Ali Mondal & Anr.... ... petitioners Mr. Debajyori Deb, Mr. Pabitra Biswas ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dadpur P.S. Case No. 132 of 2018 dated 12.09.2018 under Sections 341/323/325/324/307/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that following a land dispute with the de facto complainant and his associates, a fight broke out and injuries were suffered on either side.The State says that though the allegations are that the de facto complainant and his associates were attacked by swords, the injuries do not appear to be of any serious consequence.Considering the nature of the incident and extent of the injuries suffered, there may not be any need to take the petitioners into custody.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Court No.28 Sl No.19 AP CRM 153 of 2020 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.01.2020 in connection with Ketugram Police Station Case No. 217 of 2019 dated 19.07.2019 under Sections 341/325/354B/323/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Anil Dutta ....Petitioners.Mr. Brijesh Jha, Mr. T. Tewari, Mr. R.R. Kumar ...for the Petitioners.Mr. R. Nandy ...for the State.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials on record disclosing prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime and as he does not stand on the same footing with the co-accused persons who have been granted pre-arrest bail, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is thus, rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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

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

No.3 akd [INTERIM BAIL] C. R. M. 989 of 2019 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.01.2019 in connection with Udaynarayanpur Police Station Case No. 122 of 2018 dated 06.11.2018 under Sections 306/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Kailash Mondal @ Deep ... ... Petitioner Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Binay Kumar Panda .. Advocate Mrs. Puspita Saha .. Advocate ... ... for the State Report filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Howrah (Rural) District be kept with the record.In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On hearing the shouts of the complainant when his father Lallu Singh, wife Guddo Bai came to save him, then the respondent No.5 slapped the wife of the complainant and the respondent No.4 gave a lathi blow on the right hand of the father of the complainant.Thereafter, at about 12 in the night, the witness Mukesh Kushwah took the complainant, his father and his wife to the office of Superintendent of Police where the guard advised him to come in the next morning.On the next day, when the complainant went to the office of Superintendent of Police to lodge the FIR, he was sent to the office of SDO (P) from where they were sent for medical examination.The statement of the complainant and his 3 M.Cr.This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 21/09/2016 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Revision No.82/2016 arising out of the order dated 11/07/2016 passed by JMFC, Guna in Criminal Complaint No. Unregistered/2015 by which the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 200 of CrPC for offences under Sections 341, 452, 323, 294, 394 of IPC was dismissed.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition are that a criminal complaint was filed by the applicant under Section 200 of CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 294, 341, 452, 323, 394 r/w 34 of IPC.The allegations as made in the complaint are that the respondents No.4 & 5 are working as constables and are posted in Police Station Kotwali, District Guna.On 05.04.2015, at about 11:30 in the night, while the complainant was going inside his house, at that time, both the respondents No.4 & 5 came on a motorcycle and started abusing the complainant and said that where he is going in the night.When the complainant objected to the abusive language used by the respondents, then the respondent 2 M.Cr.C.No.554/2017 (Pappu (alias) Harnarayan v. State of M.P. & Ors.) No.5 caught hold the complainant and the respondent No.4 gave 25-30 lathis blows on his legs.The respondents No.4 & 5 thereafter forcibly entered in the house of the complainant and by throwing him on the ground he was badly beaten.From the District Hospital Guna, the complainant, his father, his wife and his mother were forcibly taken to the Police Station Kotwali, Guna where a false criminal case was registered against them.On these allegations, the complaint was filed.In the present case, while applying its mind to the facts of the case, if certain contradictions in the statements of the witnesses has been taken into consideration by the Magistrate then it cannot be said that he has travelled beyond his jurisdiction.8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR No. 500/97 registered at PS Shakarpur under Sections 498A/406, IPC registered on the complaint of petitioner No. 2 his wife.It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 and his wife (P2) had resolved their disputes and started living together and that petitioner No. 2 did not want to pursue her complaint now against any of the accused mentioned in this FIR.Petitioner No. 2 (wife) was examined by the Court.She stated that she wanted to live happily with her husband (petitioner No. 1) and that she had lodged the complaint registered in FIR out of matrimonial disputes between them and had also arrayed relations of her husband (petitioners 3 to 8) as accused in that FIR.She further stated that she was withdrawing all allegations made against them.Her statement was also recorded separately.

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

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

The order dated 20.11.2003 evidencing the same is on record.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 1 of 33The substratum of the charge as against the appellant, who was Sub Inspector, is of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Praveen Kumar, the complainant.The case set up by the prosecution against the appellant is briefly enunciated as under:-(i) The complainant, PW-2 is in the business of property dealing and had engaged one Ms Neelam Rani as a receptionist in connection with his work at WZ 47 Lajwanti Garden Chowk, New Delhi, but had terminated her services on 26.06.1995 after clearing her dues.It was alleged that on 24.07.1995, the appellant accompanied by Virender Kumar and the said Neelam CRL.A.461/2003 Page 2 of 33 Rani came to his office.The appellant informed him that the said Neelam Rani had made a complaint alleging that PW2 owed Rs.5,000/- to her.As per PW-2, the appellant wanted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- for disposing of the complaint and on request of the complainant tore off the complaint of Neelam Rani, which he had earlier penned in his own hand.It was further alleged that the appellant had asked him to make the payment of bribe money in the evening of 26.07.1995 to Virender.A complaint was lodged which is exhibited as Ex PW-2/B.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 2 of 33(ii) It is the case of the prosecution that PW9, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), requisitioned service of two independent witnesses namely Jai Ram (PW-4) and Nem Singh (PW-5), both officials of the Vigilance Department of NDMC and in their presence arranged for the complainant to speak with the appellant on telephone and for the said conversation to be tape-A memo (Ex.PW-2/A) with regard to the said proceedings was prepared which indicates that the telephone call was made to telephone no.5503840 from telephone CRL.A.461/2003 Page 3 of 33 no.4362494 (in the office of CBI).The tape-recorded conversation is stated to have involved both the appellant and Virender speaking with the complainant and in the course of the said conversation, the allegations of demand of bribe are stated to have been substantiated.The TLO also prepared a transcript (Ex.PW-2/D) of the said audio recording contained in cassette Ex.PX, which was thereafter put in a cloth parcel and sealed.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 3 of 33(iii) The TLO then asked the complainant to arrange the money for the trap and instructed him and the two independent witnesses to come to the CBI office on the next day.It is stated that the complainant had arranged cash Rs.4,000/- in the form of 40 currency notes of Rs.100/- each (Ex.P1 to Ex.P40).These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder, and a demonstration of the application of said powder was given for knowledge of members of the raiding party.The numbers of currency notes were noted down.The treated currency notes were given to PW-2 and he was instructed to hand over the tainted money on specific demand by the appellant.PW-4 was deputed to remain with the complainant as a shadow witness, so as to see the transaction that was expected to take place between the CRL.A.461/2003 Page 4 of 33 complainant and the appellant.The shadow witness was directed to give a signal by scratching the hair on his head after the money passed hands.These preparations were reduced into writing in the form of handing over memo (PW2/F) with annexure Ex.PW2/E.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 4 of 33(iv) It is alleged that the trap party thereafter reached the area in question, where the complainant and shadow witness PW-4 proceeded into the office of the former, while other members of raiding party took suitable positions in the vicinity.It is alleged that after some time Virender came to the said office and in the presence of shadow witness asked for the money to be paid.It is stated that the complainant warded off Virender on some pretext.He first went away but again returned to the office of complainant after sometime to repeat the demand, when complainant again put him off inter alia on the basis of indication that he wanted to pay the money in the presence of the appellant.(v) Virender returned to the office of complainant for the third time and informed the complainant that the appellant would be coming within half an hour.It is alleged that the appellant also CRL.A.461/2003 Page 5 of 33 arrived at the scene at about 9.45 PM on two wheeler scooter and asked the complainant to hand over the bribe money to Virender, after he had been told that only Rs.4000/- had been arranged.Virender is stated to have received the tainted currency notes from the complainant after which the shadow witness gave the pre- determined signal and the appellant and Virender were apprehended.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 5 of 33(vi) It is also the case of the prosecution that on being challenged with having accepted the bribe, Virender told the TLO that he had accepted the money on the directions of the appellant.The tainted notes were recovered from Virender and post trap proceedings were carried out which were reduced into writing vide recovery memo (Ex.i) The events that transpired between the complainant PW-2 and the appellant on 24.07.1995 in as much as the appellant made a demand for bribe in order to not make a case against the complainant in the presence of Virender.ii) The authenticity of the complaint written by the appellant on behalf of Neelam Rani that was subsequently torn off.iii) The authenticity of the audio recording of the telephonic conversation and the transcript thereof in which details about the date and time of accepting the bribe were finalised.(Vol.She had reduced the complaint in writing, when I had asked Tirath Singh to show the complaint of Neelam, she was mentioning at that time.) They had come on 24-7-95, in evening.It is wrong I had entered into a compromise with Neelam agreed to pay Rs.5000/- to her.It is wrong I and Neelam had requested to Tirath Singh to tear the complaint on account of compromise.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 11 of 33"It is correct that in the meanwhile SI Tirath Signh began to start his scooter.In the meanwhile, Nafe Singh who was the witness gave signal to the trap party.It is correct that signal to the trap party was given by Jai Ram.On the receipt of signal, members of the trap party rushed to the spot and they apprehended both the accused.Accused persons were apprehended from their wrists.PW2/X and he states that he does not remember about it)."Per contra, the testimony of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 unequivocally evinces that the exchange of money and acceptance by Virender was done outside the shop.Relevant portions of the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-9 and PW-5 are reproduced below:-PW-2, Complainant ".........Accused Varinder Kumar again came at around 8.30 PM at my shop and demanded money from me.I again told him that money was about to come.Thereafter Varinder Kumar sat in my shop and started waiting.At around 9.30PM or 10.00PM accused SI Tirath Singh came at my shop on scooter and called me outside.Witness Jai ram also accompanined me outside the shop.SI tirath Singh then demanded money by saying "Paise Do".Thereafter, I took out tainted money and passed on the same to SI Tirath Singh saying "YE LO US CASE KE PAISE".Tirath Singh accepted the money in his hand and kept it in the pocket of his pant."PW-4, Jai Ram "..........At around 9-45 P.M. accused Tirath Singh came on his scooter.He was wearing his uniform.After stopping the scooter in front of the shop of the co CRL.A.461/2003 Page 13 of 33 plainant, accused Tirath Singh called the complainant outside the shop while sitting on the scooter.The authenticity of the torn off complaint has not been challenged in this appeal.However, PW-7, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL has proved his report Ex PW 7/E which opines that the handwriting in the torn off complaint is of the appellant who had given his specimen handwriting.He further deposed that he went to the CBI office the next day with his complaint and a telephonic conversation took place between him and the appellant which was recorded in the CBI office.The appellant is stated to have again demanded the bribe from him with instructions to deliver the same to Virender.It is again noticed that while the sealed samples were sent to CFSL on 04.08.1995, they were produced in court after a period of more than 7 years.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.The Appellant herein has preferred this appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the judgment dated 11.07.2003 and the sentence dated 14.07.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi.The appellant has been convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with CRL.A.461/2003 Page 1 of 33 Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant has also been held guilty and convicted for the substantive offences under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly, has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years.In addition, a fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed.The sentence of imprisonment is to run concurrently.In the event of default in payment of fine, the appellant will be required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months on each count.The fine has already been paid by the appellant.PW-2 reported the matter to Special Branch, CBI and requested legal action be taken in this matter.PW-2/G).(vii) PW-3, S. N. Srivastava, DIG, S.P.G, Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi who accorded sanction for prosecuting the appellant on the basis of a report received from Anti-Corruption Branch has proved Sanction order Ex.PW3/A. He has deposed that he granted the sanction after perusing the documents of this case and after satisfying himself and applying his mind to those documents.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 6 of 33The incriminating circumstances held proved against the appellant by the Trial Judge are as follows:-This further corroborates the demand for bribe.v) The recovery of the treated GC notes that were accepted as illegal gratification.vi) The evidence of the complainant, PW-2, who has deposed affirming the aforesaid particulars.vii) The evidence of the shadow witnesses being credible and trustworthy and corroborates the prosecution version.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 7 of 33Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed a detailed synopsis exhaustively putting forth his arguments impugning the judgment of the Special Judge.I shall endeavour to deal with every argument advanced on behalf of the appellant.It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant demanded the sum of Rs.5,000/- in order to settle the dues of Neelam Rani.It was for the purpose of satisfying the claims of Neelam Rani against the complainant that the appellant directed the complainant to pay the said sum to Virender and not for his own benefit as portrayed by the prosecution.The argument is supported by the fact that the appellant tore off the complaint of Neelam Rani in her presence in the office of the complainant only on request of the complainant and his assurance that he would pay the sum of Rs.5,000/-.It is further reiterated that the complainant has specifically deposed in that behalf.The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced as under:-"I knew Neelam for about 15-20 days before this case, during which period she was my employee.She had left my service about one month prior to the raid.It is wrong she was demanding Rs.5000/- from me as her salary.I did not know accused Virender prior to the date she came to me.I did not know accused Tirath Singh Rawat before they came to me first time.I had paid dues of Neelam to her, which were about Rs.1200/-.I do not know if Neelam was aggrieved that her dues had not been fully paid.I do not know present whereabouts of Neelam.When both the accused with Neelam had CRL.A.461/2003 Page 8 of 33 come to me, there was none else accompanying them.It is correct Neelam had made a complaint accused Tirath Singh about non payment of her dues.I had agreed to pay dues of Neelam one or two days after."CRL.A.461/2003 Page 8 of 33Learned Counsel seeks to challenge the recovery of the 40 GC notes from Virender.He does this on two grounds.The first being that the complainant has made material contradictions in specifying exactly who he handed over the bribe money to.The relevant extracts are reproduced below:-"At around 7.00 or 7.30 PM accused Varinder Kumar came at my shop for collecting the money.He said "PAISE DE DO PAISE MANGAYE HAIN".I told him that money would come after sometime.Thereafter, Varinder Kumar went away and came back after about half an hour, but evaded the issue by saying money has not come as yet because, I was waiting for SI Tirath Singh to come.It is correct that when accused Varinder Kumar, came to my shop on the second occasion I informed Shri SK Peshin by giving signal that he was Varinder Kumar.It is wrong to suggest that I specifically told Varinder Kumar that I would not give him money unless accused Tirath Singh comes and tells me to pay the money to him.(Confronted with portion "C to C" of his statement Ex.P.W.2/Z where it is so recorded.).Acused Varinder Kumar again came at around 8.30 PM at my shop and demanded money from me.I again told him that money was about to come.Thereafter CRL.A.461/2003 Page 9 of 33 Varinder Kumar, sat in my shop and started waiting.At around 9.30 PM or 10.00 PM accused SI Tirath Singh came at my shop on scooter and called me outside.Witness Jai Ram also accompanied me outside the shop.SI Tirath Singh then demanded money by saying "PAISE DO".Thereafter, I took out tainted money and passed onthe same to SI Tirath Singh saying "YE LO US CASE KE PAISE".Tirath Singh accepted the money in his hand and kept it in the pocket of his pant.Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I cannot admit or deny when SI Tirath Singh called me outside my shop, Varinder Kumar and Jaya Ram also came out of the shop with me.And on this accused Tirath Sigh while seeing towards Virender, accused, asked "PAISE LIYE KE NAHIN".It is correct that on this Virender respondend by saying " YEH AAPKA HI INTAZAAR KAR RAHE THE".And on this SI Tirath Singh told me "PARVEEN VIRENDER KO CHAR HAZAAR RUPAYE DE DO".It is correct that thereafter I passed on those Rs.4000/- to Virender, who accepted the money in his right and passed it on to his left hand."CRL.A.461/2003 Page 9 of 33(underlining added)The second submission with respect to the recovery is that even though the complainant has later clarified that he handed over the money to Virender at the instance of the appellant in his cross examination, yet the Public Prosecutor was unable to elicit from the mouth of the complainant CRL.A.461/2003 Page 10 of 33 that his previous statement regarding handing over money to the appellant was incorrect.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 10 of 33It is submitted that the entire prosecution case was that a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid to Virender at the instance of the appellant.The alleged bribe money was not physically handed over to the appellant.However, the evidence of PW-2 is contradictory in as much as he has deposed that the bribe money was handed over to the appellant who accepted the bribe money and kept it in the pocket of his pant and later he has admitted the suggestion that the bribe money was accepted by Virender at the instance of the appellant.It has been vehemently argued that PW-2 has constantly been shifting his stand regarding material facts and has put forth no explanation to justify the same.He ought to have explained the reason for faulting on a crucial aspect of exactly which accused he delivered the bribe money to and the absence of such an explanation makes the recovery doubtful.9. Learned Counsel next attacks the recovery on the aspect of inconsistencies between the statement of PW-2 and the shadow witness PW-It is submitted that PW-2 has deposed that the tainted GC notes were recovered from the pocket of Virender and in the same breath he also pleads ignorance on whether PW-5 recovered Rs.4,000/- on directions of S.K CRL.A.461/2003 Page 11 of 33 Peshin from the left fist of Virender.PW-4 on the other hand has deposed that the tainted money was recovered from the left fist of Virender.The relevant extract is reproduced below:-Thereafter both the acused were taken in to my office.I narrated the facts to Shri S.K.Peshin.Thereafter members of the CBI team searched both the accused.Rs.4000/- were recovered from the pocket of accused Virender Singh.(underlining added)It is then submitted that the sodium carbonate solution containing the wash of both the palms and fingers of Virender were not found to be real pink in colour.The deposition of PW-4 demonstrates that at the time of recovery the colour of both the washes i.e. Ex P-42 (left hand) and Ex P-43 (right hand) had turned similar and at the time of recording of his evidence, the liquid in bottle Ex P-42 was milky white while the colour in bottle Ex P-43 was a yellowish shade.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 12 of 33CRL.A.461/2003 Page 12 of 33PW-5 has deposed that the appellant parked his scooter and went inside the shop.A little later, he came out and soon thereafter, PW-4 gave a pre-determined signal after which the appellant was apprehended.Therefore, according to PW-5, the factum of acceptance of bribe money was not outside the shop.On this myself, complainant and Varinder Kumar came out of the shop.Complainant wished "NAMESTE" to accused Tirath Singh, present in court (correctly identified).Tirath Singh asked "KAYA HALL CHALL HAI PAANCH HAZAAR KA INTAZAM HO GAYA KAYA?""CRL.A.461/2003 Page 13 of 33PW-9 DSP SK Peshin "..........At about 8-30 P.M. one person Virender came and went into the shop.Said person namely Virender is present in court today.Witness pointed towards accused Virender Kumar He remained at the shop for sometime and then came out and went away.After sometime he returned and went to the shop and stayed there for about 5 to 10 minutes.He then came out of the shop and again went away.Thereafter complaint Parveen Kumar came to the place where we were standing and talked to the CBI officer and informed that Tirath Singh is about to come.Complainant then went to his shop.After sometime, another person came, whose identity came to know as Tirath Singh.(witness pointed out towards accused Tirath Singh).Tirath Singh had come on his two wheeler scooter, which he parked outside the shop and went inside the shop.Aftersometime, Tirath Singh came out and as he was about to start his scooter, Jai Ram gave appointed signal."PW-5 ".......At about 9.00 P.M. Virender Singh again seen entering the shop of complainant and at about 9.40 P.M. one person wearing uniform of Sub Inspector of Delhi Police came on his scooter and on seeing him complainant, Virender Kumar and shadow witness came out of the shop- Said person was Tirath Singh accused.Accused Virender Kumar is also present in court today.I identify both the accused today.In the meantime it was seen by us that Virender Kumar was accepting currency notes in his right hand and transferred it to his left hand and by this time the pre-appointes signaal was also received."The telephone No. dialled by PW-2 in the CBI office belongs to Virender.Both the shadow witnesses have deposed that they did not know who exactly PW-2 was speaking to over the phone.Therefore, in effect it has not been established by any independent witness that the appellant made any demand for bribe from the complainant throughout the telephonic conversation.It is finally argued on behalf of the appellant that the acceptance of any illegal gratification as contemplated under Section 7 PC Act is to be made by the public servant himself and none other.Constructive acceptance cannot be attributed to a public servant in respect of illegal gratification even if it is done with the express authority of the public servant.An agent who accepts illegal gratification on behalf of the public servant would not meet the essentials of acceptance under Section 7 so as to bind the public servant for the offence.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.Broadly, the challenge to the trial court's judgment, amongst others things, is based on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.This witness was not cross examined by the appellant.The prosecution relies on this document to corroborate the version of PW-2 regarding demand of bribe from the appellant.The fact that the prosecution has only the testimony of the complainant (PW-2) to prove the demand for bribe, is, according to the defence, a weak piece of evidence in view of the untrustworthiness and the inconsistencies of the said hostile witness.The other ground of challenge is, as noticed hereinabove, to the alleged fabrication of the documentary evidence by the investigating agency which has been used to demonstrate the recovery of the tainted money from the appellant.Therefore, let me first deal with what the complainant (PW4) had to say amongst other aspects on the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the CRL.A.461/2003 Page 16 of 33 accused in his deposition before the court and whether his testimony ought to be accepted by the court.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 16 of 3319. PW-2 has deposed in his chief that sometime in July 1995, Neelam Rani, who had been engaged by him as a receptionist, came to his office accompanied by Virender and the appellant.The appellant urged that Neelam Rani had complained to him about the complainant not having settled her dues to which he replied in the negative.On this the appellant stated that either he should pay the dues of Neelam Rani or make him happy.After some conversation the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe for not making a case against the complainant.On 27.07.1995 he again visited the CBI office and produced Rs.5,000/- in 50 GC notes that were treated with a chemical powder and a demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was given.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 17 of 33CRL.A.461/2003 Page 17 of 33After the aforesaid evidence, PW-2 was declared as hostile as he had resiled from his earlier statement regarding the dates of the events that took place, the fact that he spoke to the appellant on telephone and the amount of money he had brought to the CBI as bribe for the appellant.He clarified that he went to the CBI office on 26.07.1995 and that the telephonic conversation took place on the said with Virender and not the appellant.He denied a suggestion that neither the appellant nor Virender spoke to him on the telephone which was recorded by way of audio recording.He also clarified that he had brought a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the CBI office on 27.07.1995 and not Rs.5,000/- as stated earlier.PW-2 was constantly accompanied by PW-4, the shadow witness, and he has affirmed the testimony of PW-2 on aspect of demand during the telephonic conversation, the events that transpired before the appellant came to the shop of PW-2, the acceptance of illegal gratification by Virender at the instance of the appellant and the consequent recovery.These two witnesses were independent witnesses and I find their evidence credible and trustworthy.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 20 of 33CRL.A.461/2003 Page 20 of 33The explanation of the appellant is that that there had been a quarrel in the area and that he had happened to pass by and on noticing the incident he had stopped but was falsely involved in this case.Virender has not even attempted to justify the reasons for his presence in the shop of PW2 at the relevant time.PW-4 has categorically deposed that the appellant demanded money from PW-2 and directed that they be given to Virender.Recovery of treated GC notes from Virender has been duly proved in accordance with law.In view of these circumstances, it would be difficult to insist on a requirement that the public servant must physically accept the illegal gratification.I say so for another reason.The object of enacting a separate enactment by way of The Prevention of Corruption Act was to widen the coverage of anti corruption laws and to make provisions more effective in combating corruption among public servants.In the instant case, the appellant was additionally present at the time of acceptance and categorically directed the complainant to hand over the illegal gratification to Virender.There remains no doubt that the appellant and Virender were conspiring to extract money from PW-2 on the pretext of not following up a complaint against him.It cannot be said that the appellant was not party to the whole design only because the money came to be recovered from Virender.In view of the foregoing discussion, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification being proved in the instant case, a presumption under Section 20 PC Act is raised against the appellant and he has not been able to satisfactorily rebut the same.Accordingly, the appellant is found guilty under Section 120 IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant is also found guilty and convicted for the substantive offences CRL.A.461/2003 Page 32 of 33 under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Resultantly, the accused shall be taken into custody forthwith.The bail bond shall stand cancelled and the surety discharged.CRL.A.461/2003 Page 32 of 33CRL.A.461/2003 Page 33 of 33

['Section 120 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 Kolse Patil, J.On October 19, 1983, the Deputy Director of Inspection.There is no locker in my name or in joint name with any bank.So far as I know, I do not have any fixed deposit or shares from companies.As regards immovable propertics I have got only one asset, that is flat at 57, Blue Haven, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay.Unit No. II, issued a warrant authorising complainant, R R. Gavit, and another officer to search the residential premises of the accused-respondent No. 1 under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (herein-after for brevity's sake referred to as "the Act").They were a] so authorised to exercise all other powers and functions under section 132 of the Act and the rules relating thereto.On the same day at 6.30 p.m., they went to the residence of the accused and recorded her statement on oath.Question No. 2 in the statement and the answer given to it by the accused was as follows :"Qus.No. 2 : Whether you have any bank accounts, bank lockers, fixed deposits, shares either in your name or jointly with any other person ? What are your immovable and movable assets ? Please state in brief ?: I have got one savings account bearing a/c.No. 18732 with the Central Bank of India, Kalbadevi Branch, Bombay.As regards movable assets, I own Fiat Car."It was discovered, thereafter, that the accused had two bank lockers (i) bearing No. 574 in the Bank of India, Malabar Hill Branch, and (ii) in the Central Bank of India, Versova Branch.The first locker was in the name of the accused and her daughter, Dilshad, and the second was in the name of the accused and another daughter, Abida Merchant.On November 8, 1983, the accused was further questioned on oath under section 131 of the Act Question No. 3 and the answer given to it was as under :No. 3 : How many bank lockers do you have ?: I have only one at Bank of India, Mahalaxmi Branch.It is in the joint name with my daughter, Mrs. Dilshad.It was lately operated by me around 20-25 days back approx.Key remains with me.As on today one note-book (exercise book) is there.I am co-holder of a locker in the Central Bank, Versova, with my daughter, Mrs. Dilshad.My name is there for convenience sake and nothing belonging to me is kept there.No. 4 : Did you operate your Mahalaxmi Locker after October 19, 1983 ?I Yes, I have operated the locker."Therefore, according to the prosecution, the accused intentionally denied the fact of having any locker for the purpose of removing the assets and incriminating documents therefrom.The statement of the accused recorded during the search was in a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 136 of the Act and, therefore, the accused had committed an of offence under sections 181 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.She had given false statements which she knew and believed to be false.The complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused under sections 181 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th court, Esplanade, Bombay.Challenging the same order, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Application.Shri Gumaste, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that during the course of the search, the complainant was authorised to examine the accused on oath.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Then appellantstook away the prosecutrix to the upper room of the house andcommitted rape repeatedly in the night.In the next morningthey released prosecutrix and warned her not to report toanybody.Then she brought Dayaram from the room and atthat time Latura, Gyarasa, Bharo Singh, Kamal Singh andHarihar reached there.They were informed about the incident.As per report Ex.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a DivisionBench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench,upsetting the acquittal as recorded by learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.12/86.Three accused persons namely the present appellants and one Chaturbhuj faced trial for alleged commission of offencepunishable under Sections 376, 392, 342 and 506 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').The trial Courtdirected acquittal of all the three accused persons.In appealfiled by the State under Section 378 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') the order of acquittal wasset aside and accused persons were found guilty of offencepunishable under Sections 342 and 376 of IPC.But it upheldthe acquittal for offence relatable to Section 392 and 506 (II)IPC.The appellants were sentenced to undergo seven yearsand six months custodial sentence and fine with defaultstipulation for offences relatable to Sections 376 and 342 IPC.Prosecution version which led to the trial of the accusedpersons is as follows:On 23.9.1985 in the evening prosecutrix alongwith herhusband Dayaram went to Khajuria.On the way near the fieldof Mangal, appellants met them and started to abuseprosecutrix.Appellants also started beating husband of 2 prosecutrix and took the prosecutrix near the well of KamalSingh where accused Pooran Singh and Lalliram talked toChaturbhuj.Dayaram was locked in a room.Appellants also snatched a bag from the prosecutrixcontaining Rs.25/- and identity card of Dayaram.Investigation was undertaken.Prosecutrix was sent for medicalexamination vide Ex.In the report it was stated that no external injuries were found 3 on her body.The trial Court found that the evidence of Latura(PW-3) who is father of PW-2, Bharosa (PW-4) and Puliabai(PW-5) was inconsistent and the defence witness Mayaprobabilised the defence taken by the trial Court.Doctor alsocategorically stated that she was not pregnant on the allegeddate of occurrence.The High Court referred to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2i.e.the prosecutrix and Dayaram respectively and observedthat the version of the prosecutrix was sufficient to fasten theguilt on the accused.Though theversion as indicated in the First Information Report (in shortthe `FIR') and the evidence in court were discrepant in certainaspects, it was held to be of no consequence.But it has to be decided onthe factual matrix of each case.PW-2 had stated that she hadsuffered injuries on her legs.But such injuries were also notnoticed.PW-1 stated thatshe was 4 months pregnant at the time of occurrence.But thedoctor stated that she was actually on menstruation period.Another interesting statement of the prosecutrix was thataccused Lalliram had dragged her by catching her bunch ofhair for a considerable distance.The trial Court noticed that ifthat was so there would have been injuries and interestinglyshe had not stated about this part in the FIR.As noted above,she had spoken about scratches on her back due to draggingand other parts of the body and that blood had also oozed out.But the medical evidence is clearly to the contrary.In herstatement she had deposed that her husband Daya Ram wasalso dragged by Pooran and Lalliram and he had also sufferedseveral injuries.In cross-examination PW-1 admitted that accused 8 persons harassed her and tried to kill her.She had admittedthat she was assaulted by her husband.Atthe time of first examination, no injury was found on her body.It is also to be noted that PW-3 stated that after PW-1regained consciousness she told about the incident.This iscontrary to what PW-2 stated.By that time obviously PW-3 and PW-4 had not arrived.In fact PW-4 says that when he and PW-3 went to the place ofoccurrence the victim was lying unconscious.In view of the aforesaid factual position the trial Courtwas justified in directing acquittal and the High Court'sjudgment upsetting the acquittal is clearly unsustainable. 9The appeal is allowed.

['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Anil Ojha learned counsel for objector.Heard through video conferencing.This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Notice of this application was served on the State counsel.Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is Assistant Professor and present FIR has been lodged because the applicant and complainant were to get married but the marriage broke-down.He further submits that in respect of incident dated 2/2/2019 a report was made in the police station and the matter had ended in compromise.He has drawn attention of this Court to the compromise dated 2/5/2019 which has been placed on record -2- by the complainant.Having regard to the submission made by counsel for parties and also considering the material which has been pointed out by counsel for applicant and earlier compromise dated 2/5/2019 and the fact that no specific allegation for offence under Section 354 IPC after 2/2/2019 has been pointed out, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Accordingly the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest, in connection with Crime -3- No.608/2020, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned with further condition that applicant will appear before the concerned SHO within two weeks from today.(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2020.07.27 19:23:23

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

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

Case diary perused.This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.However, inspite of repeated opportunities to the complainant he is not appearing before the trial court.He has also stated that he was not the person who has caused injuries.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has read out the statement available in the case diary and fairly stated before this court that injury was not inflicted by the present applicant.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement available in the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One 2 MCRC No.47482/2018 lac only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all the dates fixed in this behalf by the court concerned during trial.2 MCRC No.47482/2018C.C. as per rules.(S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE Rashmi Digitally signed by Rashmi Prasahant Date: 2018.12.04 12:26:01 +05'30'

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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']

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

a)P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Seeni Nabra, aged about 8 years.P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is the grandmother of the said child.On 3.11.2005at about 11.00 a.m., when P.W.3 proceeded to the rice mill of theaccused/appellant, she took the child also.On seeing that the back portion ofthe mill was closed, she asked the child to go and ask the accused to open theback portion of the mill.Accordingly, the accused opened the same and P.W.3handed over the flour to the accused.Then, P.W.3 came to the house of aneighbour.Some time later, the child asked Rs.2/- for taking juice.Accordingly, P.W.3 gave the same.Thereafter, the child went to the Mill andasked the accused whether the flour was grinded.At that time, she was taken tothe backside of the Mill by the accused.P.W.3, who was waiting for some time,since the grandchild did not return, went home.b)At the time when the accused took the child to the backyard, P.W.12, anemployee of the mill, has seen the same.The accused has permitted him to go forlunch.Then, P.W.12 left the mill.Then, the accused has committed rape on thechild and due to Neurogenic shock, the child died.P.Ws.1,3 and others searched for the child.c)At about 10.00 p.m., P.W.6, the owner of the Textile shop situated justopposite to the mill of the accused and P.W.7, the night watchman, who wasposted as Security in that area, have found the accused/appellant opening themill unusually at that time.When they questioned, the accused told that sincethe next day is Ramzan, he opened the Mill for doing work.At about 10.15 p.m.,P.W.8, whose house is situated exactly behind the mill, came to attend the callof nature and at that time, he heard a noise coming from the Well side and hefound the accused and he has questioned him as to what he was doing during nighthours.Then, the accused told that since the next day was Ramzan, he wasthrowing the garbage into the Well.d)P.W.4 found the dead body of the deceased inside the Well and on seeingthe same, it was informed to P.Ws.P.Ws.1 to 3 came and found the dead body ofthe deceased.P.W.1 went over to the respondent police station, where P.W.20,the Sub Inspector of Police was on duty.He gave Ex.P.1, the complaint toP.W.20, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by the respondentpolice under Section 146/2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.23, the F.I.R. wasdespatched to the court.The dead body was taken out.The place of occurrenceand the dead body were photographed by P.W.9, the photographer and they weremarked as M.O.1 (series).Then, the dead body was sent to the GovernmentHospital, Rameswaram.e)P.W.22, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,proceeded to the Government Hospital, Rameswaram and conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars.Heprepared Ex.P.24, the inquest report.Then, he gave a requisition to the Doctorfor conducting post-mortem on the dead body.f)P.W.15, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Rameswaram, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of 24 to 48 hours prior tothe post-mortem and it was due to neurogenic shock.g)P.W.21 further took up the investigation and recorded the statement ofthe witnesses.He went to the scene of occurrence and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Additional SessionsDivision, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram made in S.C.No.137 of 2006, wherebythe sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC andon trial, he was found guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments of lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo one year R.I.under Section 376 IPC, life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, indefault to undergo one year R.I. under Section 302 IPC and 3 years R.I. and topay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 201IPC and all the sentences were to run concurrently.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:He prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar andEx.P.25, the rough sketch.After getting the medical opinion, the case wasaltered to Sections 376 and 302 IPC.P.26, the amended FIR was despatched tothe Court.On 9.11.2005, the accused was arrested by the Investigator in thepresence of the witnesses.The accused made confessional statement voluntarily,which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part ofwhich was marked as Ex.Following the same, the accused took theInvestigator to the Mill and produced M.O.2, shawl, which was worn by thedeceased at the time of occurrence and the same was recovered under a cover ofmahazar.h)The accused identified the place where he committed the offence.Then,the Investigating Officer has made an inspection and prepared Ex.P.5, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.27, the rough sketch.Following the same, theaccused was sent for medical examination.P.W.14, the Doctor attached to theGovernment Hospital, Ramanadapuram, medically examined him and has issuedEx.P.7, the age certificate that the accused has completed 18 years.Then, theaccused was medically examined by P.W.13, the Doctor attached to RamanathapuramGovernment Hospital and he has issued Ex.P.6, the certificate that the accusedis found to be potent.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and also the M.Os recovered fromthe accused were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department.P.9, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.22, the Hyoid Bone report werereceived.i)Further investigation was done by P.W.22, the Inspector of Police.Herecorded the statement of the witnesses.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 22witnesses and relied on 27 exhibits and 4 M.Os.On completion of the evidence onthe side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial court, on hearing the submissions made and also looking intothe materials available, was of the opinion that the prosecution has proved thecase beyond reasonable doubt and has found the accused/appellant guilty as perthe charges and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is the subjectmatter of challenge before this court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counselwould submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case or tobring home the guilt of the accused on any one of the charges; that according tothe prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 3.11.2005 at noon hours; thata complaint was given only on the next day, i.e. on 4.11.2005 by P.W.1 toP.W.20, the Sub Inspector of Police, where P.W.1 has clearly stated that theysuspected a person, who was the close relative; that only after thedemonstration and procession, in the instant case, the accused was added; thatfurther, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that it rested itscase on circumstantial evidence; that the prosecution relied on sixcircumstances, namely P.W.6, the Textile shop owner and P.W.7, the nightwatchman of that area, have found the accused/appellant opening the mill atabout 10.00 p.m. and there was no occasion to open the mill; that P.W.8, theneighbour, heard a noise from the Well side when he came out and he asked theaccused about the same; that the accused replied that since the next day wasRamzan, he threw the garbage into the Well; that P.W.5 also found the accusedtaking the girl through the backside of the mill at about 12.00 noon; thatP.W.12, who was an employee, has also found the accused taking the girl at about12.30 p.m. to the backyard and P.W.12 was also given permission to go for lunchand that the last circumstance was the recovery of shawl of the deceasedpursuant to the confession made by the accused.5.Added further the learned counsel that so far as all the sixcircumstances were concerned, it is true, the prosecution has placed thecircumstances, but not proved the same; that so long as the circumstances werenot pointing to the guilt of the accused, he could not be found guilty; that thestatements of those witnesses have reached the court only on 28.4.2006; that theoccurrence has taken place on 03.11.2005; that there was a long interval; thatapart from that, merely because the Mill was opened at about 10.00 p.m. atnight, as evidenced by P.Ws.6 and 7, it cannot be stated that it was thecircumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused; that admittedly, the next daywas Ramzan and therefore, it cannot be a ground; that so far as P.Ws.5 and 12were concerned, according to them, they saw the accused taking the girl to thebackyard; that had it been true, there was no impediment for those witnesses tocome forward and tell about the facts on the very day; that the case wasregistered and the investigation was on, but they did not come forward to speakabout the same; and that this would be indicative of the fact that thosewitnesses have been procured in order to fill up the lacuna and to strengthenthe prosecution case, if possible.6.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that theother circumstance was the evidence of P.W.8; that P.W.8 heard the noise fromthe Well and he asked the accused about the same; that the accused answered thesame and hence this circumstance cannot be believed for the simple reason thatso far as P.W.8 was concerned, there was no reason to go out at or about thetime of occurrence and that this circumstance cannot be said to be thecircumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused.The learned counsel wouldfurther add that P.W.6 has not even spoken about anything to anybody till5.11.2005 when he was examined by the police; that all would go to show thatthey were only planted witnesses; that actually, P.Ws. have suspected a closerelative, but the case was misdirected as if the accused was involving in thematter; that so far as the recovery of shawl was concerned, there was no one toindicate that the shawl was actually worn by the deceased at the time ofoccurrence and therefore, the recovery part cannot connect the accused with thecrime and hence the circumstances placed before the court were thoroughlyinsufficient and those circumstances even were not proved and thus, theprosecution had no evidence at all and that the lower court should haveacquitted him of all the charges, but has erroneously found him guilty.Therefore, the accused/appellant is entitled acquittal in the hands of thiscourt.7.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made andhas also scrutinized the entire materials available.Subsequently, the dead body was takenout and following the inquest, the dead body of the deceased was subjected topost-mortem by P.W.15, the Doctor, who has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortemcertificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased was raped and she died outof neurogenic shock.Thus, the fact that she was raped either, or she died outof neurogenic shock was not in controversy before the trial court.Hence,without any impediment, it has got to be factually recorded so.9.In the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.The prosecution rested its case only on circumstantial evidence.The court,before accepting the case of prosecution on circumstantial evidence, has tonecessarily look into whether necessary circumstances are placed and proved andwhether they are actually making a complete chain without any snap, pointing tothe hypotheses that except the accused no one could have committed the offence.10.According to P.W.3, the grandmother of the child, she took the childalong with her, when she went for grinding the flour in the mill of the accused.At the time when she went over there, the back portion of the mill was closedand that, she asked her grandchild to go and ask the accused to open the backportion.Accordingly, it was opened and the flour was handed over to theaccused.Then, P.W.3 along with the child went to he neighbour's house.Aftersome time, P.W.3 sent the child to see whether the flour was grinded.Accordingly, the child went to the Mill and asked the accused whether the flourwas grinded.After that, the child did not come back.After waiting for sometime, P.W.3 went to home.At this juncture, there is evidence through P.W.5 andP.W.12, who was an employee under the accused, to the effect that the accusedtook the child to the backyard.P.W.12, the employee, has categorically deposedbefore the court that before taking the child to backyard, the accused haspermitted him to go for lunch unusually.Further, the appellant/accused had nobusiness to take the 8 years old female child to the backyard, as noticed.Apartfrom that, on the date of occurrence at about 10.00 p.m., he has opened the millunusually in the odd hours.The same was witnessed by P.W.6, the Textile Shopowner, whose shop is situated opposite to the mill of the accused, and alsoP.W.7, the night watchman.Both have questioned the appellant/accused as to whyhe has kept the mill opened.For that, he has answered that since the next daywas Ramzan, he has come for grinding the flour.Thus, the accused was foundinside the Mill at the odd hours.11.The other strong circumstance was the evidence of P.W.8, whose house issituated exactly behind the Mill.When P.W.8 came out for attending the call ofnature at about 10.15 p.m., he heard a noise from the Well, which is situatedbehind the Mill and on seeing the accused proceeding towards the Mill, hestopped him and asked as to what he was doing, for that the appellant/accusedreplied that since the next day was Ramzan, he was throwing the garbage into theWell.Thus, it would be quite clear that it was the accused who actually threwthe dead body into the Well.The next day morning, P.W.4 found the dead body andinformed the same to others and the dead body was taken out.All thecircumstances put together would clearly indicate that the appellant/accused hascommitted the act inside the Mill, kept the dead body inside and he actuallythrew the dead body into the Well at about 10.15 p.m. All the witnesses havecogently spoken about the facts.12.It is true, in Ex.P.1, initially there was suspicion and P.W.1 hassuspected one of his relatives and the name of one of the close relatives wasalso mentioned.But, the investigation reveals that it was the accused whocommitted the act and the police has proceeded in the right path.Further, theshawl of the deceased was recovered from the accused on confession made by himin the presence of the witnesses.Now, the contention put forth before the courtthat there is no evidence that the shawl was worn by the deceased cannot beaccepted, since it was recovered from the accused pursuant to his confessionalstatement.Further, sufficientevidence was available to prove the fact that the accused was last seen with thechild and it was he who took the child and has committed the offence and threwthe dead body into the Well.It is true, there is no direct evidence that it wasthe accused who has committed the offence.But the circumstances are there toshow that the child was last seen with the accused and subsequently, the deadbody was recovered.Therefore, inferable circumstances are there pointing to theguilt of the accused.The medical opinion is also to the effect that the 8 yearsold child died out of neurogenic shock due to rape.Further, theappellant/accused attempted to screen the evidence by throwing the dead bodyinto the Well.All would go to show that all or any one of the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant do not carry any meritwhatsoever.The court is unable to see any infirmity either factually or legallyin the judgment of the court below, which has got to be sustained andaccordingly, it is sustained.14.This criminal appeal must fail and accordingly, it fails and the sameis dismissed.1.The Inspector of Police, Pampan Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.2.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

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

The fact that on 23.08.1996, the petitioner was detailed for Gaddi Guard duty along with others and that they were performing the duty at Dhakla and receiving the under-trial prisoners, who were being produced in Courts, is not disputed.The duty of the petitioner was to search/frisk the prisoners and only such under-trial prisoners were required to be produced as was directed by the Court.Only one under-trial was required to be produced at a time.However, several under-trial prisoners were produced at one time including those in relation whereto there was no order of the Court.Badri Narain No. 902/ED (2724/DAP) and Const.Devi Dass Nol.1433/SD (2223/DAP) that on 23-8-96, you were detailed at Gaddi Guard duty at Patiala House Court, New Delhi.After bringing the UTPs from Tihar Jail at N.D. Lock-up, you were performing duty at Dakhla and receiving the UTPs, who have been produced in the courts.You HC Shardha Nand were receiving the UTPs and recording entry in the Dakhla Register.The contents of the summary of allegations had been explained to them in Hindi and t hey admitted to have understood the same.PW2 was, however, cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner and the answers to the question, put to the said witness in cross-examination had been considered in details by the Enquiry Officer.PW3 stated in his deposition that he had not received any mulakat application of the said under-trial prisoner Mohd. Saleem, who had escaped, and the cross-examination of PW3 had again been considered in details by the Enquiry Officer.PW4, who spoke about the escape of Mohd. Saleem had also been cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner.PW5, who recorded the FIR, was not cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner.The delinquent officers also examined 5 defense witnesses, whose depositions have also been taken note of by the Enquiry Officer in detail.He inter alia held:-During his mulakat duty on 23.8.96 UTP Zakir Hussain was brought by Const.Badri Narain in the mulakat kaksha for mulakat without any order of court and he refused to record entry in the mulakat register.HC Rajinder Kumar No. 2119/ DAP in his cross examination has stated that Const.are concerned they have exhibited gravest misconduct/ indiscipline, carelessness and negligence in the discharge of their official duties which resulted into escape of UTP Mohd. Salim from their lawful custody.Had anyone of them been bit alert the UTP may not have been able to escape.In the departmental proceedings, however, he was found guilty.The disciplinary authority sent a copy of the said report to the petitioner herein for filing a representation in relation thereto, but he did not file any representation, whereupon by an order dated 19.08.1997, he was removed from service.An appeal preferred by the petitioner thereagainst was also dismissed.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an original application before the learned Tribunal.The provision thereafter proceeds to lay down that there shall be no bar to the enquiry officer bringing on record any other documents form the file of the preliminary/searching enquiry report, if the enquiry officer considers it necessary.This he could do after supplying copies to the delinquent officer.In our view, aforesaid provision, nowhere refers to the report of the preliminary/searching enquiry to be brought on record.Even if we were to accede to the contention of Sh.In the aforementioned situation, an under-trial prisoner who was produced managed to make good his escape.The charges against the petitioner herein were in the following terms:-You Constables Devi Dass and Badri Narain were detailed for searching /frisking and Mulakat duty at Dakhla.UTP Mohd. Saleem S/o Abdul Gaffar r/o Village & Post Biratuy, District 24 Paragana, West Bengal came out of the Dakhla behind UTP Shashi Shekar, who was being taken by Const.Badri Narain to Mulakat Kaksha for Mulakat under the order of the court.UTP Zakir Husain was also taken out of for Mulakat with Shashi Shekhar without any order of the court for ulterior motive.Third UTP Mohd. Saleem also came out of the Dakhla behind UTPs Shashi Shekhar and Zakir Husain.This UTP slipped /escaped from the gate after walking a few steps behind these UTPs.You Head Constable Shardha Nand were expected to discharge your duties with utmost alertness and to keep vigil over your subordinate staff (Const. Badri Narain and Const.Devi Dass) and escapee UTP Mohd. Saleem, but you failed to do so and exhibited gravest indiscipline."The above act on your part (HC Shardha Nand, No. 1559/SD, (2022/DAP), Const.Badri Narain No. 902/ED (2724/DAP) and Const.(JAI CHAND)/ E.O.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:III BN.Badri Narain was detailed on mulakat duty and Const.Devi Dass was detailed on dakhla gate for searching and frisking duty and food duty.HC Shardha Nand was performing dakhla duty and receiving UTP being I/C gaddi guar.DW2 Inspr.Ramesh Pal in his corss examination has stated that all the three defaulters are responsible for escape.I have carefully scrutinized the prosecution evidence.defense evidence and defense statement adduced so far in the DE proceedings and all relevant documents in the DE file.The charge framed against constables Badri Narain No. 2724/ DAP, Devi Dass No. 2223/DAP and HC shardha Nand No. 2022 /DAP stands proved.However, HC Shardha Nand was busy in receiving the UTPs as many UTPs reached on his seat at a time being lunch time and as it was raining out side.There is no intentional negligence on his part but he cannot be absolved of the responsibility of supervision to keep vigil on his subordinate stall and UTPs."The disciplinary authority agreed with the aforementioned findings of the Enquiry Officer and held:-"I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O. as well as written representations submitted by the defaulters.For the sake of natural justice and fairness the defaulters HC.Shardha Nand, No. 2022/DAP and Ct.Badri Narain Meena, No. 2724/DAP were also heard in O.R. as they had requested for personal hearing in their written representations.The defaulter HC Shardha nand, No. 2022/DAP----failed to exercise proper supervisory control over the defaulters Ct.Badri Narain Meena, No. 2724/DAP and Ct.Devi Dass, No. 2223/DAP and the E.O. had rightly held him responsible for lack of supervision and control over the staff working under him.The defaulters Cts. were expected to exercise utmost alertness and vigil over the UTP but they compromised all this and thereby exhibited gravest misconduct/ indiscipline and the UTP who was facing trial in many cases was allowed to escape.The charge is fully proved.This is severe indiscipline and misconduct which renders them absolutely unfit for retention in a sensitive organization like Delhi Police, therefore, Cts.Badri Narain Meena, No. 2724/DAP and Devi Dass, No. 2223/DAP are hereby removed from service with immediate effect.The suspension on period of the defaulter Cts.The appellate authority in his impugned order dated 15.11.2000 held as under:-As UTOs returned from the court, he searched and placed them in the Dakhila.Necessary entries were being made by HC Shardha Nand, No. 2022/DAP in Dakhila register.Ex. Const.Badri Narain who was on mulakat duty was responsible for escape of UTP Mohd. Salim from the lock-up for which he was neither responsible nor aware how the escape occurred.In view of this position, he requested to quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and re-instate him in service.When UTP Mohd. Salim escaped from Patiala House Court Lock-up, the appellant was on searching /frisking and food duty at Dakhila Gate.The P.E. in his incident has revealed that the appellant and two other lower subordinates were responsible for this escape and, therefore, departmental enquiry was ordered.During the departmental enquiry, the appellant was proved guilty of the charge framed against him.The accused escaped while the appellant was receiving, searching and frisking the UTP.Escape of UTP Mohd. Salim occurred from the only gate of Dakhila where the appellant was on duty.Besides, UTP Zakir Hussain who had no court permission for mulaquat was to taken to Mulaquat room.Obviously he was not alert on duty and had no control on arrival and departure of UTPs.There was gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant, no doubt.Final order of the disciplinary authority, I see, had been rightly issued and there is no need of intervention.Hence the appeal is rejected.The petitioner filed a representation before the Commissioner of Police and the said authority also gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein and in its order held:-"I have examined the revision petitions and the connected papers.The petitions were also heard in person on 22.4.98 by the then C.P. Delhi.The petitioners Along with HCs Satya Prakash, No. 2104/DAP and Ram Prasad, No. 2010/DAP were proceeded against departmentally on the allegation that a searching enquiry was conducted under the provisions of Rule-29 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 by Sh.Ram Singh, ACP/ ADJ.to find out the facts and circumstances which had resulted in escape of an Under Trial Prisoner Jaggoo s/o Ram Sarai from Police custody from Medical Ward No. 10, Bed No. 27, 4th Floor, Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, Delhi.The finding submitted by Sh.The E.O. submitted his findings holding the delinquents guilty of the charge.Agreeing with the findings of the E.O. a copy of the findings was provided to the delinuetns to submit their written representations, if any.As per requirement of rules, they were afforded reasonable opportunity and they availed the same.Escape of UTP was under the custody of the petitions (Constables Ravinder Singh No. 2296/DAP and Ram Singh, 2922/DAP) and supervisory control of HCs Satya Prakash, No. 2104/DAP and Ram Prasad, No. 2010/DAP.The E.O. submitted his finding on the basis of correspondence of evidence available on the D.E. file.The places set forth by the petitioners in their appeals have been discussed by the Appellate Authority in his final order, with full satisfaction.No infirmities were committed either by the E.O. or by the disciplinary authority.The charge framed against the said proved during the D.E.The Enquiry Officer may also bring on record any document from the file of the preliminary enquiry, after supplying copies thereof to the accused.the petitioner did not say that copies of the documents, which had been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, had not been supplied.

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

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

Date: 4th April, 2014 Mr. Tapan Coomaar Dey, Adv.Accordingly, the same stands disposed of expressing hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate shall duly consider and dispose of the prayer of the investigating officer for issuance of warrant of arrest, etc. at an early date.(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

But, her parents arrived there, and therefore, respondent-accused did not succeed in his plan.DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2019 Order :-According to the prosecution, on the day of incident i.e. 15 January, 2014, in the wee-hours of the night at about 11.00 p.m. The victim minor girl and her grant-mother slept in the house as her parents and elder sister had gone to the house of the accused to watch CD of marriage ceremony.The respondent-accused seizing the opportunity entered into the house of victim and attempted to remove her clothes.But, the victim woke up from bed and she saw that her clothes were removed from the person by the accused.The respondent-accused::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 ::: 2 916-ALS-176-18 exhorted her not to disclose the incident to anyone else.Meantime, there was an sound of knocking the door, and therefore, the respondent-accused made his escape good from the spot.It has also been alleged that after 5 to 10 minutes once again accused attempted to visit to the victim and asked her to open the door.The victim narrated the incident to her parents.However, on 20-01-2014, the victim accompanied with her parents visited to Police station, Pishor and filed report.Pursuant to report of victim, Police of Pishor Police Station registered the crime No. 6 of 2014 and set the criminal law in motion.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 :::In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined in all six witnesses in this case.The learned trial Court considered the evidence of minor victim, her parents, uncle and other witnesses including the I.O. as well as Head-Master of the School.The learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove charges against accused within ambit of law.Therefore, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for charges pitted against him.There is no doubt that the prosecution succeeded to prove the circumstances that the victim was 11 years old minor girl at the time of alleged incident.However, learned counsel for respondent-accused assailed that the sole version of victim is not sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused.The prosecution did not examine grand-mother of::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 ::: 3 916-ALS-176-18 the victim, who had slept accompanied with the victim in the house at the relevant time of incident of sexual assault.Moreover, the incident occurred on 15th January, 2014, whereas, FIR came to be lodged on 20- 01-2014 i.e. after about 5 days of the incident.The prosecution did not explain the circumstances of delay in filing the FIR.The learned trial Court correctly appreciated the circumstances and found reluctant to draw the adverse inference against respondent-accused.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 :::According to learned APP, the victim has narrated the entire incident of sexual assault on the part of respondent-accused before the trial Court.She had disclosed the incident to her parents immediately after its occurrence.The weapon knife was also recovered, which was used by the accused for threatening to the victim.In such circumstances, the learned Judge ought to have convicted the accused for the charges pitted against him on the basis of sole version of prosecutrix.After scrutiny of factual aspect coupled with entire evidence adduced on record on behalf of prosecution, I do not find any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of learned APP for grant of leave to present an appeal under Section 178(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The record and proceedings of Session Case No. 159 of 2014 is available before this Court.I have delved into the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution.Admittedly, the entire prosecution case is rests on the version of prosecutrix and her parents as well as PW-3 Krishna Kale, her uncle.It is true that victim deposed about the incident of sexual assault by the accused.But, the circumstances on record would create doubt about the veracity of allegations nurtured on behalf of victim against the respondent.It::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 ::: 4 916-ALS-176-18 has brought on record that the grand-mother was also asleep in the house accompanied with the victim.The grand-mother was not come forward to corroborate the testimony of the victim in this case.The entire evidence is silent about reaction of grand-mother.It is not made clear that whether she had received the opportunity to watch the spectacle or whether she was in slumber at the time of alleged incident.Moreover, the victim did not yelled for help after seeing the accused while removing the clothes from her person.In addition, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR also creates doubt in the prosecution case.There was no plausible explanation for delay in filing the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 :::In short, there is no impediment to conclude that the evidence available on record on behalf of prosecution is so cryptic, scanty and not sufficient to establish the charge against respondent- accused beyond all reasonable doubt.Hence, leave prayed on behalf prosecution under Section 378(1)(b) stands rejected.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] rrd::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 17:25:55 :::

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He gave knife blows on vital parts of his body which is clearly indicative of his intention to eliminate Madan Lal Soni.There is no material suggesting that his act was on the basis of any grave and sudden provocation.His act reflects pre- meditation.He left the house and returned with some planning while armed with knife.Thus he had intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.The facts, as per the version of the prosecution, are as under:-i) Madan Lal Soni (victim) used to reside at D-18, Inder Enclare-II, Mubarakpur, Delhi with his family.Name of his wife was Leelawati.Leelawati had a sister, namely, Sulekha who was married to one Vijay Malhotra.A.830/2015 Page 2 of 15iv) On the occasion of festival of Holi, Vijay Malhotra along with his family had come to the house of Madan Lal Soni.On 26 th March, 2013, Madan Lal and Vijay Malhotra were taking drinks at the said house of Inder Enclave-II and during conversation, Madan Lal revealed about the said habits of accused i.e. taking drugs and keeping an evil eye on Leelawati.In the meanwhile, accused Vishal also happened to overhear there the same.He was in an inebriated state.He became furious.He started abusing and left the house while threatening Madan Lal.These events transpired at about 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, Vijay Malhotra also left from there.v) At about 10/10:15 p.m. accused Vishal returned with a knife.He threatened Madan Lal claiming that he would teach him a lesson for complaining against him and then attacked him with the knife and gave a knife blow on his abdominal region.Madan Lal shouted for help and on hearing this, his wife and children came there.Leelawati saw the accused armed with a blood stained knife and she also claimed to have seen the accused stabbing her husband with the said knife.The accused, after causing the said injuries, is said to have fled away.However, when he was fleeing away, Vijay Malhotra saw him running with a knife in his hand.Raj Kumar (brother of Madan Lal) was then called.Madan Lal was rushed to SGM hospital where he revealed all the aforesaid facts before SI Ravinder Solanki.On the basis of the said statement, FIR was initially registered u/s 307 IPC.However, Madan Lal succumbed to his injuries and, therefore, the case was converted from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC.A.830/2015 Page 3 of 15vi) Investigation was thereafter carried out.The spot was got inspected through the crime team.Statements of various witnesses including Leelawati Soni, Vijay Malhotra and Raj Kumar were recorded.Prathiba M. Singh, J.The present Appeal arises from the impugned judgement dated 27th March 2015, passed by the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, North-West District, Rohini Delhi, holding the Appellant guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder and convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter `IPC')The Appellant was tried in FIR No. 128/2013, registered at police station Aman Vihar, Delhi, on the charge of murdering Madan Lal Soni on 26th March, 2013 at about 10:15 p.m. at D-18, Inder Enclave-II, Mubarakpur, Delhi.The Trial Court, convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC, with the following observations:-A.830/2015 Page 1 of 1512.1 Resultantly, I hold accused guilty and convict him under Section 302 IPC."3. Vide the impugned order dated 31st March, 2015, Appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months.ii) Accused Vishal @ Raju was elder brother of Vijay Malhotra.Madan Lal Soni used to work as a driver on TATA 407 and Vishal used to work with him as helper and as per PW-3, also used to reside with Madan Lal at his said house.iii) Accused Vishal was claimed to be a drug addict and was alleged to be keeping an evil eye on Leelawati.Therefore, there used to be frequent altercations between Madan Lal and accused.Accused was arrested on 28th March, 2013 and from his house he the knife in question as well as the clothes which he had worn at the time of occurrence were recovered.vii) The accused was then sent-up to face trial for commission of offence u/s. 302 IPC.The Prosecution produced 24 witnesses.Our attention is, however, being drawn to the testimony of -Leelawati (PW-3) - the wife of the deceased and eye witness to the incident, Vijay Malhotra (PW-7) - brother of the appellant, Constable Anoop (PW-14), Sub-Inspector Ravinder Solanki (PW-19), Raj Kumar Soni (PW-22), the brother of the deceased Inspector Vijay Kumar Kataria (PW-23).The deceased Madan Lal, in this case, had given a statement before his demise which was recorded by SI Ravinder Solanki (PW-19) and was also endorsed by ASI Satveer Singh (PW-1).The deceased narrated the following chronology of events in his Rukka (statement given) -i) That he lives on rent at D-18, Inder Enclave-II, Mubarakpur, Delhi;ii) That he works as a driver with a TATA 407 tempo;A.830/2015 Page 4 of 15iii) That his sadu's brother Vishal @ Raju lives with him and he works as a helper in the tempo;iv) That Vishal @ Raju had a habit of taking drugs;v) That he has evil intentions towards his wife and because of this they had arguments in past;vi) That on the day of Holi, his sadu, Vijay Malhotra and his wife had visited his house and while they were consuming the drinks, he was telling Vijay Malhotra about his brother's bad habit of taking drugs and keeping an eye on his wife;vii) That at the time when he was speaking to Vijay Malhotra, Vishal @ Raju reached there.He was in an inebriated state and it was around 9:00 pm;viii) That Vishal @ Raju lost his cool and after hearing the conversion between him and Vijay Malhotra, he started abusing the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences;ix) That after this, Vijay Malhotra left the house of the deceased;x) That about 10/10:15 pm, Vishal @ Raju returned with a knife in his hand and threatened him that since he had complained to his brother, he would teach him a lesson;xi) That with an intention to deprive him of his life, he stabbed him in the stomach with a knife;xii) That he screamed loudly after he was stabbed, hearing which, his wife and his children came to the spot and upon seeing them Vishal @ Raju ran away;xiii) That his family brought him to Sanjay Gandhi hospital;A.830/2015 Page 5 of 15xiv) That Vishal @ Raju stabbed him with an intention to take way his life;xv) That legal action be taken against Vishal @ Raju.At the end of his statement, the deceased confirmed that he was read over the statement and that he confirmed the correctness of the same.The entire statement was recorded in Hindi and the deceased signed in Hindi.The declaration is attested by SI Ravinder Solanki (PW-19).Below this declaration, PW-19 has also given the entire background of how he reached the hospital along with Ct.Anoop (PW-14) where HC Sukhbir (PW-16) and Ct.Sandeep were already there.Latter two persons had informed PW-19 that the victim was in the minor OT.He confirmed that he recorded the entire statement given by the victim.It is the case of prosecution that Madan Lal had given the version of this incident to SI Ravinder Solanki (PW-19), on the basis of which the law was set into motion.The stand of the Appellant before the trial court, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was of false implication and regarding his brother Vijay Malhotra, the Appellant stated that he is not in good terms with him.However, no evidence in defense was led by the Appellant before the trial court.The plea put forth by the Appellant is that he was working as a Helper with Madan Lal Soni, who owed him some money, which was not being returned and therefore, Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.The Trial Court relied upon the statement of the deceased (Ex.PW-3/A) and the evidence of Leelawati (PW-3), wife of deceased, as well as Crl.A.830/2015 Page 6 of 15 evidence of Vijay Malhotra (PW-7) and the medical evidence to hold Appellant guilty of the offence of murder.A.830/2015 Page 6 of 15The challenge to the impugned conviction and sentence by learned counsel for the Appellant is on the ground that there is apparent contradiction inter se in the evidence of the initial Investigating Officer (PW-19) and Ct.Anoop (PW-14), regarding the time of preparation of rukka.Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for Appellant to the evidence of Ct.Anoop (PW-14) to point out that as per this witness, the rukka, which was prepared on the basis of the statement of Madan Lal Soni, was taken by him from the hospital to the police station at midnight.It is pointed out that according to SI Ravinder Solanki (PW-19), he had prepared the rukka at about 03:00 a.m. It is the submission of appellant's counsel that the variation of timings in respect of preparation of rukka creates a serious doubt as to the veracity of the contents thereof and adversely affects the prosecution case.Regarding the statement made by the deceased, it is further submitted by the Appellant's counsel that the Doctor, who had declared Madan Lal Soni fit for giving the statement was not examined and hence it would not be safe to presume that he was fit and rely upon the evidence of SI Ravinder Solanki (PW-19) regarding the recording of deceased's statement, as it was recorded much later than the incident.To assail the testimony of Leelawati (PW-3), wife of deceased, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the evidence of Vijay Malhotra (PW-7), who has denied that Madan Lal Soni had told him about the appellant having evil intentions towards Leelawati (PW-3).Our attention was drawn to the cross-examination of Vijay Malhotra (PW-7) to show that this witness has Crl.A.830/2015 Page 7 of 15 not supported the prosecution's case as his statement in the examination- in-chief is starkly different from the statements in his cross examination.Some doubts were sought to be raised by the Appellant's counsel about her background and her other relationships with a third party.Anoop (PW-14) he stated that the rukka was recorded around midnight i.e. 12:45 am.We find that regarding the timing of the rukka, Ct.Anoop (PW-14) has clarified the timing of sending of rukka and has maintained that he had reached the police station with the rukka between 03:00 p.m. and 03:20 p.m. and that he had earlier stated about reaching the police station at mid-night by Crl.A.830/2015 Page 10 of 15 approximation.The suggestion put to him regarding the rukka being ante-A.830/2015 Page 10 of 15timed has been denied by him.A.830/2015 Page 13 of 15The MLC of the deceased which records that the deceased was fit to make the statement has also been proved by Dr. Ashish (PW-10).From the evidence, the motive for the incident has been sufficiently proved.The presence of the Appellant at the spot also stands established not only from the evidence of Leelawati (PW-3) but also from the evidence of Vijay Malhotra (PW-7).Even if the recovery effected is discarded, still the prosecution case stands sufficiently proved from the eye witness account as well as Crl.A.830/2015 Page 14 of 15 from the dying declaration.Since the Appellant had left the deceased's home and returned with a pre-meditative mind, armed with a knife to take revenge, it cannot be said that the incident in question had taken place on the spur of moment or in the heat of passion.A.830/2015 Page 14 of 15In view of the foregoing narration, the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is maintained and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.(PRATHIBA M. SINGH) JUDGE (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 21, 2018 dk Crl.A.830/2015 Page 15 of 15A.830/2015 Page 15 of 15

['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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of false and fabricated facts.It has also been submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

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

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

C.R.M. 7259 of 2018 With C.R.M. 8741 of 2018 Re:- Applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 4th September, 2018 and 28th September, 2018 respectively in connection with Basirhat Police Station Case No. 464 dated 26.8.2018 under Sections 498A/320/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Abdul Hannan Gazi & Ors ... Petitioners (In CRM 7259/2018) And Abdulmannan Gazi ...Petitioner (In CRM 8741/2018) Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Ms. Anubrata Dutta ..for the Petitioners (in both the matters) Mr. Swapan Banerjee Ms. Purnima Ghosh .. for the State (In CRM 7259/2018) Ms. Sonali Das .. for the State (In CRM 8741/2018) These two matters are taken up together since they are connected and arise out of the same complaint.The petitioners in the above two applications seek anticipatory bail in connection with Basirhat Police Station Case No. 464 dated 26.8.2018 under Sections 498A/320/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The earlier petition pertains to relatives of the husband of the victim, the later matter has been filed by the husband.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statements of some of the witnesses.The State says that it is the allegation of the wife that she was attempted to be throttled to death by her husband and his relatives.Considering the material and the statements recorded, there does not appear to be any basis to the apprehension that the petitioners may flee, if granted anticipatory bail.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.This order is subject to the condition that the husband will pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the wife by way of maintenance.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.

RC(MD)No.254 of 2009:These Criminal Revisions are directed against the Judgment passed bythe Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar @ Srivilliputhur, dated 21.04.2009made in C.A.No.68 of 2004, modifying the Judgment of the Judicial MagistrateNo.2.According to the prosecution, all the accused trespassed into thehouse of PW1 and committed theft.The Inspector of Police, attached toSrivilliputhur Town Police Station has filed a final report under Sections457 and 380 IPC r/w 34 IPC against the accused.3.In the trial court, 60 witnesses were examined, 62 Exhibits and 18material objects were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.The trial court convictedthe accused with a sentence of 2 years RI with fine of Rs.100/-, in defaultto undergo two months of RI under Section 457 IPC and 2 years RI with fine ofRs.100/-, in default to undergo two months of RI for the offence underSection 380 IPC r/w 34 IPC.4.Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the accused havefiled an appeal in C.A.No.68 of 2004, which was heard by the PrincipalSessions Judge, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur.The first appellateCourt modified the sentence of imprisonment and ordered that instead of 2years, they will undergo 10 months of RI each for all the offences anddirected the sentences to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the Judgment of thefirst appellate court, the revision petitioners/A2 to A4 are before thiscourt.5.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Court belowfailed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution case is that the accusedinformed PW1 that her son was caught by police and induced her to give thekey to the accused and later they locked the door and kept the key with themwithout giving it to her, but PW1 has deposed that with tension, she lockedthe door and went to the police station by keeping the key in her hands torescue her son and after knowing that it is false, she came back home andaccording to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 14.10.1993,whereas A3 and A4 were arrested on 23.12.2000 and A1 and A2 were arrested on 25.12.2000 that is after 7 years, which is highly impossible and that theprosecution witnesses failed to identify A2 during the identification paradeconducted by the Judicial Magistrate (PW55) on 20.02.2001 and A2 was arrested on 25.12.2000 at 4.30 pm at Thalavaipuram Arasadi bus stop, but even thoughthe independent witnesses are available, the Investigating Officer cited thewitnesses, who are none other than the Village Administrative Officer and hisAssistant Village Head Man and the courts below erred in relying on thedeposition of PW1 and PW2 that MO1 to MO17 gold jewels and MO18 gold bar are the jewels robbed from their house, whereas it is impossible to identifyafter melting the gold and prays that the criminal revisions are to beallowed.6.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts belowappreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of theeye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted therevision petitioners and passed proper sentence, which does not require anyinterference by this court and the accused are not entitled for acquittal andprays that the criminal revisions may be dismissed.7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.8.PW1 is doing the business of Pawn Broker.PW1 deposed that A3 and A4 came to her house and stated that her son was caught by the police and he was in the police station and then, she locked her houseand went to the police station and enquired in the police station, she cameto understand A3 and A4 gave her false information and then she came to herhouse and she found that 91 sovereigns of jewels were stolen and in thejewels, some jewels belonged to her and other jewels were pledged jewels andshe went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 Complaint and further PW1stated that prior to the occurrence, A1 asked money by way of pledging hisjewels, but she has refused to give money and only after that, the occurrencehad taken place.9.PW2 deposed that her mother told him about the occurrence and his mother was doing Pawn broker business.PW2 is the hearsay evidence.From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it reveals that PW1 is doing Pawn Broker business.10.In this case, PW1 identified A1 to A4 in the identification paradeconducted by PW5 the Judicial Magistrate.Further, PW60 the InvestigatingOfficer arrested A1 on 25.12.2000 and A1 gave confession and on the basis ofthe confession, MO14 to MO17 were recovered by way of Athachi.But PW50 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.11.In this case, A3 Periasamy was arrested on 23.11.2000 at 3.00 pm inVirudhunagar Bus stop and he gave confession and on the basis of theconfession, MO1 and MO2 were recovered from PW21 as identified by A3 and from PW27, MO5 was recovered as identified by A3 and further A3 identified PW24 and from PW24 MO3 and MO4 were recovered by way of Athachi.13.The learned counsel for the accused argued that a man who is inpossession of stolen goods soon-after the theft is either the thief or aperson who has received the stolen goods, unless he accounts for hispossession and in this case, the stolen properties were recovered seven yearsafter the occurrence and hence the presumption under Section 114 of theEvidence Act can not be invoked in this case and therefore, he prays that theaccused are entitled for acquittal.14.In this case, the persons who recovered the stolen goods deposedthat they recovered the articles soon after the occurrence from the accusedby way of sale.Hence, the goods soon after the occurrence were sold by theaccused to several persons.Hence, the delay in recovering the stolen goodsis not fatal to the prosecution case.Hence, on careful perusal of theevidence of witnesses and documents, it reveals that all the accused havebroken the door of the house of PW1 and stolen the goods.Hence, the charges against him is abated.16.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the consideredview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt andaccordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are confirmed.However, considering the age and family circumstances of the revisionpetitioners/A2 and A4, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners/A2and A4 by the first appellate court is modified into 15 weeks of R/I for eachoffence.In respect of fine amount, the findings of the Courts below areconfirmed for each offence.The sentences are directed to run concurrently.The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is set off underSection 428 of Cr.P.C.17.With the above modification, these criminal revisions are partlyallowed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar @ Srivilliputhur.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Delivered on 27/03/2017) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.16/2010 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 451 of IPC and sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act r/w Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.While the appeal was pending, the parties have entered into compromise.They filed an application I.A. No.9327/2016 under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and I.A. No.9328/2016 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to compromise the matter.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He owns some agricultural land at village Bklahare, Taluka Srirampur, District Ahmednagar.Petitioners 1 to 10 are the Directors of a company incorporated under the Companies Act doing business in the name and style of 'The Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.' This Mills being in the private sector and apparently finding it difficult to get cultivation to supply sugarcane to it, introduced a scheme.Under this scheme the Mills stood guarantee for repayment of loans advanced by the State Bank of India's branch at Tilak Nagar.The cultivator was to receive the amount by way of advance towards the price payable unto him for the expected delivery of the cane.JUDGMENT S.M. Daud, J.The main petition is for the purpose of quashing an order whereby the petitioners therein have been summoned to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Srirampur to answer charge of having committed offences punishable under Section 409 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.Respondent No. 1 in the main petition who is the petitioner in the 1988 application and who shall hereinafter be referred to as the complainant, is a cultivator-cum-practicing Advocate of Srirampur in District Ahmednagar.The amount was to be adjusted against the price payable to him by the Mills.The Mills was to pass on the recovered amount advanced to the Bank.Interest, if any, payable on the same received by the cultivator was to be paid by the Mills.Under this arrangement a sum of Rs. 6375/- was advanced to the complainant by the Bank.On 16th December, 1986, the complainant delivered cane to the Mills and out of the value thereof a sum of Rs. 6375/- was deducted as amount payable to the Bank for the advance made by it.On 22nd May, 1987, the complainant received a notice from the Bank intimating him that the sum of Rs. 6375/- was still outstanding, and that he had to repay alongwith interest.A copy of this notice was also sent to the Mills, drawing it's attention the fact that it had stood surety for the repayment of the advance and was under an obligation to make the repayment as early as possible.Complainant on 3rd August, 1983 appeared before the JMFC, Srirampur and tendered a complaint.This complaint recites the aforementioned details as also that the Mills was a Board managed company, the Board consisting of Accused Nos. 1 to 9, the Accused No. 10 was a Director (Works), the Accused No. 11 was the accountant and Accused No. 12 was the General Manager, that all the accused were in charge of the affairs of the Mills, that despite having recovered Rs. 6375/- on 29th December, 1986, they had not transmitted the amount to the Bank and that this amounted to criminal breach of trust.Something to the same effect was stated by the complainant in his preliminary statement which has been labelled as a 'verification'.After the preliminary statement had been recorded the learned Magistrate passed an order in these words :P.C. and to submit his report within one month positively."In his complaint the complainant, had expressed an apprehension about his reach of the accused describing them as very influential persons and therefore in a position to overawe the police.He specifically solicited an order that the complaint be not referred to the police for enquiry or investigation.As was to be expected, he felt aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate and therefore preferred a revision to the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar.The revision bearing No. 276 of 1987 was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who sustained the contention raised by the complainant.The Magistrate was directed to issue process against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 409 r/w. 34 of the Penal Code.In fact no offence had been made out against them or any of them.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Record of the lower court is available.Heard on point of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.4339/2017 and I.A. No.4340/2017 stand disposed of being rendered infructuous.Heard on I.A. No.4341/2017, which is first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant- Sunil @ Galiya S/o Ramkishan Ninama Bhil.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant remained on bail during the trial and offence under Section 376 IPC was not proved against the appellant.He also submits that hearing of this appeal shall take time.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After due consideration, this application is allowed.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11.09.2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Navnidhi Parharya, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A.No.685/2020, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed as withdrawn.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Earlier occasion on behalf of the applicant in this regard M. Cr.No.1601/13, was preferred.On taking up the same for hearing on 24.1.2014, the then arguing counsel instead to argue had pleaded no instruction, on which with the assistance of the case diary and the State counsel so also in presence of the counsel of objector/ prosecutrix such M. Cr. C. was initially considered on merits in which it was found that the applicant does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail, but in view of aforesaid pleading of no instruction of the appearing counsel after making observation on merits as stated above the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.Before proceeding further, I deem fit to reproduce the relevant part of aforesaid earlier order dated 24.1.2014 :"I deem fit to mention here that the State's counsel has made the submission with the assistance of the aforesaid counsel for the objector- prosecutrix.Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully perused the FIR, interrogatory 2 statements, so also other papers available in the case diary, according to which, the investigation of the case is in progress and it is undisputed fact that the applicant being Police Officer has committed the alleged act accompanied with some other person which comes under the purview of gang rape, defined under the IPC.Even otherwise, in view of aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the applicant does not have case on merits for extending such benefit as such there is sufficient prima facie evidence in the case diary against the applicant for committing the alleged offence of the gang rape made punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and of the criminal threat given by the applicant to the prosecutrix made punishable under Section 506-II of IPC and besides it, there is also prima facie ingredients of the offence of Section 3 (2) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C., S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the applicant.In such premises, the impugned petition for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail deserves to be dismissed.However, as no one is present on behalf of the applicant and engaged counsel Shri Sharad Verma has already taken permission to withdraw from this case to prosecute this petition, thus, instead to dismiss the same on merits, with aforesaid observation, the petition is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.After dictating the aforesaid, Shri P.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the objector- prosecutrix submits that he has filed an affidavit of the prosecutrix sworn on 9.1.2014 stating that the present applicant has not committed any alleged offence on her but due to wrong information supplied by the co-accused, the name of the present applicant has been stated in the FIR and prayed to consider such question on the basis of affidavit.It is apparent from the case diary that the impugned FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix on 22.8.2013 and since then till 9.1.2014 no such affidavit was sworn by the prosecutrix and the fact remains that the applicant a Police Sub Inspector remained outside and was not arrested in the present matter.So such circumstance also requires investigation, which may be carried out by the Investigating Agency.Section 154 of Cr.P.C. specifically and mandatorily provides that on receiving information of any cognizable offence by the SHO of a Police Station, then he has no option except to register the FIR and subsequently such offence being cognizable could be 3 investigated by the Police Officer under its discretion and unless the investigation is completed, on the basis of said affidavit, this petition could not be adjudicated contrary to the evidence collected by the Investigation Agency available in the case diary.Apart from this, in the matter of cognizable offence, specially the offence, which is not made compoundable under the law, at the stage of consideration of bail petition, either anticipatory or regular bail, such affidavit could not be taken into consideration.As the court is bound to consider the FIR and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses and other available collected evidence by the Investigating Agency to decide the application of anticipatory bail.So in such premises, without expressing any opinion on merits on the aforesaid affidavit, a liberty is extended to the Investigating Agency to investigate the case on the said affidavit its discretion, if the same is permissible under the law.The petition is dismissed, as indicated above."He further said that while considering this repeat petition the conduct of the prosecutrix requires consideration.On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments learned P.L. with the assistance of the case diary argued that it is undisputed that applicant is working as Sub-inspector of Police and as per averments of the FIR, he had taken the prosecutrix first in side of the alleged room and taking advantage of his position committed the rape on her knowingly that she is from the caste/ community covered under the Act and thereafter co- accused committed rape on her.So, in such premises, at this stage I have not found fit to call the prosecutrix before the Court to verify the averments of the affidavits placed on behalf of the applicant on record.In view of aforesaid discussion, I have found sufficient prima-facie evidence against the applicant for committing the alleged offence of gang rape with a woman belonging to the community covered under the Act, therefore, I am no inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant either on merits or on the ground of parity.Resultantly, this repeat petition is dismissed on merits.The petition is dismissed, as indicated above.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the aforesaid FIR, there are three more accused persons namely Sandeep Garg, Mr.Surinder Garg and Smt.Padma Garg being husband, father- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively.There are two children born from the wedlock of the parties.On 8th February, Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 1 of 4 2014, DD no.8A was received at Police Station Adarsh Nagar.Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have already been arrested and they are in judicial custody.Learned counsel further submits that the after the alleged incident, the parents of the deceased had taken the children of the deceased but later on they had left them in the office of DCP and since then the children of deceased are living in "Palna".It is submitted that petitioner has to take care of children of the deceased also.On the other hand, learned APP has argued that offence is serious Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 2 of 4 and petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 2 of 4I have considered the submissions made and gone through the material on record.Suresh Goyal , father of the deceased has made statement to the SDM wherein he has alleged that immediately after marriage, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased used to beat his daughter and harassed her for dowry and the same continued and for the past one year deceased was not allowed to visit her parental home nor she was even allowed to speak to them over phone.He had alleged that all it was done for getting more dowry as Sandeep was not doing any work.The brother of the deceased, namely, Ravi Goyal, has also made statement to the SDM wherein he has alleged that soon after the marriage his sister i.e., deceased was being harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry.He has further alleged that after the birth of his son, he along with his wife had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased, they were teased by her in-laws and Dewar i.e., the present petitioner and were not allowed to enter the house and meet the deceased.He has further alleged that for the past one year and three months whenever he had gone to the house of the deceased with some articles on account of festivals, parents-in-law of the deceased used to say that we had insulted them and used to tell the deceased to get money from her parents.He has further alleged that they had also beaten the deceased in his presence.The mother of the deceased has also made statement to the SDM wherein she has alleged that husband of the deceased as well as parents- in-law of the deceased used to torture their daughter for demand of dowry and were giving beatings to her every day and after the birth of the daughter to the deceased, they started troubling her more.CRL.M.A.4383/2014 (exemption) Exemption as prayed for is allowed, subject to just exceptions.BAIL APPLN.This is an application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioner-Saurav Kumar Garg i.e., brother in law (Devar) of the deceased Pooja Garg.Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of FIR no.95/2014 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC P.S.Adarsh Nagar.When SI Sandeep Kumar reached the spot i.e., C-7/3, New Cottage Road, Adarsh Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, he came to know that deceased i.e., Pooja Garg w/o Sandeep Garg had been taken to the hospital.On reaching there he came to know that deceased had got 99% superficial to deep burns and she was declared brought dead.The FIR was registered by the police on the basis of statements of parents and brother of the deceased to the S.D.M.Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 1 of 43. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no allegations against the present petitioner that he had harassed the deceased for or in connection with any demand of dowry.It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is submitted that the matrimonial home of the deceased was consisting of three floors.The deceased was living at the second floor while the present petitioner along with his wife was living at the third floor of the said house.There are no allegations in the statements of parents and brother of the deceased on the basis of which FIR has been registered that the present petitioner had harassed her for or in connection with demand of dowry.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ingredients of section 304B IPC have not been made out against the petitioner.The husband and his parents were demanding jewellery from them and they were not Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 3 of 4 allowed to even visit them.Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 3 of 4The main allegations in the FIR are against the parents of the deceased and husband of the deceased.The parents of the deceased have alleged that deceased was tortured and harassed in connection with demand of dowry by her husband and parents-in-law.They have not made any allegation of harassment against the brother-in-law of the deceased i.e., present petitioner to the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry.The brother of the deceased has also made main allegations against the husband and parents in law of the deceased alleging therein that they used to ask the deceased to bring dowry and used to beat her on regular basis and they demanded gold jewellery from her.The allegations made by the brother of the deceased against the petitioner is that when he and his wife had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased on the occasion of birth of his son with certain articles, then parents in law and brother in law of the deceased had passed taunting remarks.He shall join the investigation as and when called by the IO.It is clarified that observations made in the order are only with regard to the consideration of anticipatory bail application of petitioner and will have no bearing on the trial of the case.Application stands disposed of.VEENA BIRBAL, J MARCH 14, 2014 ssb Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 4 of 4Bail Appln No.592/2014 Page 4 of 4

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

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