Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.Present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 1.9.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II Mainpuri in case No.2206 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II Mainpuri.The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no case under Sections 498A, 323, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against all the applicants.From the bare perusal of the complaint prima facie offence against the applicants is made out.Specific allegation has been made in the complaint against the applicant No.1 and his parents.

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

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

They are related to each other.Both deceased 1 and 2 were also the residents of Alagianambiapuram.Deceased 1's sister is P.W. 1 Her father is one by name Sudalai and her mother is one by name Sudali.(b) P.W. 1's father Sudalai, it is said, owns three houses in a row.(c) One Muthu, also a Harijan, is a resident of the said village.Because of such intimacy, the said Muthu was stated to have been taking her from her house to outside place and return back after sometime.(d) A few days prior to the occurrence, the said Muthu was stated to have taken deceased to outside place and returned to the village.P.W. 3 appeared to have made an earnest request to the said Muthu to marry deceased 1, since the affair between him and deceased 1, had become public.The said Muthu appeared to have taken up a stand that he was after all friendly with deceased 1 and that there was no incestuous connection between him and her and therefore, the question of himself marrying deceased 1 did not at all arise.The said Muthu also appeared to have requested P.W. 3 to see that deceased 1, was left in her house.P.W. 3, in turn, went and reported the matter to the parents of deceased 1 and they also agreed that their daughter-deceased 1 be retrieved to their custody.(e) On the day previous to the occurrence the parents of deceased 1 reported the matter to one Subbiah and requested him amicably settle the matter.It appears that the said Subbiah convened a panchayat in the village at 7 p.m. in front of the temple of the village.Deceased 2 had also been enquired in the Panchayat and she was stated to have told the Panchayatdars that there had been illicit relationship between the said Muthu and deceased 1 and she also divulged that she was the person responsible for deceased 1 and the said Muthu meeting each other on two or three occasions for taking a trip away from the village.The said Muthu, however, did not accede to marry deceased 1 and so saying, he went away from the panchayat.Thereafter, the Panchayatdars unable to amicably settle the matter told the mother of P.W. 1 to report the matter to the police.Consequently, the mother of P.W. 1 went and reported the matter to Panagudi police station.(f) On receipt of the petition, Exhibit P. 7 Constable P. 8, it is said, went to the village on the same night to make an enquiry as respects the petition so presented.The said Muthu, in turn, fearing for the police, was stated to have undertaken P.W. 8 to produce the said Muthu before the police station the next day.(g) The said Muthu, fearing for the police, was stated to have consumed poison in rather a bid to commit suicide and he was stated to have been taken to Government Hospital, Nagercoil in a bid to save his life.The time was about 7 a.m. P.W. 2, the brother of deceased 2 was then stated to be sitting outside the house of P.W. 1, along with one Sornathai.Fearing risk at the hands of the accused, deceased 1 and 2 were stated to have been locked up inside in one of the three houses situate on the east belonging to the father of P.W. 1, while P.W. 3 was locked up inside P.W. 1's father's house, situate on the western side.P.W. 1 was then present outside the house.Accused 5 and 11 directed P.W. 1 to open the door of the house, to which course, he flatly refused.Body of deceased 1 was then suspended by means of a rope being tied to a raf-ter in the house and the body of deceased 2 was allowed to lie nearby.Thereafter, all the accused ran away from there.(i) sometime thereafter, P.W. 1 along with her mother Sudalai returned to the scene and after seeing the corpses of deceased 1 and 2, wept for sometime.Then P.W. 1, along with her mother Sudalai went to Perungudi to lodge an information to the Village Administration Officer.The distance between the scene of occurrence and Perungudi is about two miles.After reaching there, they found to their dismay, the Village Administration Officer was not available.They therefore went to Vadakkankulam, which is one mile away from Perungudi for reporting the matter to the Revenue Inspector.Thereafter, P.W. 1 and her mother returned to the scene village.(j) P.W. 9 also returned to the scene at about 3-30 p.m. After inspecting the scene of occurrence, he prepared Yadast and despatched Exhibit P. 1 along with Yadast through a Thalaiyari by name Arumugam to Panagudi police station.(k) P.W. 10 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panagudi police station.At 4 p.m. on 6-9-1984, while he was in the station, he received Exhibit P. 1 complaint through the said Thalaiyari Arumugam.On the strength of Exhibit P. 9 he registered a case in Crime No. 296/84 as deaths under suspicious circumstances.P. 9 is the copy of printed FIR.He also sent express reports to the concerned Officials.Besides, he informed P.W. 11 the then Inspector of Police over phone.He then went to the scene of occurrence.(l) After the receipt of the Phone Message, P.W. 11, in turn, rushed and reached the scene village at 7-30 p.m. He took up further investigation of the case from P.W. 10, who was already present there.P.W. 9, Revenue Inspector was also present then.P.W. 11 after inspecting the scene, prepared Exhibit P. 8 observation mahazar.In the meantime at 8 p.m. he seized M.O. 2 rope from the neck of deceased 1, besides seizing M.O. 3 rope lying on the pial under Exhibit P. 12 Mahazar.Exhibits P. 8 and P. 12 were attested by P.W. 9 and another.After inquest, at about 10-30 p.m. he sent the body of deceased 1 and 2 respectively through Constables, P.Ws. 4, 5, along with Exhibit P. 2 requisition for the purpose of autopsy.He searched for the accused and they were absconding.He also made arrangements for forwarding the seized MOs.2 and 3 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Nanguneri.He also altered the case into one under Ss. 147, 323 and 302, IPC.He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned Officials Exhibit P. 15 is the copy of the express report.(m) P.W. 6 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Panagudi.He was of opinion that deceased 1 would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation.He was of opinion that deceased 2 would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation.During the Course of autopsy, the doctor P.W. 6, obviously on instructions from P.W. 11, preserved the viscera of deceased 1 and 2 for sending the same to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis.(n) At 7 a.m. on 7-9-84 P.W. 11 arrested accused 3 to 7 at Alagianambiapuram.He brought them to the police station at 8 a.m. and then sent to Court for the purpose of remand.He hen went to Nagercoil and examined Muthu.On the same day, he also examined the doctor, P.W. 6, He searched for the accused and they were not available.On 10-9-1984, he arrested accused 1 and 2 at Kaval Kinaruvilakku and brought them to the police station at 3-30 p.m. and thereafter sent them to the Court for the purpose of remand.On 18-9-1984, at about 12 noon, he arrested accused 8 to 12 at Alagianambiapuram and brought them to the police station and thereafter sent them to Court for the purpose of remand.On 28-9-1984, he sent Exhibit 5 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Nanguneri for the purpose of remand.On 28-9-1984, he sent Exhibit P. 5 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Nanguneri for the purpose of sending the preserved vicera to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis on 15-10-1984 at 6.30 a.m. he arrested accused 15 to 18 at Alagianambiapuram and brought them to the police station at 7-30 a.m., from where he sent them to Court for the purpose of remand.(o) P.W. 7 was the then Headclerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Nanguneri.JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.In respect of an occurrence that took place at 7 a.m. on 6-9-1984 at Alagianambiapuram, which lies within the jurisdiction of Panagudi police station, leading to the murders of one Uchimahali (deceased 1) and another Panchavarnam (Deceased 2), the wheels of investigation proceeded on the basis of Exhibit P. 1 complaint given by P.W. 1, registered as a case of suspicious deaths in Crime No. 296/84 and ultimately, a final report under S. 173(2), Cr.The final report so filed had been taken on file as P.R. Case No. 20 of 1985 as against accused 1 to 18 and all copies of documents, on the appearance of the accused, had been given to them under S. 207, Cr.Learned Sessions Judge tried both cases together.The following charges were framed as against accused 1 to 18 :On trial, accused 1 and 2 were found guilty under S. 302, IPC (two courts), convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count, with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently.They were, however, found not guilty under S. 147, IPC and acquitted thereof.Accused 13 was found not guilty Ss. 147 and 302 (two counts) IPC and acquitted thereof.Accused 3 to 12 and 14 to 18 were also found not guilty under Ss. 147 and 302 read with S. 149 (two counts) IPC and acquitted thereof.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 2 resorted to the present action.Brief facts are :-(a) Accused 1 to 18 are the residents of Alagianambiapuram.Accused 1 and 2 broke open the door and dragged P.W. 3 out of the house and kicked her.They also broke open the door of the other house and pulled out deceased 1 and 2 thereafter, all the accused without any exception, were stated to have beaten them black and blue.P.W. 3, fearing for her life, was stated to have run away from the scene, while P.W. 1 rushed to her garden land, in a bid to fetch her mother, who was stated to have been present therein then, to the scene.P.W. 2 alone was standing outside and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence that happened then.Accused 1 and 2 were stated to have tied M.O. 2 rope around the neck of deceased 1 and 2 strangulated her to death.Similarly, by means of M.O. 3 rope, the neck of deceased 2 was also stated to have tied and in a like manner, she was also strangulated to death by them.On receipt of Exhibit P. 5 requisition, as per the directions of learned Magistrate, he sent a letter, under the original of Exhibit P. 6 to the doctor, P.W. 6 requisition to send the preserved viscera to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis.The doctor, P.W. 6 in turn appeared to have sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis.Exhibits P. 16 and P. 17 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner, as relatable to deceased 1 and 2 respectively.(p) At that stage P.W. 11 was transferred and his successor Inspector P.W. 12, after verifying the investigation earlier done by P.W. 11 and after further examining and recording the statement from the doctor P.W. 6 laid a final report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. 10-6-1985 as stated above.On committal and submission of records, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused 1 to 18 as stated above.The accused, when questioned as respects the charges so framed against them, denied the same and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in proof of the charges so framed against the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 12, filed Exhibits P. 1 to PP.The accused, when questioned under S. 313, Cr.P.C. as against the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied their complicity in the crime.They did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.Learned Sessions Judge, on taking into consideration the materials placed and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for defence and learned Public Prosecutor rendered the verdict, as stated above.From the arguments of Mr. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K. Selvarangan, learned counsel appearing for the first appellant-accused 1 and Mr. B. Ullasavelan, learned counsel appearing for the second appellant-accused 2 and Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the one and only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon the appellants accused 1 and 2 for the offences under S. 302, IPC (two counts) are sustainable in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.The causa causans for the occurrence, as projected by the prosecution, is the alleged consumption of poison by Muthu on the morning of the day of the occurrence and his being taken to Government Hospital at Nagarcoil, in a bid to save his life.All the accused, inclusive of accused 1 and 2 are somehow or other interested in the cause and welfare of the said Muthu.The provocation for the accused to rise in revolt against deceased 1 and 2 on the day of the occurrence was giving of Exhibit P. 7 complaint, which resulted in an enquiry being made by Constable P.W. 8 by his actually going to the scene village and enquiring about the whereabouts of the said Muthu.The said Muthu, being afraid of the police, was stated to have consumed poison.When we perused Exhibit P. 7 complaint, the allegations therein are more or less innocuous, in not giving any cause for anxiety to a person like the said Muthu.What had been stated therein was that the said Muthu, who had been friendly with deceased 1 for quite sometime prior to the occurrence was not willing to marry her, as a consequence was not willing to marry her, as a consequence of his not being given proper "seer", quantified in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in consideration of his marrying her.Their evidence, in sum and substance is that the said Muthu virtually refused before the panchayat that he had any sort of a connection with deceased 1 and therefore, he could not marry her.Their evidence would further reveal that the said Muthu had incestuous connection with deceased 1 and despite so, he refused to marry her before the panchayatdars and this aspect of the matter was stated to have been spoken to by deceased 2 before the Panchayatdars.Neither the said Muthu nor a Panchayatdar like Subbiah had been examined by the prosecution to testify the same.These things apart, no tangible materials, in the shape of best evidence had been placed before Court as to Muthu having consumed and getting admitted in the Government Hospital at Nagercoil, in a bid to save his life.In such state of affairs, the immediacy of the cause or the igniting factor for all the accused, inclusive of accused 1 and 2, to rise in revolt against deceased 1 and 2 as well as their family members, as projected by the prosecution appears to be rather highly improbable.Leave alone the immediacy of the cause for the occurrence, even the occurrence, as projected by P.Ws. 1 to 3 cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance at the hands of the Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.All the enraged accused 1 to 18 were stated to have made a march towards the house of deceased 1, in a bid to wreak vengeance, as a consequence of the said Muthu consuming poison and his being taken to the hospital in a precarious condition.All the accused, numbering 18, were stated to have belaboured P.Ws. 1 and 3, apart from breaking open the doors of the two houses and bringing out deceased 1 and 2 kept inside and they were also stated to have been belaboured by all the accused.If really P.Ws. 1, 3 and deceased 1 and 2 received such an on slaught of attack at the hands of accused 1 to 18, the plausibility or possibility of P.Ws. 1, 3 and deceased 1 and 2 sustaining at least some injury on their person cannot be ruled out of consideration.The pity is that neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 3 had been sent to the hospital for the purpose of treatment and the plausible explanation given in a contumacious fashion is that they were not sent to the hospital, since there were no injuries on their person.If we perused Exhibits P. 3 and P. 4 post mortem certificates, we are unable to find any visible injury or marks on their person as to their having been belaboured by all the accused prior to their having been strangulated to death, by means of tying a rope around their respective necks.This apart, before ever an onslaught of attack had been made on deceased 1 and 2, it is the case of the prosecution as unfolded by P.Ws. 1 to 3, the doors of their houses were trashed and consequently, they were broken into pieces and thereafter only deceased 1 and 2 were brought out for an onslaught of attack to be made no them.On this aspect of the matter, questions had been hurled to the Investigating Officer P.W. 11 when he was in the box and he would candidly admit that the doors of three houses were in good condition, without being thrashed and destroyed.From this, it is clear that what P.Ws. 1 to 3 deposed before Court respecting the manner and methodology of the occurrence is divorced of the reality of the situation.The case of the prosecution is that deceased 1 and 2 had been strangulated to death by accused 1 and 2 by tying MO 2 and MO 3 ropes around their respective necks.This aspect of the matter is spoken to by P.W. 2 alone.Deceased 1 is none-else than the sister's daughter of P.W. 2, while deceased 2 is his own sister.What P.W. 1 would state was that she ran away from the scene to fetch her mother Sudali, who was then available in her garden land situate one mile away from the scene of occurrence.P.W. 3 in her chief examination would say that she ran away from there in a bid to save her life.It is intriguing to note as to be P.W. 2 alone was left off from an attack without being noticed by the accused, when especially he was stated to have been presented all along in the scene.If really P.W. 2 had been bodily present, going by the adage 'blood is thicker than water, he could have rushed to the rescue of deceased 1 and 2, not caring for perilous consequences, if any he has to face at the hands of the accused.He would not at all murmur or whisper anything as to such aspect of the matter.Apart from such a dismal feature of his evidence, it is worthwhile to not that he did not rush to report the occurrence to any of the authorities concerned.He would be available in the scene when P.Ws. 1 and 3 returned back to the scene.According to the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 3 returned back to the scene.Though on such an admission, P.W. 2 was present, neither he narrated the occurrence either to P.W. 1 or P.W. 3; nor P.Ws. 1 and 3, daunted by curiousity, after finding the dead bodies of deceased 1 and 2 asked P.W. 2 as to what had happened to them.Such sort of res gestae evidence is completely absent.If really P.W. 2 had witnessed the occurrence, in the normal run of things, he could have stated to P.Ws. 1 and 3 as to how the occurrence took place immediately on their arrival at the scene or P.Ws. 1 and 3 as to how the occurrence took place immediately on their arrival at the scene or P.Ws. 1 and 3 would have ascertained from P.W. 2 as to how the occurrence had happened.A signal circumstance is traceable to the averments in Exhibit P. 1 - FIR as to the absence of P.W. 2 in the scene at or about the time of the occurrence.That apart, the averments in the FIR, specifically state that deceased 1 and 2 died under suspicious circumstances, thereby requiring no further investigation to be made.For the sake of emphasis, we may again reiterate and state that if P.W. 2 had really been present in the scene and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence, he should have told the same to P.Ws. 1 and 3, when they returned back to the scene of occurrence after sometime and in the first information, P.W. 1 could have stated in a positive fashion as to how the occurrence had happened without mentioning therein that the death of deceased 1 and 2 was under suspicious circumstances.In view of the dismal features exhibited by the testimony of P.W. 2 the lone and sole witness for the occurrence, we are unable to place any safe reliance upon his testimony to mulct criminal liability upon the appellants-accused 1 and 2, as had been done by the Court below for an offence under S. 302, IPC (two courts).In this view of the matter, both the appellants accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences under S. 302, IPC (two counts) and consequently, the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed on them by the Court below deserve to be set aside.The bail bonds, if any, executed by them, shall stand cancelled.Appeal Allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellants in these appeals, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 11along with one other accused who had been arrayed as A-12 (since acquitted) inS.C.No.697 of 1999, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt I, Tirunelveli, have come forward with these appeals against the order ofconviction and sentence passed against them.The appellants in Crl.A.No.621 of2004 are the accused Nos.1 to 4; the appellants in Crl.A.No.618 of 2004 are theaccused Nos.9 to 11 and the appellants in Crl.2.The charges levelled against the appellants along with the acquittedaccused A-12 are that all the appellant/accused, alleged to have armed withdeadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the deathof three persons by name Pandarasamy, Murugan and Karuppasamy, hereinafterreferred to as D1, D2 and D3 respectively, who are the sons of one Pandarm, thecomplainant in this case, caused the death of the above said three persons on5.11.1999 at bout 6-30 A.M. at the junction of the bus stop of the villageSundarapandiyapuram, by indiscriminately cutting them with deadly weapons inwreaking revenge due to the previous enmity connected with the murder of oneMurugan, the brother of A1 and son of Pandaram in respect which a case had beenregistered by the police that was pending before the Additional District andSessions Judge, Tirunelveli.Charge No.1) Against the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 11 and A-12 underSection 148 of IPC for having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly withdeadly weapons and committed rioting.Charge No.2) Against A-4 and 8 for having wrongfully restrained thedeceased Pandarasamy and deceased Murugan respectively for an offence punishableunder Section 341 IPC;Charge No.3) Against A-1 to A-7, and A-9 to A-11 under Section 302 IPC (3counts) for having attacked the deceased Pandarasamy by A-1 to A-4 and thedeceased Murugan by A-6,A-7 and A-9 and the deceased Karupasamy by A-10 and A-11with deadly weapons and caused their death.Charge No.5) Against A-1 under Section 307 IPC for having hurled thecountry bomb against P.W.1 with an attempt to commit murder.Charge No.7)Against A-1 under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908 for having been in possession of a country bomb without holding a validlicence.The deceased persons, viz., Pandarasamy, Murugan and Karuppasamy arebrothers (referred in this judgment as D-1 to D-3 respectively).P.Ws.1 and 2are the father and the brother of the deceased respectively.The sister of A-1viz., Pitchaiammal was given in marriage to P.W.1's son viz., Sappani.At thetime of the marriage, P.W.1 Pandarasamy gave four marakals of agricultural landto his son Sappani for cultivation.Subsequent to that marriage there werefrequent family disputes between P.W.1's son and A-1's sister (i.e., between thehusband and the wife).The father-in-law of P.W.1's son had beaten him due tothe family dispute.Hence, P.W.1's son Sappani committed suicide.Thereafter,P.W.1's daughter-in-law (i.e., Sappani's wife) went to her parents' house andstayed there.Hence, P.W.1 had started to cultivate the four marakal ofagricultural land by himself which was given to his son at the time of hismarriage.A-1 Mariappan cautioned P.W.1 not to cultivate the said four marrakkalagricultural land which was given to P.W.1's son during his marriage with hissister.Hence, a dispute in respect of the said agricultural land had arisenbetween the two families.When the deceasedpersons i.e, D1, D2 and D3 along with P.Ws.1 & 2 (father and sons) came to thesignal of Sundarapandiyapuram Junction to board the bus to go to Tirunelveli toattend the Sessions case, and waiting for the bus, all of a sudden A-1 to A-11(Appellants in these appeals) appeared from the back side of Esakkiamman temple, armed with deadly weapons and started to attack the deceased persons bysurrounding them.The appellants 8 to 11 in Crl.The said FIR is marked as Ex.Thereafter, P.W.21forwarded the express FIR to the Judicial Magistrate Tenkasi, through P.W.22.The same was handed over to the Judicial Magistrate at 10.00 a.m. on the sameday viz., 05.11.1999 and copies of the same were forwarded to the superiorofficials in the Department.P.W.28, the Inspector of Police, Sambavarvadakarai, Police Station, onreceipt of the FIR proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 9.00 a.m., and in thepresence of P.W.6, Village Administrative Officer, and one Veerangan, VillageAssistant, prepared an observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2 and a Rough Sketch, Ex.P.32and then conducted inquest over the body of Pandarasamy (D-1) from 10.00 A.M. to11.30 A.M. in the presence of panchayadars.The inquest report of D-1 is markedas Ex.P.33 and during the inquest, he recorded the statements of P.Ws.1,2,3,4and 6, and the Village Assistant and others.He sent the body of D-1 forconducting the post- mortem through P.W.23, Head Constable.Thereafter, P.W.28conducted the inquest over the body of Murugan (D-2) from 11.30 a.m. to 13.00p.m., in the presence of panchayatdars.The inquest report of D-2 is marked asEx.P.34 and the body of D-2 was sent for post-mortem through P.W.24, HeadConstable to the Government Hospital.Subsequently, P.W.28, conducted theinquest over the dead body of Karuppasamy (D-3) from 13.00 p.m., to 14.30 p.m,in the presence of panchayatdars.Thereafter, P.W.28, sent the body of the deceased for post-mortemthrough P.W.25, Head Constable.Thereafter, P.W.28, the Investigating Officer,recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place where thebodies of D-1 to D-3 were lying, under cover of Mahazars marked as Exs.P.36 to38 respectively and recovered the material objects M.Os.1 to 13 under Exs.P.39to P-41 from the place of occurrence.P.W.16, Dr.P.42 and P43respectively and then at 20.30 p.m., recovered the TVS Moped bearing Reg.TNI3531 (M.O.15) from the northern side of Subbulakshmi Aluminium Factory, which isat the outskirts of the northern side of Keelapuzhiur village and also 2 Aruvalsmarked as M.O.s 16 and 17 under cover of a Mahazar Ex.P.44 and 2 knives markedas M.Os.18 and 19 under cover of a Mahazar Ex.Thereafter, P.W.28, arrestedA-1, A-2, A-4 and A-9 and recorded their confession statements at 11.00 p.m.,the admissible portion of which are marked as Exs.Pursuant to theirconfession, on 06.11.1999 P.W.28 recovered M.Os.20 to 23 under cover a ofMahazar Ex.P.49 and recorded the statements of other witnesses.On coming to know that on 09.11.1999 A-6 surrenderedbefore the Judicial Magistrate, Sattur and A-7 surrendered before the JudicialMagistrate II, Tirunelveli, on 12.11.1999, P.W.28 filed an affidavit before theJudicial Magistrates and secured them under police custody.On 13.11.1999,P.W.28 arrested A-5 at 12.00 noon and recorded the voluntary confessionstatement given by him, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.50.Pursuant to the confession, an aruval M.O.24 was recovered under cover of amahazar Ex.In pursuance of the confession, M.O.25, 'Vettukathi' was recovered andthereafter, he was sent to judicial custody.Similarly, based on the confessionstatement given by A-7 aruval M.O.26 was recovered and thereafter, A-7 was sentto judicial custody.The learned trial Judge, on the materials placed before him, framed eightcharges against the appellants/accused and the acquitted accused viz., A12 asfollows:-Charge No.8)Against A-1 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances ArmsAct, 1908 for having possessed and used the country bomb without licence.Charge No.9)Against A-12 under Section 302 read with 201 IPC for havingcommitted the offence with intention of screening the offenders by removing themfrom the scene of occurrence by using his vehicle and thereby causingdisappearance of evidence of an offence committed.3.Among the 12 accused, appellants/accused Nos.1 to 11 herein, except A-12were convicted and sentenced. A-1 to A-11 were found guilty under charge No.1for the offence committed under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for three years. A-1 to A-7 and A-9 to A-11 were foundguilty under charge No.3 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo3 years Rigorous Imprisonment on three counts.Accused No.8 was found guiltyunder charge No.4 for committing the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC(3 counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- under each count, in default to undergo three years rigorousimprisonment (3 counts).So far as the charge Nos.2,5,6,7,8 and 9 are concerned,all the accused are acquitted of the charges by the trial court for the reasonsassigned in pras 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment of the trial court.Asagainst the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, thepresent appeals have been preferred by the convicted accused.In order to have a clear understanding of the case and the array of theappellants and the conviction and sentences passed against them, all the threeappeals are clubbed together and a common judgment is rendered since the factsof the cases are one and the same.621 of 2004 i.e., accusedpersons A-1 to A-4 attacked Pandarasmy (D-1) by inflicting a cut on his backside of the neck, back of shoulder and cut on the right hand and on the lipswith aruval.Another four of the appellants 1 to 4 in Crl.A.No.495 of 2004 i.e.,accused persons A5, A6, A7 and A8 chased the deceased Murugan (D-2) with Aruvaland knife and cut on the neck and cut with knife on right hand repeatedly andcut on the left hand with Aruval while A-8 restrained the deceased not to movemore further and on the western side of Esakkiamman temple, another three of theappellants 5 to 7 in Crl.A.No.618 of 2004 i.e., accused persons A9, A10 and A11cut Karuppasamy(D-3) with Aruval on his neck and cut indiscriminately all overthe body.A-1 hurled a country bomb against P.Ws.1 and 2, when they attempted toprevent the appellants from attacking the deceased persons.P.Ws.1 and 2 becamepanic and ran away from the place of occurrence to a certain distance and assuch, the bomb hurled by A-1 did not hit them.After all the accused had leftthe place of occurrence and taken away by A12 by his car, P.Ws.1 and 2 returnedback to the scene of occurrence and they got a bye cycle from one Murugan P.W.4,who is from their village and went to Sambavarvadakarai Police Station to give acomplaint.Ramakrishnan, the Medical Officer, who on receipt of therequisition Ex.P.19 sent by the Investigating Officer, conducted the autopsy at3.30 p.m. on 05.11.1999, on the body of Murugan (D-2) and issued the Post-MortemCertificate Ex.P.20, wherein he noticed the following:- "Injuries: 1)An oblique cut injury extending from 2" lateral to thyroidprominence on the left side to Right shoulder cutting dens all the structures(Vertebral column, C-3-C4 spine, carotid and jugular vessels, muscles, hyoidleaving behind skin, over the right side of neck, 1" below right mastoid (sizeabout 30 cm x 7 cm up to skin level on the right side) 2) An oblique cut injuryfrom left side of neck to right shoulder 10 cm x 3 cm upt muslce depth.3) Anoblique cut injury 7.5 cm x 3 cm x upto muscle depth cuttings right ulnar boneand leveed vessels.4) An oblique cut injury involving the base of left thumb3cm x 2cm x utp bone depth 5) an oblique cut injury 3 cm x 2 cm x cutting themuscle phalanx of left ring finger 6) an oblique cut injury 3cm x 2 cm cuttingthe proxmel phalanax of left middle finger.7) An oblique cut injury 3 cm x 2 cmx cutting of phlanx of left middle finger 8) An oblique cut injury over thedepth of left hand cutting the tandous and malanges of 2nd, 3rd and rth (9cm x3cm x 3cm 9) An oblique cut injury of 2cm x 1 cm x upto bone depth over leftwrist.10) an oblique cut injury at the junction of upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rdof left forearm cutting left ulnar bone 11) A transic cut injury at the back ofleft elbow dislocating left radius".P.W.17, Dr.Muthuraj, the Medical Officer, who on receipt of therequisition Ex.P.21 sent by the Investigating Officer, conducted the autopsy at4.30 p.m. on the body of Karuppasamy (D-3) and issued the Post-MortemCertificate Ex.P.22, wherein he noticed the following:- "External injuries:1)A cut injury over the right side of neck extend up toC1 vertiberal hand complete transection of spinal cord measuring 20cm x 20cmx15cm, cut through all important major blood vessels, nerves neck murder on theright side of all major nerves 2)A cut injury over right side check cut # ofbody of right man disk measuring 10cm x 5 cm x 2cm 3 cut injury over right sideof face extending from forehead medial and of right eye to right zygomameasuring 15cm x 3cm x 2cm 4) cut injury under the chin measuring 2 cm x 2cm x1cm injury over middle of flixor aspect of right forearm 5cm x 2cm x 1 cm.6) Acut injury over left lumbar region of abdomen measuring 3cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.7)cut injury over right forearm radial aspect measuring 10cm x 1 cm x 1cm 8) A cutinjury over back of right side chest measuring 3 cmx2 cm x 1cm".Similarly, one Doctor Kumar, who on receipt of the requisition Ex.P.29sent by the Investigating Officer, conducted the autopsy at 3.40 p.m., on5.11.1999, on the body of Pandarasamy (D-1), and issued the Post-MortemCertificate Ex.P.30, wherein, he noticed the following:- "1)An oblique cut injuryon the posterior aspect of neck at the level of2nd incised vertibira leaving only 4cm of skin in the front of the nect intact20cm x15cm x 4cm2)An oblique cut injury on the fore head length 20cmx 4cm x 2 cm exposingbrain substances3)A cut injury on the mandible 1 cm below the lower lip 4 cm x 2cm x 1cmbone deep 4) A laceration injury at the dorsal aspect of the right hand 5 cm x 2cm 5)An oblique cut injury on the dorsal aspect of the right hand 5 cm x 2cm x1cm upto bone depth.6) An oblique cut injury 2" below the right wrist on theulnar aspect 4 cm x 2cm x 1cm (-bone depth)7)An oblique cut injury on the ventral aspect of the middle of the rightforearm 3cm x 2cm x 1cm (bone depth)8)An oblique cut irregular in shape from the back of the neck to the tipof the right shoulder joint 25cm x 6cm x 4cm muscles and exposes acromiam of thescapula".Since the Medical Officer, Dr.Kumar, was on medical leave for a longperiod, P.W.17, Dr.Muthuraj, who is well-conversant with the writing and thesignature of Dr.Kumar, has produced Ex.P30 and gave evidence on behalf ofDr.On receipt of the information, on the same day (5.11.1999), at 6.00 P.M.,P.W.28, arrested A-3, A-10, A-8 and A-11 in the presence of P.W.10, VillageAssistant and recorded their confession statements, and the admissible portionof the confession statement of A-3 and A-10 are marked as Exs.Thereafter, P.W.28, Investigating Officer examined thedoctors, who conducted the autopsy and sent the material objects for chemicalanalysis with a requisition under Ex.The chemical analyst's andserologist's reports were subsequently received under Exs.Aftercompletion of the investigation, P.W.28, laid the final report against A-1 to A-12 under Sections 147,148,341,307 and 302 IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of theExplosive Substances Act, 1908 .5.The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined P.Ws.1 toP.W.28, marked Exs.On the side of thedefence, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked.6.The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the oral and documentaryevidence produced by the prosecution, questioned the appellants/accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the complicity of the offences andpleaded innocence.The learned trial Judge after analyzing both oral and documentary evidenceand hearing the submissions made on either side, convicted and sentenced theappellants as stated supra.Aggrieved against the order of conviction andsentence, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 11, have preferred the present appeal.7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the firstinformation report P.W.1 has clearly stated that the names of the accused andthe overtacts attributed to each of the accused.But, while deposing evidencebefore the lower Court P.W.1 had stated that A-1 to A-4 attacked his sonPandarasamy(D-1) and all the four accused delivered cut on the back side of thehead with Aruval and another cut at right hand and at his lips.His another sonMurugan (D-2) was attacked by another four accused and delivered cut on hisright shoulder and Karuppasamy (D-3) was attacked by another three persons anddelivered cut on his right flank and on his right shoulder with aruval andknife.Thus, it was contended by the counsel for the appellants that thoughP.W.1 was able to state in the First Information Report lodged by him about theovertacts attributed to each of the accused, in his evidence he was not in aposition to say about the specific overtacts attributed to each of the accusedas stated in the First Information Report.Further, during the course of crossexamination, P.W.1 admitted that he had forgotten the names of the accused andtheir fathers' name.Thus, by comparing the averments made in the FIR by P.W.1and the evidence adduced by him before the Court, the learned counsel for theappellants vehemently contended that when A-1 was in a position to inform thenames of the accused along with their fathers' names, while lodging the FirstInformation Report, he could have stated the names of the accused and theovertacts attributed to each of the accused in his evidence also.But the factremains that P.W.1 is not in a position to tell the names of the accused and thespecific overtacts attributed to the accused A-1 to A-12 which would undoubtedlygo to show that P.W.1 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence.Similarly, P.W.2 had spoken in his evidence even without any slight deviationabout the overtacts attributed to each of the accused as stated in the FirstInformation Report.But, P.W.28, in his cross-examination had stated that P.W.2did not say anything about the overtacts attributed to each of the accused inthe statement recorded by him.That piece of evidence of P.W.8 would go to showthat he must have been tutored by the prosecution about the overtacts attributedto each of the accused.Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants contendedthat P.Ws.1 and 2 being the father and brother of the deceased, would have beenprocured subsequently by the prosecution and thereafter, on seeing the injuries,the overtacts would have been fixed and the First Information Report would havebeen prepared.Secondly P.Ws.1 and 2 are the interested witnesses.Except P.Ws.1and 2, the other witnesses P.Ws.3 and 5, though were examined as eye-witnesses,they turned hostile.These infirmities found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses clearly would go to show that a grave suspicion is created in theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 disclosing that they could not have witnessed theoccurrence.8.Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that P.W.1 in hisevidence stated that after the occurrence, he and his daughters-in-law (wives ofD-1 to D-3) were crying by keeping the dead bodies of the deceased on their lapsand has also admitted that his dress and sarees of daughters-in-law were stainedwith blood but the blood stained cloths were not seized.This non seizure of theblood stained cloths of P.W.1 and his daughters-in-law creates a grave doubtabout the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence.Though P.W.1 in hisevidence stated that before reaching the place of occurrence, to catch the bushe and the deceased had taken refreshment in the morning but in the postmortem-certificate P.Ws.16 and 17, the Doctors, who had conducted the Post-Mortem, did not say anything about the presence of the digested food in theintestine of the deceased.Thus, the learned counsel for the appellantscontended that the occurrence would not have taken place in the manner asprojected by the prosecution and the accused have been falsely implicated by thepolice in the case.Under such circumstances, the conviction and sentence passedby the trial Court is not sustainable and as such, the same has to be set aside.9.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that it is aday light murder.The motive for committing the murder is very strong.In respect of thesame, a criminal case was also initiated in S.C.No.94 of 1997 before theSessions Court, Tirunelveli as against P.Ws.1 and 2 and the three deceasedpersons.There isno delay in sending the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate, whoreceived the FIR within three hours from the time of the occurrence.P.Ws.3 and5, who are the neighbours, are natural witnesses and though their evidence wastreated as hostile in their chief examination, they have clearly stated aboutthe presence of a group of assailants armed with deadly weapons and chasing thedeceased persons.P.W.4 has deposed that on5.11.1999 while he was proceeding to the village Sundarapandiyapuram he saw agroup of persons numbering 7 or 8 came running with aruvals and knives.He hassworn that he saw P.W.1 at the scene place.PW 4 has admitted that he gave thecycle to P.Ws.1 and 2, who proceeded to the police station to report about theoccurrence.P.W.5, another hostile witness, a nearby resident of the scene ofoccurrence, has stated in his chief-examination that he saw P.W.1 and hisdeceased three sons standing at the scene place saying that they were going tothe Court to attend the hearing and in a short while, he said A1 and 10 othersarmed with aruvals, sticks and knives rushing to the scene place shouting 'cutand stab'.Evidently since he has not mentioned the names of the accused he hasbeen treated as hostile.The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is properly analyzedalong with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 before the trial Court.The evidence ofP.Ws.3 and 5 would support the part of the prosecution case if not the clearidentity of the accusedTotally, there were 27 cut injuries on all the three deceased persons.Therefore, describing the minute details about each and every cut is notpossible for the witnesses.P.W.1 was aged about 65 years and his evidence wasrecorded after four years from the date of occurrence.Therefore, naturally,there is a possibility of losing his memory.Under such circumstances, theadmission made by him, in cross examination that he did not remember the namesof the accused except the names of A-1 to A4, cannot be found fault with.Though, there are some minor contradictions, broadly speaking the materialevidence both oral and documentary produced by the prosecution are substantiatedand the case is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts andtherefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court has to besustained and the appeals have to be dismissed.10.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusedthe entire records.11.This is a case of triple murder, which was committed in a brutalmanner in the day light in which three persons have lost their lives.It is not in dispute that in respect ofthe earlier murder case P.Ws.1 and 2 and D1 to D3 were regularly attending thehearings in that case before the Additional District & Sessions Court, atTirunelveli.It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.11.1999, all thedeceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 while waiting for the bus to go to Tirunelveli, forattending the hearings in respect of the above said case, A-1 to A-11 suddenlyappeared before them and committed the murder.Under such a situation we do notfind any reason to disbelieve the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the place ofoccurrence along with the deceased persons.It is the case of the prosecutionthat immediately after the occurrence P.Ws.1 and 2 got a cycle from P.W.4 to goto the police station and gave the complaint containing all material details asrecorded in Ex.P.W.1 in hisstatement in Ex.12.The injuries mentioned in the First Information Report clearly tallywith the Post- Mortem Certificates issued by P.Ws.16 and 17 and Dr.Thoughin the cross examination of P.W.1, he had stated that he did not remember thenames of all the accused at this length of time spreading over a period of fouryears, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is not sufficient tocome to the conclusion that P.W.1 might not have been present at the place ofoccurrence.In fact, P.W.1 had sworn to the fact that a group of 12 accusedcame and attacked the deceased persons.He has also mentioned the names of A1,A2, A3, A4 as assailants among the others and these four persons attacked D1 andhis other sons D2 and D3 were murdered by the other group of accused persons.Incross-examination he has explained that at this distance of time he is not in aposition to identify the accused barring A1 to A4 by their names.He assertsthat while scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses carefully, itshould be borne in mind that P.W.1 who was aged about 65 years, adducingevidence after four years, he had clearly explained in his evidence that he knewthe names of each of the accused on the date of occurrence as well aspresently, he has forgotten the names of all the accused (at the time of givingevidence).Hence, it is pertinent to note that it is not the evidence of P.W.1that he did not know the accused, involved in the occurrence.On the other hand,he strongly stood on his stand that he knew the names of the accused and knewthe accused persons but presently, (at the time of adducing evidence) he hasforgotten the names of the accused.Under such circumstances, we do not find anyinfirmity in the evidence adduced by P.W.1 for the reason that it is natural fora person aged about 65 years not to remember all the names of the persons for along time spreading over four years from the date of occurrence.The medicalevidence given by the doctors P.Ws.16 and 17 that there was no food particles inthe stomach of the deceased, which, according to the defence counsel, indicatesthat the deceased persons should have started from the village in the earlymornings.This contention, in our opinion, does not merit consideration becauseP.W.1 has stated that on the date of occurrence they took vadai and tea.It isnot clear whether the deceased persons also took any snack.Therefore, as statedbefore, this submission has to be rejected as having no legs to stand.Thedefence has also trotted out a theory that the earlier case relating to thedeath of Murugan had been compromised and on that score there was no enmitybetween the two parties and as such it cannot be said that the accused attackedthe deceased and caused the death of the three persons.In support of thistheory the defence has examined two witnesses viz., D.Ws.1 and 2 and filed threedocuments marked as Exs.The trial court, for the reasons mentioned inpara 33 of its judgment has rejected this theory in view of the overwhelmingevidence of this case showing that the previous case has not been compromised.In our view, this new theory of the defence is totally unacceptable and hence wereject the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and the theory of compromise in the previouscase.13.For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to accept thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 might nothave been present at the scene of occurrence.Then coming to the evidence ofP.W.2, learned defence counsel vehemently contended that P.W.2 without anyslight deviation, had spoken about the overtacts attributed to each of theaccused as recorded in the First Information Report.But P.W.28, InvestigatingOfficer in his evidence stated that P.W.2 did not say anything about theovertacts caused by each of the accused in the statement recorded by him.Undersuch circumstances, based on the evidence of P.W.28, the Investigating Officer,it could be easily inferred that P.W.2 might not have been present at the placeof occurrence and probably he had spoken about the overtacts attributed to eachof the accused as tutored by P.W.28, who, according to the suggestion made toP.W.1 by the defence, P.W.28 joining hands with P.Ws.1 and 2 had prepared Ex.On a careful analysis of thematerials on record, we find that the statement made by P.W.1 to P.W.21, the SubInspector of Police was attested by P.W.2 on the date of occurrence itself.Further more, as we stated supra, on the date of occurrence, there was a hearingof the Criminal case in S.C.No.94 of 1997, as against P.Ws.1 and 2 and D-1 to D-Therefore, a combined presence of all the deceased persons along with P.Ws.1and 2 at the bus stop was very much possible and probable on the date ofoccurrence.The attestation made in Ex.The non-seizure of the blood-stained clothes of the respective wife of the deceased persons would not lead toany conclusion that P.Ws.1 and 2 might not have been present at the scene ofoccurrence This is a very insignificant fact to affect the veracity of theprosecution case.It is very difficult for the witnesses also to give minutedetails of each and every cut on the deceased while describing the occurrence bythe prosecution witnesses in the case of multiple murder like the present one.The evidence and other documents including thePost-Mortem Certificates and the compelling circumstances strongly corroboratethe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses.In our considered view, theprosecution has demonstrably established the guilt of the accused as found bythe trial court beyond all reasonable doubts.Therefore, we confirm the judgmentof the trial Court and consequently dismiss all the appeals.The learned Sessions Judgeconcerned is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused, whoare on bail, and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period ofsentence.The Inspector of Police, Vadakarai Police Station Vadakarai, Tirunelveli District

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There is a contradictory evidence in regard to place of incident.The applicant is detained since 27.05.2016; whereas the trial will take time to conclude.In such circumstances, he be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Non-applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the objector vehemently oppose the prayer and submit that the victim is an innocent boy of 9 years.There is no reason for false implication.There is a strong prima-facie case against the applicant.In case he is released on bail, he will tamper the evidence.Therefore, pray for dismissal of the application.Not only this, a petition has been filed u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of criminal proceedings and the same has been registered as M.CR.C.No.The amount of cost may be recovered from the accused and be deposited with High Court Legal Services Authority.

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Jagdish Chandra, J.The deceased accompanied by other members of his family went to the house of the petitioner in order to catch hold of Umesh.On reaching there at the house of the petitioner they wanted to catch hold of Umesh.The petitioner and his wife caught hold of the deceased and told Umesh to teach a lesson to the deceased and his family members who wanted to catch hold of him whereupon Umesh immediately went inside the room of his house and brought out a knife and inflicted a blow with the same under the left side arm-pit of the deceased instantaneously.This finds mention in the Fir lodged by Kedar Singh father of the deceased.

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

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

(Passed on 14th March, 2019) This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred MCRC No.7640/2013 Ashok Rohila vs.State of M.P. & Anr.-( 2 )-for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.519/2012 by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior under Section 306 of the IPC and its all consequential proceedings.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a Merg Report No.23/2012 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered regarding the suicide committed by deceased Rajesh wherein it is alleged that deceased Rajesh had borrowed the loan of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner at the interest rate of 3%.But, thereafter, the petitioner increased the rate of interest from 3% to 4% and thereafter 10%.On non-payment of the loan amount, the petitioner started torturing and harassing the deceased, due to which, he committed suicide.On this report, the FIR at Crime No.519/2012 was registered.Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

O.P.No.8487 of 2020The case of the prosecution is that A1/Faisal Ahamed and the deceased are husband and wife and they got married on 11.12.2016 and they have two children.The petitioner/mother-in-law of the deceased who was staying in the adjacent house had gone to compromise them.Again at about 8.00 a.m, the deceased and her husband quarreled with each other following which, the deceased went to bed room and hanged herself.Thereafter, she was taken to hospital where she was declared dead.Hence the complaint.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the mother of A1/Faisal Ahamed and mother-in-law of the deceased and she is residing separately.On 13.05.2020 at about 7 a.m., the husband of the deceased had requested to prepare some tea which was refused by the deceased due to which, a quarrel arose between them.The petitioner who was living in the adjacent house had come there and pacified them and thereafter she left.Again at about 8 a.m., a quarrel arose between the husband and wife due to which, the deceased had gone to the bed room 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8487 of 2020 and hanged herself and committed suicide.On coming to know about the hanging, the petitioner along with others had taken the deceased to the hospital immediately for treatment and the petitioner has been falsely implicated since she is the mother-in-law of the deceased.He would further submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 15.05.2020 and therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 Faisal Ahamed and the deceased are husband and wife and their marriage had taken place in the year 2016 out of wedlock, they got two children.On 13.05.2020 the deceased due to fight and harassment by her husband as well as the petitioner committed suicide by hanging and that the petitioner and her son/A1 are the abettors.The defacto complainant had given detailed version with regard to the harassment and torture given to the deceased.The petitioner and her son/A1 are the reason for the death of the deceased.Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.Considering the submissions and placed materials and also the 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8487 of 2020 period of incarceration by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner who is the mother-in-law of the deceased was residing separately, this Court is inclined to grant bail, subject to the following conditions:The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.O.P.No.8487 of 2020 11.06.2020The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 174 Cr PC and 306 and 201 IPC in Crime No. 1247 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.(a) the petitioner shall execute her own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined on her release;(b) the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lock down and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.11.06.2020 Mpa ToThe learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.M.NIRMAL KUMAR.J, 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8487 of 2020 mpa Crl.

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

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

The prosecution case in nutshell is that the first informant - complainant Rupali Aute approached to the Police of Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad on 16-11-2016 and::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 ::: 3 963-CriA-3139-18-J ventilated the grievance that her marriage was solemnized on 14-02- 2013 with applicant No. 1 - Sachin Sopan Aute.The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are her in-laws whereas applicants No. 4 is the brother-in-law of the complainant.It has been alleged that after the marriage, complainant -wife joined the company of husband for cohabitation.She was residing in the joint family of her husband, in- laws, sister-in-law and brother in law etc. at Nashik.After the marriage, the complainant -wife was treated properly for about two months.The complainant ventilated the grievance that she was harassed physically and mentally by the applicants.It has been alleged that in the year 2014, the applicant No. 1-husband left the complainant-wife at her parents home and gave threats that if amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not paid they would not allow the complainant - wife for cohabitation.Thereafter, complainant-wife filed complaint to the Woman Redressal Forum, Aurangabad.Eventually, she approached to the Police Station and filed report.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::Pursuant to FIR, Police of Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, registered the crime and set the penal law in motion.ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per: K.K.SONWANE, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for parties.According to complainant, during the said period her husband and in-laws asked her to bring amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for construction of house.As father of complainant-wife could not satisfy the demand, she was being maltreated and harassed on account of domestic reason.The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and after completion of Investigation, filed charge-sheet::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 ::: 4 963-CriA-3139-18-J in the Court of learned Magistrate at Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::Learned counsel for applicants vehemently submits that there were no physical and mental cruelty to the complainant on the part of applicants.But, she has filed present penal proceeding with an malafide intention to harass the applicants.There were no specific allegations about maltreatment and torture meted out to the complainant - wife.According to learned counsel, all the applicants are residing separately from the husband of complainant.Learned counsel further added that wife - respondent No. 2 resided separately since year 2014 at her parents house.The applicants No. 2 to 7 have no any concern with the marital life of applicant No. 1 and complainant-wife.They have no any reason to cause interference into the domestic affairs of the spouses.The complainant did not mention any specific instances of maltreatment at the hands of applicants.The learned counsel submits that there were matrimonial dispute filed in the Court of Law.Eventually, the Family Court, Aurangabad granted divorce and passed the decree of dissolution of marriage of the spouses.According to learned counsel, the allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature.It would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face the agony of trial.In case, the present penal proceeding is not quashed, it would cause serious prejudice and injustice to the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::5 963-CriA-3139-18-JThe learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-first informant raised objection to the contentions put-forth on behalf of applicants and submit that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on behalf of complainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of applicants.There were unlawful demand of money from the applicants for construction of house.Having given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both side and allegations nurtured against applicants, we find that the allegations cast on behalf of complainant - wife against applicants all are vague and general in nature.There are no specific allegations attributing overt-act of these applicants to maltreat and harass the complainant - wife.There were no detail particulars given in the FIR about participation of each of the applicants for their act of cruelty to the complainant or for demand of money.The allegations about cruelty by these applicants are found stray and sweeping in nature.Moreover, in view of divorce in between the spouses following decree for dissolution of marriage passed by Family Court, there is no propriety to compel the husband and other applicants to face the agony of proceedings pending before the trial Court.It is worth to mention that the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Schindia and another Versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, categorically elucidated in paragraph No. 7 as under:::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::In the instant case, the marital relations in between the spouses are not remained in existence.There was divorce in between spouses following decree of divorce of dissolution of marriage by Family Court.Therefore, it would be unjust and improper to allow the prosecution to proceed against applicants on the basis of vague and general nature of allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant.It would be an futile efforts and would cause injustice to them.It is worth to mention that already there were matrimonial dispute filed against each other by the spouses.They spent more than sufficient precious time of their marital life for fighting with each other in Court.Now, both the spouses get themselves separated following divorce.The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that the applicants may not be::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 ::: 7 963-CriA-3139-18-J forced unnecessarily to go on litigations before the Criminal Court.Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicants deserves to be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 ::::: O R D E R ::i. The Criminal Application stands allowed.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:41:20 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PW3 is a resident ofNanjundapuram.On the day of occurrence, after attending the calls of naturehe was returning home.He knows the accused.He saw the accused running fromeast towards west and when asked he did not answer at all.The accused had aknife in his arm at that time.On proceeding further PW3 saw the wife of theaccused lying down with cut injuries.The accused went towards VellaloreRoad.PW1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Vellalore.At about10.30 AM on 3.4.1995 when he was in his office one person appeared before himwith a knife and a blood stained cloth.On enquiry he informed that his nameis Aiyyasamy (the accused d after giving other details, confessed that due toquarrel between him and his wife, he cut her on that day between 7 and 7.30 AMas a result of which she died.On further detailed enquiry the accusedconfessed as follows :"The deceased often used to go to Tiruppur which lead to a quarrelbetween the spouses; the accused would then get her from Tiruppur; his wifehad illicit connection with another person and that also gave room forquarrel; on the day prior to the da occurrence he went to Tiruppur and got hiswife back to his garden house; on the following morning there was a quarrelagain and his wife insisted that the accused must take and leave her atTiruppur; he suggested that they can go a little later and acc ordingly theyleft at 7 AM; without the knowledge of his wife he armed himself with anaruval and hid it at his back; as they were passing the bridge ofNanjundapuram he attacked his wife."Then PW1 took the accused to the investigating police station wherehe surrendered him at about 11 AM.The knife and the blood stained shirt ofthe accused were also produced by him at the police station.MO1 is the knifeand MO2 is the blood stained shirt.ExP2 is the report of PW1 given to thepolice.PW9 was the Sub.He registered itin his police station Crime N 9 of 1995 for the offence under Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code and prepared ExP8  the printed first informationreport.The accused was kept in the police lock up.PW11 is the Investigating Officerin this case.At about 11.45 AM on 3.4.1995 on receiving telephonicinformation about the crime, he reached the investigating police station by 12Noon and collected the printed first information report.Then he commencedthe investigation.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 12.30 PMon that day and in the presence of PW6 and another prepared ExP3  theobservation mahazar.ExP11 is the rough sketch prepared by him.ExP12 is the inquest report prepared by him.Thenthrough PW7 - the Police Constable he sent ExP5  the re quisition for postmortem with the dead body to the hospital.From the scene of occurrence herecovered MOS 3 to 5 at 3.30 PM on that day under ExP4 attested by the samewitnesses.He examined PW6, PW7 and others and recorded their statements.Hewent back to the police station and sent the accused for judicial remand.PW7 is the Police Constable who accompanied the dead body for postmortem with the requisition given by the Investigating Officer.He waspresent through out post mortem.6.The Inspector of Police, Podanur Police Station, Podanur, CoimbatoreDist.APPEAL under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against thejudgment dated 14.11.2000 made in S.C.No.204 of 2000 on the file of thePrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.!For Appellant : Mr.D.Natarajan^For Respondent : Mr.E.Raja, APP:JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY R.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J The appellant stands convicted for an offence under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment forlife by judgment dated 14.11.2000 in S.C.No.204 of 2000 on the file of theCourt of Sessions, Coimbato That conviction is in challenge in this appeal.Heard Mr.D.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant andMr.D.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The case of the prosecution is that at 7 AM on 3.4.1995 theappellant killed his wife by indiscriminately cutting her and therefore he isguilty of committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.PW2 is a resident of Athupalam e had not seen the accused prior to theoccurrence.He had gone to Nanjundapuram on the day of occurrence to take aloan from some of the persons residing there to whom he had already made anapproach.He was on his way to Nanjundapuram at about 7 AM.A bout 50 feetahead of him, a male and a female were going.All of a sudden the male tookout an aruval and cut the female accompanying him.Immediately PW2 hidhimself behind a bush.He does not know the identity of the male and afterthe occurrence, t he male went towards east.The dead body was handed over to the relatives.PW8 is thedoctor before whom the dead body was taken by PW7 for post mortem.PW8commenced the post mortem at 10 AM on 4.4.1995 during which ti me he found thefollowing symptoms as noted in ExP7  the post mortem certificate :Major bloodvessels on left side of neck and other soft tissues of the neck on the rt.sidecarotid anterior and jugular veins not involved.Cut wound 5 x 3 cm bone deep left angle of mandible.Cut wound 5 X 3 cm bone deep left body of mandible with fractureof the underlying bone.Cut wound 2 X 1 cm deep rt.side angle of mandible.Cut wound 7 X 3 cm cavity deep on rt.side body of mandible.Cut wound 4 X 2 cm muscle deep rt.side middle third of neck.Cut wound 5 X 3 cm bone deep rt.side root of neck.Cut wound 6 X 2 cm bone deep top of left shoulder.Cut wound 8 X 3 cm bone deep top of scapular region left side withfracture of scapular bone.Cut wound 6 x 2 cm bone deep left deltoid region.Cut wounds 4 Nos.each measuring 4 X 2 cm muscle deep left dorsalhand.Cut wound 3 Nos.each measuring 4 X 1 cm muscle deep rt.Cut wound 4 X 2 cm bone deep back of rt.scapular region withfracture of underlying bone.Cut wound 4 X 1 cm muscle deep rt.deltoid region.Cut wound 4 X 1 1/2cm muscle deep rt.arm.Cut wound 3 X 1 cm muscle deep on left loin.Cut wound 7 X 2 cm cavity deep on left epigastric region withprotrusion of herniated stomach covered with blood clots.All the abovewounds are bruised and margins are regular.Trachea seen cut on left side.Hyoid bone intact.Stomach seen cuton anterior aspect for 4 X 2 cm cavity deep and is empty.No specific smellmucosa normal.Small intestine empty.No odour.Hear chambers empty.Lungs, liver, spleen, ki s pale.UB empty.Uterus normal in sizeand empty.Brain  pale.Blood preserved."The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased died of haemorrhage as a resultof multiple injuries described above.PW4 knows the accused as the accused was residing east of hisresidence.At about 5 or 5 1/2years prior to she giving evidence in Court(the evidence was recorded on 19.10.2000) the accused left in the company ofhis wife (deceased) at about 6.3 stating that they are going to the place ofAiyammal.Thereafter she heard that the accused murdered his wife and ranaway.PW5 is the father of the accused.He would state that the accused andhis wife used to quarrel and he used to intervene and bri ng peace between thespouses.He would also state that even on the day prior to the day ofoccurrence, they were quarrelling with each other and then they left hishouse.PW11 continued the investigation further by examining thewitnesses and recording their statements and when the accused was in a mood togive a confession statement, PW11 gave a requisition ExP9 to the Court torecord the confession statement of accused.He sent the case properties tothe Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.Hecaused photographs of the scene of occurrence and MO14 series and MO15 seriesare the photographs and negatives.PW10 was the then Judi cial MagistrateNo.8, Coimbatore.On receipt of ExP9 he sent the intimation to the prisonauthorities to secure the presence of the accused before him in Court.Accordingly at 12.40 PM on 19.4.1995 the accused was produced before him.Administering nec essary precaution and warning to the accused PW10 verifiedas to whether the accused is still willing to give a confession statement.Then he gave him 24 hours time to ponder over the issue, namely whether he isstill willing to give the statement or no t. PW10 took the precaution ofkeeping the accused separately.At about 1.30 PM on 20.4.1995 the accused wasagain produced before him.Even at that time PW10 advanced necessary warningsto him and made it clear to him that still if he wants to give the confessionstatement, it is likely to be used against him.In spite of that the accusedexpressed his willingness to give a statement.ExP10 series is the proceedings relating to therecording of the confession statement and the confession statement itself.When the entire proceedings went through in his Court except the Court Officerhe saw to that that none else was present.Then he ultimately filed a final report against the accused on20.5.1995 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused was questioned under Section 313 of the CriminalProcedure Code on the basis of the incriminating materials made availableagainst him.He would admit his relationship with the deceased and with PW5.He would also admit that though P revented him from going, yet he left hishouse with his wife.When he would also admit that he often used to quarrelwith his wife and that it is true that he had taken her, he would deny theevidence of PW9 in toto.He would also retract the judicial c onfession givenby him stating that due to compulsion and force used by the police he gavethat statement.He did not examine any witnesses on his side.D.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant veryfaintly argued for acquittal requesting us to disbelieve the entire oralevidence.Then realising that the tight situation in which his client isplaced on the materials available ecord, as an alternate argument, the learnedcounsel would submit that on the materials available on record, theappellant/accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code and the materials on record do definitely sh ow thesustained provocation for the accused to commit the crime warranting extensionthe benefit of Exception (i) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all thesepoints.However hehad fairly stated before Court that he did not know the identity of either theaccused or the deceased.But he only saw a male attacking a female.The evidence ofPW2 is that after attacking the victim in this case the accused ran towardseast.PW3's evidence is that when he was coming in the road, saw the accusedrunning opposite to him towa Vellalore Road.He had also stated that he sawthe accused armed with a knife.Proceeding further he saw the victim lyingwith cut injuries.Therefore the evidence of PWS 2 and 3 definitely disclosesone thing, namely PW2 witnessing the occurrence pr oper, the accused fleeingaway and then PW3 seeing the accused with the knife in his hand.We now come to the evidence of PW1  the Village AdministrativeOfficer before whom the accused appeared at about 10.30 AM on the day ofoccurrence with a knife and blood stained shirt.Before PW1 the accused had given a confession statementwhich is in the nature of an extra judicial confession.That confessionstands reduced into writing as ExP1 and with his report ExP2 he handed overthe accused to PW9  the Sub.Inspector of Police at about 11.15 AM and thenthe law was set in motion.This evidence of PW5 thathis son and his wife are quarrelling gets support from the oral evidence ofPW4 who also speaks about the same fact.Therefore on the evidence of PWS 4and 5, we are inclined to hold that all is not well in the maritalrelationship between the accused and his wife.The medical evidence in theform of PW8 and the post mortem report ExP7 do not give any doubt at all tohold that t he death is due to homicidal violence.Thereforewhile confirming that the accused is guilty we are inclined to hold thatException (i) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code gets attracted to thecase on hand.Accordingly we are inclined to set aside the conviction of theappellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquit him thereof.Instead we hold him guilty for the offence under Section 304(1) of the IndianPenal Code and sentence hi undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of sevenyears.The criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2.The District Collector, Coimbatore.3.The Director General of Police, Chennai.4.the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

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

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

ORDER S.K. Chawla, J.This is a revision petition by a private party challenging bail order of Additional Sessions Judge granting bail in a murder case.On 23-8-1992, at about 11-05 a.m. one Madho Singh lodged a report at Panihar Police Station in Gwalior district that on that date at about 7-00 a.m., in village Piproli, his elder brother deceased Sobran Singh was grazing cattle, when six persons came armed with weapons to assault him.These six persons were Ramnath Singh, Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh, who were armed with Pharsas, Bhattu Singh armed with a lathi and Amar Singh and Vishal Singh armed with guns.Seeing them approaching, both informant Madho Singh as also deceased Sobran Singh started to flee.But Sobran Singh could not run away and was overtaken by the assailants.Ramnath Singh then threw down Sobran Singh and started to beat him with lathi and Pharsa.Amar Singh and Vishal Singh fired at informant Madho Singh but the shots missed him.Continuing with his report, informant Madho Singh further got it recorded that after half an hour he came back to his brother deceased Sobran Singh.Sobran Singh was lying dead.Sobran Singh had Pharsa injuries on throat, head and both thighs, which were all bleeding.The report also stated that after some time.Gyan Singh and Jardan Singh also came, who saw the assailants running away in the direction of the village and the informant also told them about the incident.Previously on 21-8-1992, the informant had a quarrel with Ramnath Singh and his son over grazing of cattle.It was on account of that enmity that the assailants had come in concert and had killed his brother Sobran Singh by assaulting him with lathi and Pharsas.Indian Penal Code.Bhattu Singh alias Bharat Singh has been granted bail by the order of the High Court dated 22-1-1993 Ramnath Singh has not so far even made an application for bail.It may be appropriate at this stage to notice, on the basis of post mortem report, that deceased Sobran Singh had received as many as nine injuries, all of them incised, on his head, throat and both thighs.All those injuries were deep-cut injuries, which had resulted in instantaneous death of Sobran Singh at the spot.It was urged on behalf of the petitioner in support of this revision petition that learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised his discretion most improperly to grant bail to accused/respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh.On the other hand, Shri J.P. Gupta, appearing for these respondents, argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering proper material, had exercised a discretion in granting bail and there was no ground to interfere with the said discretionary order.It was also emphasized that bail having been already granted, very cogent and overwhelming reasons would be necessary for cancelling the bail.It was also faintly urged that bail order being interlocutory order, the present revision was not maintainable.A perusal of the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge would show that he found justification to grant bail mainly because of the contents of the FIR, which have already been set out elaborately in paragraph 2 of this order.In this connection it was observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge that it was not mentioned in the FIR by what weapons respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh had assaulted the deceased and on what parts of his body.The FIR further stated that witnesses Gyan Singh and Jardan Singh had also come and had seen the accused persons running away and to them informant Madho Singh had disclosed the incident.This indicated that they were not eye witnesses and yet they had given statement as eye witnesses in their police statements.Informant Madho Singh had improved upon his version in the FIR by subsequently making statement to the police, in which particular acts of assault were ascribed by him to each of the accused persons.It was also observed in the impugned order that Ram Nath Singh was the only person, who was ascribed a specific role in assault on the deceased in the FIR.Excepting him, there was no mention about specific role played by other accused persons in the FIR.It was, therefore, proper, the impugned order reasoned, that bail should be granted to respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh.In the context of the circumstance that deceased Sobran Singh had received nine injuries, all of them incised, even a look at the FIR leaves very little for imagination to think that respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh had actually participated in the murderous assault on the deceased.Like Ramnath Singh, they too were armed with Pharsas and had pursued and overtaken the deceased.It is noteworthy that no other alleged pursuer was similarly armed with Pharsa.At this stage it is not any more possible to suggest that not one or some, but all the nine Pharsa injuries were inflicted by Ramnath Singh alone, than to suggest that respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh after being armed with Pharsas and pursuing and overtaking the deceased, simply stood by and for some divine reason, refused to use their weapons.These are matters which should best be left for decision at the trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly tried to distinguish the case of these respondents from the case of Ramnath Singh.If there was any difference between them, the difference was no more than between tweedledum and tweedledee.It was also wrong on the part of learned Additional Sessions Judge to have surmised that Gyan Singh and Jardan Singh could not be eye-witnesses, who had allegedly seen these respondents, like Ramnath Singh, actually using Pharsas on the deceased.The informant might have told them about the incident.A person may voluntarily tell about the incident to some others, even when the latter had also seen the incident.These are matters which should properly be left to be determined at the trial.The impugned order, in the circumstances, granting bail deserves to be set aside.Not much turns on the fact that Amar Singh and Vishal Singh have been granted bail.They were said to be armed with guns and admittedly no fire-arm injury was caused either to the deceased or to the informant.It does not also make much difference if Bhatta Singh alias Bharat Singh has also been granted bail by the order of this Court.He was said to be armed with a lathi and no lathi injuries were received either by the deceased or the informant.Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to stress in his argument the only material considerations at the time of deciding a bail application should be, whether in the event of bail being granted the accused would readily be available for his trial and whether he was likely to abuse his liberty.Precisely for these considerations, it is not considered proper to release those accused on bail against whom there may be strong material about their being the principal offenders in the commission of murder.The impugned order dated 20-11-1992 of Shri R.N.S. Chouhan, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior cannot be allowed to stand.Revision petition is allowed and the impugned order directing bail to be given to respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh, is hereby set aside.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Item No. 397s.das CRR 479 of 2015 Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Ayan Chakraborty ..... for the petitioner Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and gone through the revisional application and materials annexed therein.Let the matter be listed under the heading "Contested Application" after eight weeks from date.Liberty is given to the parties to pray for extension and/or modification and/or variation of the interim order upon notice to each other.Let there be a direction upon the State for causing production of the Case Diary on the returnable date of hearing.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta immediately.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.(Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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 02.03.2012, during night hours, when D1 was trying to persuade D2, she told him to go and die and she would continue at any cost to have illicit relationship with the accused.D1 was provoked by the said utterances.She died on the spot.Then, D1 entered into a room in the house and hanged himself.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.85 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Mahil Court], Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 109 and 306 of IPC.The trial court, by judgement dated 19.09.2014, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 r/w 109 and 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 306 of IPC.Further, the trial court granted payment of Rs.75,000/- from and out of the collection of fine so imposed to the sons of the deceased couple namely, (1)Sajju and (2)Kishore as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences the sole accused has come up with this criminal appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased-Mr.Ramamurthy [hereinafter referred to as "D1"] and the deceased-Mrs.Bhuvana [hereinafter referred to as "D2"] were husband and wife.But, the deceased-Bhuvana [D2] had illicit relationship with the accused.D1 tried persuade D2 to discontinue the illicit relationship with the accused.He died of hanging.On these allegations, a final report was filed by the police and on taking cognizance, the committal court, prima facie, had come to the conclusion that the offence allegedly committed by the accused was under Section 306 of IPC which was triable by a court of session.That is how, the committal court, committed the case to the court of session.The learned Sessions Judge, taking cognizance of the offence as required under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. made over the case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri, for trial.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri, framed a lone charge under Section 306 of IPC against the accused and conducted trial.The records reveal that before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and the complaint was marked as Ex.All the said witnesses turned hostile.At that stage, a special court to deal with the cases against women was constituted at Tiruvallur and accordingly, the above said sessions case was withdrawn by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur Division, and the same was made over to the Fast Track Mahila Sessions Court, Tiruvallur.P.Ws.7 to 12 were examined before the transferee court and Exs.P2 to P22 were marked besides 11 material objects.Hereinafter, the transferee court, for the sake of convenience, will be referred to as "the trial court".The arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, were heard on 19.08.2014 and thereafter, the case was adjourned for judgement.At that stage, suo motu, the trial court, on 25.08.2014 framed an additional charge under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC.He has also spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased-Ramamurthy [D1] and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A.3827/2019 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.CRL.REV.P. 205/2019 & Crl.As per the FIR when the complainant was in the school performing her duties, the petitioner along with one Mr.Devesh Nath who claimed to be Secretary of the of Pandit Shradharam trust committee, A-179, Dayanand Colony and 15-20 bouncers entered into the school from the backside and barged into the office of the principal and started assaulting the manager and abusing him and they threatened to also eliminate him.It is alleged that they assaulted him with kicks and blows and forced him to sign certain papers.It is thereafter alleged that they snatched the keys of the almirah from the complainant and threatened to cause physical harm to her.The almirah contained the cheque books of the accounts and records of the school.It is alleged that they misbehaved with the manager of the school and asked him to sign certain documents failing which they would shoot him.It is alleged that the petitioner claimed himself to be an advocate and advised the said bouncers to take the left hand thumb impression of the manager.Thereafter they took out a letter pad of the school on which resignation of the manager was typed and forcibly CRL.REV.P.205/2019 Page 2 of 5 took his thumb impressions on the same.CRL.REV.P.205/2019 Page 2 of 5It is alleged that they forcibly pushed all the school staff out of the school and locked the premises.Learned APP submits that investigation has revealed that the accused thereafter removed some of the records of the school and subsequently amount was withdrawn from the bank account of the school using the cheque books which were lying in the almirah of the school.The complainant has alleged that she was also threatened and forcibly keys of the almirah where the school records and cheque books were kept were taken from her possession.The cheque book which was alleged to have been kept in the almirah was used for withdrawing amount from the bank account of the school.They are also alleged to have extended threat to her of physical harm.M.A.3825-3826/2019Petitioner impugns order dated 17.07.2018 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections u/s 395/452/323/342/149/120B IPC.CRL.REV.P.205/2019 Page 1 of 52. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he restricts the challenges to the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC and in so far as other sections are concerned he shall be facing trial.Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the officiating principal of SRSD Senior Secondary School, Lajpat Nagar IV.Translation of the FIR could not have taken 120 days.Sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay.It is clarified that this Court has expressed only a prima facie view on the material against the petitioner and the observations contained herein shall have no bearing at the time of final adjudication of merits of the case.CRL.REV.P.205/2019 Page 5 of 5

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

offence of murder of Ashok Dattatraya Babade (the Deceased) on 04/03/1995at about 9.45 pm in front of the utensils factory of the deceased at RavivarPeth, Pune on account of the alleged dispute in between the employees ofAshok Babade (the deceased) and the accused.It is the case of the prosecutionthat on the date of incident the accused had been to the factory of deceased,they demanded the vessel for water (Tambya), therefore, at the request ofAccused No.1 a plastic can was given by employee Gunjkar to Accused No.1.After completing dinner, when the complainant went outside the factory tobring the said can from the accused, he noticed that Accused Nos.1 and 3 wereconsuming liquor in the open space which is in front of the factory.When thecomplainant demanded back the can, Accused No.1 became annoyed andstarted abusing and insulting him.Therefore, the complainant apprised hisemployer i.e. the deceased.It is the case of the prosecution that when thedeceased inquired with the accused, Accused Nos. 1 and 3 started abusing andassaulting the deceased.At that time, Accused No.2 came there and caughthold the deceased from back side, then Accused No.1 gave the knee blows onthe private part i.e. scrotal of the deceased on two occasions and hit theabdomen with the head due to which the deceased fell down, then also theAccused Nos.1 and 3 alleged to have assaulted the deceased.When thecomplainant tried to intervene, he was assaulted on the abdomen by Accusedlgc 2 of 11 (904) Apeal-380.99.odtNo.3 .Kondu Kondhalkar came there and took the deceased to K E M Hospital,Pune.The complainant went to Subhash Police Chowky to inform theincident.Thereafter he went to K E M hospital, where he came to know thatBabade is no more.The complainant was also treated in the Sasoon Hospitalfor the injury sustained by him.According to the prosecution, due to thealleged injuries to the testis of deceased, the deceased died a homicidal death.witnesses so also the evidence of Medical Officer (PW-6) and the evidence ofInvestigating Officer (PW-10).He also stated details about theconversion between himself and those Accused.He apprised the incident toAshok Badade (the Deceased).The deceased thereafter went to the placewhere Accused Nos.1 and 3 were sitting and were consuming liquor.Thedeceased inquired with Accused Nos.1 and 3 as to why they had assaulted hisworkers, but the Accused Nos.1 and 3 started abusing Ashok Badade andstarted beating him.The Accused No.2 thereafter caught the waist of Ashok Badadefrom back side and put his two hands around the waist.The Accused No.1thereafter had given 2/3 blows with the knee in the abdomen of Ashok Badadeand also had given 2/3 dash with the head in the abdomen.When he tried tointervene, the Accused No.3 beat him.Thereafter PW.1 has stated furtherdetails, but so far as the main incident is concerned, he has stated that AccusedNos.1 and 3 started abusing Ashok Badade and started beating him andAccused No.1 had given blows with the knee in the abdomen of Ashok Badade(the Deceased).However, Shantaram Pandurang Yadav (PW-5) deposed thatat that time Accused No.2 came there and he caught Badade and thereafterAccused No.1 had given the blows with a knee on the private part of Badade aswell as he had given a dash with the head in the abdomen due to whichlgc 7 of 11 (904) Apeal-380.99.odtBadade fell down, hence they raised hue and cry, and hearing it the neighboursgathered.The said neighbours were Nandu Kondhalkar, Chandrakant Landeand Shekhar Shinde and they removed Badade to hospital.PW-5 has notstated the presence of Anita Ashok Babade (PW-2) and Kamal Vasant Shinde(PW-4).Pune ] (Accused)Mr.V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the Appellant/State.judgment and order passed by the learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Punein Sessions Case No.386 of 1995 thereby acquitting the Respondents - Accusedfor the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 504 r/w Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC).3 After registration of offence, it appears that, the matter wasinvestigated by Investigating Officer Vithal Sopan Ghadge (PW10), who duringthe course of investigation visited the spot of incident, prepared panchanamasincluding inquest panchanam, spot panchanama, panchanama of seizure ofclothes of deceased, recorded the statements of witnesses, as also collectedPost-Mortem Notes.The IO thereafter arrested the Respondents - Accused andduring their arrest prepared panchanama of seizure of clothes of accused.After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against theRespondents - Accused.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Punethereafter framed charge against the Respondent - Accused for committingoffences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC.accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the accusedwas of total denial.To bring home the guilt of the accused, during the trial, theprosecution has examined in all ten witnesses in support of its case.The TrialCourt has recorded statements of accused under Section 313 of the Criminalprocedure Code.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering theevidence and material on record came to the conclusion that the prosecutionhas failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and has failed to prove thatthe death in question is homicidal, and the witnesses were assaulted and/orabused.As stated herein above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, bygiving benefit of doubt to the accused, by the impugned judgment and order,acquitted the Respondents - accused for the offences punishable under Section302, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC.Hence this Criminal Appeal filed by the Stateagainst the said order of acquittal.5 We have heard the learned APP Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukhappearing for the Appellant - State and the learned counsel Mr. S V Marwadiappearing for the Respondents/Accused.With their able assistance, we havealso perused the grounds taken in the Appeal Memo, the evidence led by theprosecution, the documents produced on record and the reasons recorded bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgmentlgc 4 of 11 (904) Apeal-380.99.odt6 The learned APP appearing for the Appellant/State invitesattention of this Court to the evidence of eye witnesses and in particularevidence of Anita Ashok Babade (PW-2), who is the wife of deceased AshokBabade and Kamal Vasant Shinde (PW-4) and submits that both thesewitnesses so also Shantaram Pandurang Yadav (PW-5) have stated that theaccused assaulted on the private part of Ashok Babade (the Deceased).The learned counsel for the Respondents invites attention of thisCourt to the medical evidence, and in particular cross examination of Dr.Laxmikant Kashinath Bade (PW-6) and submits that the said witness has statedthat abrasion on the private part of Ashok Badade (the deceased) was notpossible due to the alleged blows given by the accused.This witness (PW-5) has also admitted in his cross examination thatthere were no lights at the place of incident.9 Upon perusal of evidence of Anita Ashok Badade (PW-2), she hasstated that Accused assaulted her husband on his private part i.e. scrotal , soalso Kamal Vasant Shinde (PW-4) has stated that accused assaulted AshokBadade on his private part i.e. scrotal .The prosecution has not brought onrecord the distance between the house of Anita Ashok Badade and the actualspot of incident.Upon carefulperusal of the cross examination of PW-2, her conduct appears to be unnaturalinasmuch as when she was asked by defence counsel, whether she tried torescue her husband i.e. Ashok Badade (the deceased), she stated that sheherself and Shinde never tried to rescue her husband as he had already fallendown.She also stated that they never tried to administer the water to herhusband.The said conduct of PW-2 appears to be most unnatural.deposition stated about the injuries.He had noticed following external injurieson the person of Ashok Badade (the Deceased ) :-1] Abrasion 2" below left knee joint on leg, vertical in direction 1 ½"x ½", red in colour.2] Abrasion front of left petella measuring ½" x ¼", red in colour.3] Abrasion right arm middle measuring ¾" x ½", red in colour.4] Abrasion right index finger proximal phalynx dorsam measuring ¼" x ¼".5] Abrasion over the back mid-line 2" below 7th certical spine measuring ¾" x ½", red in colour.6] Abrasion posterior side right fore-arm upper 1/3, measuring ½" x ¼", red in colour.7] Abrasion on front of the scrotal involving both halves measuring 2" x 1 ½" with contusion in mid-line ¾" x ½", red in colour.The Medical Officer (PW-6) also noticed the following internal injuries :-PW-6 further stated that all injuries were anti-mortem and were recent.Hefurther deposed that the external Injury No.7 associated with internal injuriesare sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.However, the Medical Officer(PW-6) voluntarily stated that the abrasion on the private part of Ashoklgc 9 of 11 (904) Apeal-380.99.odtBadade (the deceased) is not possible due to said assault.He further stated inhis cross examination that all external injuries were accompanied by abrasions,and Injury Nos. 1 to 2 being on front side, are possible due to fall on the roughsubstance.He further deposed that Injury Nos.1 to 6 are simple in nature.Therefore, if the evidence of eye witnesses (PW Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5), Medical Officer (PW-6), and Investigating Officer (PW-10) is considered in its entirety, it cannot be definitely gathered that the Respondents/Accused are responsible for the death of Ashok Badade (the deceased).13 We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court.Those findings appear to be in consonance with the evidence brought on record.The Trial Court has taken a plausible view.14 For the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any substance in the Appeal.The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.

Since, both the appeals are arising out of the same Sessions Trial, for the sake of convenience, they are being taken up together.As per the FIR, the prosecution case is that Champa Devi (P.W.1) wife of the deceased, Roop Chandra Pal, resident of Gadri Tola, Basaratpur, P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur was present at the door of her house on 2.11.2012 along with her husband and children.About 15 yards towards east of her house, is located the plot of Anil Kumar Gaud (A-5) which was purchased by him from one Laljee Mishra.On the said date, the accused Anil Kumar Gaud was constructing western wall on his aforesaid plot by which the passage of the informant's house would be obstructed, hence, her husband stopped Anil Kumar Gaud and asked him that he should raise the said wall after leaving the passage.In the meantime, Laljee Mishra (A-3) also reached there and started saying that the wall will be constructed at the same place.At this, husband of the informant stated that the said passage was a public way and how would they be able to pass through that way.At this, Chunnu (A-2) slapped her husband and then informant also proceeded ahead.By then Anil Kumar Gaud (A-5) exhorted "Mar Dalo Sale Ko Bahut Tej Banta Hai".At his exhortation, Munnu (A-1) and Chuunu (A-2), both sons of Laljee Mishra and wife of Laljee Mishra (A-4) started beating her husband by fists and in the meantime, Laljee Mishra made fire upon her husband with an intention to kill, by which getting injured he fell down.Informant's son Rajesh Kumar and Virendra Kumar Pal son of Ram Adhar had taken the husband of the informant upon a rikshaw, to the hospital and soon after her husband reached there, he died due to fire-arm injuries.This occurrence was seen by her son Rajesh Kumar, her daughter Suman (P.W.2) and Purnwasi, son of Chauki Ram, resident of Mohalla Om Nagar, Basaratpur etc. This occurrence took place at about 5:15 PM.Laljee Mishra (A-3), is a resident of her Mohalla.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.)Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Sri A.B.L. Gaur, Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Manu Sharma and Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A for the State.The first Criminal Appeal No.1019 of 2018 has been preferred by accused appellant Lal Jee Mishra against impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) U.P. SEB, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No.332 of 1993 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304 read with 34 IPC with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and half of the said fine has been directed to be paid to informant of the case Champa Devi who is wife of the deceased Roop Chandra Pal.The Second Criminal Appeal No.1056 of 2018, has been preferred by accused appellant Anil Kumar Gaud against the same judgment whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with 34 IPC with the same punishment.The dead-body of her husband is lying in hospital.Therefore, her report be registered and necessary action be taken.Upon the said complaint (Ex. Ka-1), Case Crime No.407 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was registered at P.S.Shahpur, District Gorakhpur on 2.11.1992 at about 18:45 (6:45PM) against Munnu son of Laljee Mishra (A-1), Chunnu son of Laljee Mishra (A-2), Laljee Mishra son of Annu (A-3), wife of Laljee Mishra (A-4) and Anil Kumar Gaud (A-5).The Investigation of this case was assigned to Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar Ojha (P.W.3), who assumed investigation of this case on 2.11.1992 and in parcha no.1, he recorded statement of informant Champa Devi, conducted the inspection of place of incident, recorded statement of Suman Pal (P.W.2) and also recorded statement of other wintesses namely, Surendra Chandra and Awadesh Kumar.In parcha no.2, dated 3.11.1992, he arrested accused Anil Kumar Gaud and recorded his statement.In parcha no.2-A, on 3.11.1992, he recorded the statement of witnesses Rajesh Kumar and Purnwasi and also made perusal of post mortem report.In para no.3, on 4.11.1992, he presented an application before Court for obtaining warrant under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against accused Laljee Mishra, Chunnu, Munnu and Smt. Shivkali Devi.In parcha no.9 dated 5.11.1992, he recorded surrender of accused Laljee Mishra and Chunnu before Court and they were sent to jail after being remanded.In parcha no.5, dated 7.11.1992, he recorded statement of witnesses of inquest report i.e. Jangbahadur, Swami Nath and Ram Pyare.In parcha no.6, dated 17.11.1992, the accused Shivkali surrendered before Court and was sent to jail on remand and also recorded the statement of Deshraj Pal and Ram Adhar who were witnesses of inquest.He has also proved panchayatnama (inquest report), photo lash, challan lash, chitthi R.I. and chitthi C.M.O. which are Exhibits Ka-4 to Ka-8 respectively.On the basis of evidence on record charge was framed on 9.9.1997, against all the five accused-appellants named above, under Sections 147/148 and 302 read with 149 IPC and a separate charge has been framed on the same day against accused-appellant Laljee Mishra, under Section 302 IPC, to which all the accused-appellants pleaded not gulity and claimed to be tried.In order to prove its case, from the side of prosecution, informant Champa Devi (wife of deceased) as P.W.1, daughter of deceased Suman Pal as P.W.2, I.O. Ashok Kumar Ojha as (P.W.-3) and Anurag Tripathi, who is an employee of the Sadar Hospital and was working with Dr. K.M. Singh, at the relevant point of time, as P.W.4, have been examined.Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused-appellants were recorded.On the basis of evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants while other co-accused have been acquitted after having heard counsel of both the sides.We have to re-appraise evidence on record in the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants so as to find out as to whether the finding of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and evidence on record or does it requires any interference.Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that P.W.1 who is wife of the deceased has claimed herself to be an eye witness but it is evident from the contents of the FIR as well as her statement that she was not an eye witness and that she had reached the place of incident only after hearing the sound of fire subsequently, therefore, her testimony should be discarded.It is further argued that it was not possible for her to see the incident from the distance of about 200 paces as she has stated that her house was 200 paces away from the place where the construction work was going on and the said place was not visible.The other eye witness namely, Suman Pal who is daughter of the deceased, was also not an eye witness of this occurrence.She has turned hostile and her testimony contains many contradictions and also there are contradictions between the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the I.O. with respect to important aspects of the case which makes the testimony of the eye witnesses totally unreliable.It was also argued that there was no motive for the accused Laljee Mishra to have committed this offence, because the passage which was allegedly being blocked, by raising construction, was the same passage by which the said accused would also have passed.One main contradiction which was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants is that P.W.1 has stated that the fire was made on her husband by accused Lal Jee Mishra, while P.W.2 has stated that fire was made by accused Anil Kumar Gaud, which is material contradiction and which belies presence of both the witnesses on the place of occurrence.Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the accused be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.On the other hand, the learned AGA has vehemently argued in support of the impugned judgement stating that the contradictions which are stated to have come in the testimonies of the above mentioned witnesses have occurred only because of long delay in conclusion of trial which took about 18 years in being finally decided and when evidence of a witness would be recorded at such far point of time from the date of incident, the contradictions are bound to be there and simply on the basis of such contradictions, the accused-appellants cannot be acquitted and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed and the judgment of the Trial Court be upheld.15. P.W.1, Champa Devi has stated in examination-in-chief that about four years ago at about 5¼ PM, she was present in her house on the door with her husband, son Rajesh Kumar and daughter Suman.Right then, Chunnu, Munnu, Laljee Mishra and wife of Laljee Mishra also came there and they were also told by her husband that the said wall should be constructed leaving the passage, but they did not hear and then, Chunnu slapped her husband twice and Chunnu, Munnu, Laljee Mishra and wife of Laljee Mishra together started assaulting her husband with fists.Anil Kumar Gaud exhorted "Mar Dalo Sale Ko Bahut Tez Banta Hai".Having seen this, P.W.1, her son Rajesh and her daughter proceeded ahead to the place where the passage was being closed and then Laljee Mishra made fire upon her husband, which hit her husband and pursuant to that he fell down.Apart from P.W.1 and her above mentioned family members, Purnwasi had also witnessed this occurrence.Her son Rajesh and Virendra Pal had brought her husband to the hospital.After some time, Rajesh came to her and told her that his father had died.The report of this incident was got scribed by Teerath Raj.Thereafter, she had gone with the said report (Ex. Ka-1) to the police station to lodge the report.She recognizes the accused-appellants Chunnu, Munnu, Laljee Mishra, Anil Gaud and wife of Laljee Mishra who are present in Court.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that all the above named accused-appellants were living in her mohalla, whom she recognizes.She had no dispute earlier with them, nor was there any litigation between them.She used to live life like a bride-groom in the house because she does not have much knowledge.Anil Gaud had purchased the land from the persons who were of her own clan i.e. Laljee Pal, Balikaran and Viswanath belong to her clan.Accused Laljee Mishra and his family members had nothing to do with the said land.The passage with respect to which dispute had arisen, if the said passage was closed, the passage for going to the house of accused Laljee Mishra, would also be closed.At present the same route is being used for transportation.In the evening of the date of occurrence, she was at home, her husband had gone out after having his meals and when he was returning in the evening, this occurrence had happened.In the afternoon, when the construction work of the wall was going on, she had gone to stop the work but at that time Laljee Mishra and his children Chunnu and Munnu and her wife Shivkali Devi were not there.Her house would be about 200 paces from the place where Anil Gaud was getting the foundation dug for raising the construction but the said place was not visible from her house.The said passage was a common passage for all.She had no knowledge as to where her husband had gone after having meals but when he returned, he did not come home rather went straight to the place where the foundation was being dug.The food is cooked at home by her and some times by her daughter and on the date of incident just prior to this occurrence, she was making preparation for the food and right then, her daughter went to the place of incident running.Her son Rajesh Pal had also gone there running.She had heard a sound of fire and then, she could not understand as to who had made that fire and where the same was made.Thereafter, her daughter returned home and told that her father had been shot dead.Thereafter, P.W.1 also went there running and found there a lot of crowd but did not seen Laljee Mishra, his wife, his children Chunnu and Munnu there.Her husband was lifted in a Rickshaw by her son and was taken to hospital.His son Rajesh Pal had got an application written by Tejraj and got it signed by her which was given at the police station.She can make signature somehow.Further she has stated that she was not read out the said application, nor did she know as to what was written therein.The I.O. had made no interrogation from her.When he had come to her house, she had told him all about the incident and had shown the place of incident.At that time, she did not see Laljee Mishra, his wife and his sons Chunnu and Munnu at the place of incident.Laljee Mishra had not purchased any land from her family members and she had good relation with their family.She has further stated that prior to this occurrence, she never saw Anil Gaud, nor does she remember as to whether she had given the written report about this incident at the police station or not.The name of Anil Kumar Gaud was mentioned in the said report, on being told by other persons but it is wrong to say that she has falsely implicated Anil Kumar Gaud at other's instance.It appears that after above statement, she would have been got declared hostile by the learned ADGC Criminal because record reveals that she was cross-examined by learned ADGC at this stage and she made following statements.She stated that about 18 years ago she had given statement before Court in which she had told that on account of the passage being closed the dispute had arisen.She was not intimidated in giving the statement by any-one rather she had given the said statement of her own free will.She does not recollect whether in the said statement she had stated anything about marpeet or not and denied that under police pressure she was making false statement.Thereafter, the defence side made small cross-examination in which she has stated that the statement which she has given today in Court, that was correct statement, not given under any kind of pressure.It appears from the perusal of the statement of this witness that she is claiming to be an eye witness of the occurrence.According to the FIR version, the occurrence took place on 2.11.2012, when P.W.1, her husband Roop Chandra Pal (deceased) and her children were at home and the construction of the wall was being done towards east of their house at a distance of about 5 to 50 yards on a plot purchased by accused Anil Kumar Gaud which was purchased by him from Laljee Mishra who belonged, to the family of the P.W.1 and when the said construction was being made which could blocked, the passage for going to the eastern side, her husband had tried to stop Anil Kumar Gaud who told him that the said wall should be made leaving the common passage but in the meantime, the other co-accused Laljee Mishra also reached there, and he also insisted that the wall would be made there only despite opposition from the side of husband of the informant and during this period all the co-accused Chunnu, Munnu, wife of Laljee and Laljee Mishra are also stated to have reached and had assaulted the deceased by fists and in the same occurrence, accused Laljee Mishra made fire upon her husband, getting hit by which, he fell down and ultimately when he was taken to hospital by her son, he died.There is no doubt that the FIR has been lodged with the police station promptly, as the incident is stated to have occurred at 5:15 PM and the report has been lodged at 6:45 PM i.e. barely within one and half hours of the occurrence.P.W.1, has supported the said version in the examination-in-chief but in cross-examination, she has stated that her husband was not at home; he had left the house after having meals in the morning and returned in the evening and in the afternoon, when the construction of the wall was going on, she herself had gone there to stop the said construction but at that time, accused Laljee Mishra and his children Chunnu, Munnu and her wife Shivekali were not there and that the said place was not visible from her house as the same was located about 200 paces away from her house.She has also stated that when her husband returned home, he did not come home rather went straight to the place where the construction work was going on, which is a departure from the version given in the FIR.Moreover, she has further stated that just prior to the occurrence, she was preparing food and that her daughter had gone to the place of incident along with her brother Rajesh Pal and then she heard a sound of fire but she could not make out as to where the said fire was made and thereafter, her daughter came back home running and told her that her father had been fired upon, then only, she went to the place of incident and by that time, Laljee Misra, wife of Laljee Mishra and children of Laljee Mishra were not seen by her there.It shows that she had reached the place of incident only after the fire had already been made upon the deceased, therefore, it cannot be held proved that she had witnessed the deceased being fired upon by the accused Laljee Mishra.It also does not seem to be possible for this witness to have been seen the occurrence from a distance of about 200 paces, as it was argued that a person with a perfect vision can at the most see an object not beyond the 92-200 yards.Therefore, by no stretch of imaginaiton it could be taken that she could have been seen the occurrence from her house.We are in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the appellants in this regard that the P.W.1 could not have seen the occurrence from her house and according to her own statement, she reached the place of incident only after the accused had left and the deceased was being taken to hospital by her son.In cross-examination made by the ADGC about 18 years after the occurrence, she had merely stated that she had not given the statement under any kind of pressure or intimidation.22. P.W.2, the other eye witness namely, Suman who is daughter of the deceased has stated in examination-in-chief that about 25 years ago when she was with her family in her house at about 5:15 PM in the evening, Anil Kumar Gaud was raising a wall on his plot which was at a little distance from her house and the said construction was being made on a passage which was being used by whole Mohalla for transportation purpose and at that time her father had gone somewhere since morning.When Anil Gaud was raising that construction, she along with her mother and brother Rajesh etc. had gone to him and had requested not to close the said passage.At that time, her father was not there, but they were abused and threatened away.When her father returned home in the evening, he straight away went to the plot of Anil Gaud and also made a request to him not to close the public passage.At this, dispute got escalated and the accused side went ahead to do marpeet with him.Anil Gaud was accompanied with 3-4 persons and all of them started beating her father by fists and kicks.In the said crowd, somebody exhorted "Sale Ko Jan Se Mar Do" then Anil Gaud made a fire upon her father which hit him and he fell down.After hearing the noises, in this fracas, P.W.2 also reached there and saw the incident with her own eyes.Anil Gaud had made fire by gun at this father.When the quarrel was going on with her father and he was shot at, at that time, accused Laljee Mishra, his wife Shivkali, Chhunnu and Munnu were not there, nor had they got involved in any quarrel with her father.Laljee Mishra had not made any fire upon her father.Her father was taken to hospital in injured condition by her brother Rajesh and Purnwasi and by the time, he reached the hospital he had died.She again stated that her father was not shot at by Laljee Mishra rather was fired upon by Anil Gaud.The learned ADGC had got her declared hostile and thereafter, he made examination of this witness in which she stated that I.O. had not recorded her statement.When she was read out her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she denied to have given any such statement and pleaded ignorance as to how, the same was recorded.She although, said that in front of her house there was plot of Anil Kumar Gaud and on the date of incident, he was raising construction of the wall on the western side of the said land which would block the passage, and to restrain him from doing so, her father had gone who had pleaed that he should raise the said wall leaving the passage.She stated it to be wrong that when her father had gone to request not to close down that passage, at that time, Laljee Mishra and his sons Chunnu and Munnu had reached there and also said that the said wall would be constructed and in the meantime, Chunnu and Munnu started getting involved in scuffle with her father.It is also stated to be wrong that Laljee Mishra by his gun had made fire upon her father with an intention to kill, which hit him and by which he fell-down.She also denied that she was making false statement in collusion with the accused.Thereafter, she was again cross-examined by other defence counsel in which, she stated that she has no knowledge whether Shivkali Devi is a Parda Nasin lady, she is sometimes seen at her door.The passage in question, was the same by which the family members of Laljee Mishra also used to come and if the same was blocked, their entry and exit would also be stopped from that passage.There was no dispute of P.W.2 with the family members of Laljee.She has further stated that she has not seen any papers relating to the plot of Anil Kumar Gaud, nor does she know that the said land belonged to him and he was raising the wall thereon.Prior to this occurrence, Anil Gaud had gone to the said land and there were some bricks and sand placed there.Prior to this occurrence, the management of the said land was being done by Anil Gaud.The I.O. had recorded her statement.Today, the statement given by her that I.O. had not recorded her statement, whether the same was correct or incorrect, she does not recollect.She had told the I.O. that prior to the occurrence, she had gone to the said land for stopping the construction by which she meant, she and her mother had gone there but the same was not written, she could not tell its reason.She has further stated that when she had gone with her mother to the place of incident to request not to raise construction, the construction work was going on and the wall had been raised up to the height of 2 to 2.5 feet.She had reached there about 12 to 1 PM and then only she came to know that construction of wall was going on and had no prior knowledge of the same.She has stated to I.O. that Anil Kumar Gaud had made fire but if the same has not been written, she could not tell its reason.It is wrong to say that she had told the I.O. about Anil Kumar Gaud exhorting regarding making fire.If he has written in her statement that at the exhortation of Anil Kumar Gaud, the fire was made by someone-else, the same is wrong statement.She has further stated that she was present there with her father at the time of incident, as she had reached there after hearing the noises.When she had gone to ask that construction wall be not made, at that time, her father was not at home.Further she has stated that if she has given statement in Court that she had reached the place of occurrence after hearing noises, she cannot tell whether the same was a correct statement or wrong statement.What was got written in the FIR by her mother, she does not recollect; whether the FIR was written she does not recollect.She has forgotten some details in respect of lodging the FIR.Her mother would have written in FIR that Anil Kumar Gaud had made fire.But we have to make sure whether the statement of this witness is believable as regards the person who made fire upon her father.She has clearly stated that it was Anil Gaud and not the Laljee Mishra who had made fire upon the deceased which is absolutely a new case as the FIR says that it was Laljee Mishra who had made fire and the same has also been stated by P.W.-1 that it was Laljee Mishra who had made fire, but this witness who is claiming to be an eye witness, has stated that it was Anil Gaud and not Laljee Misra, which is very material contradiction, which would lead us to draw a conclusion that the prosecution is unable to prove as to actually who had made fire upon the deceased.26. P.W.3, I.O. has stated in cross-examination that during investigation it has come to light that the deceased was fired upon by licenced gun of Laljee Mishra.Therefore, the statement of P.W.2 is not getting support from the statement of I.O. The statement of I.O. is getting corroborated by statement of P.W.1 and the FIR as regards Laljee Mishra having made fire on the deceased but we have come to the conclusion that P.W.1 was not an eye witness as she had reached the place of incident after having heard a sound of fire and by that time, there was none from amongst the accused at the place of incident.It would also be relevant here to mention about the site-plan and in that light whether the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with P.W.3 are believable or not in respect of this occurrence.In Ex. Ka-2 by "A" is shown the house of informant and to the east of that, at a distance of about 50 yards, is shown plot by letters "BCED" which is stated to be the plot, to the south of which, on the passage, the construction was being raised, to block that passage and the same is marked by green ink; to the south of the house of informant, is shown the said passage and thereafter, the field of husband of the informant; in the site plan the house of accused Laljee Mishra is also shown in the sought-west of the field of informant and in front of that house, the same passage is shown which leads from west to east, eastern side taking a little curve while passing by the side of complainant-informant's house and further on, it goes to the plot which has been purchased by accused Anil Kumar Gaud.In this site plan though the house of the informant and the said plot, where the construction was being made blocking the passage, there is no obstruction in between, but even then it is difficult to see the place of occurrence from a distance of about 50 yards, therefore, the statement given by P.W.1 who is wife of the deceased to have seen the occurrence from her house, cannot be believed and moreover, her statement that she had reached the place of incident and thereafter, had seen the occurrence is also not believable as by then, the incident had already become over and the deceased was being taken to the hospital by her son.The testimony of P.W.2 is inconsistent with respect to her having seen the occurrence because in the site plan it has not been shown as to from where she has seen this occurrence and she had turned hostile by saying that because of lot of crowed being there she could not see as to who had exhorted whereafter, Anil Gaud made fire upon her father, but this statement is absolutely in contradiction with the statement of P.W.1 and the I.O. because the role of making fire upon the deceased is assigned not to Anil Gaud rather it is assigned to Laljee Mishra.It appears from the testimony of P.W.2 that she along with her mother had gone in the afternoon to the place where construction of wall was being made, to request that the said construction be stopped but she was abused and both of them had come back home and when in the evening her father reached home, before he entered the house he straight-away went to the place, where the construction was being made and then this incident has happened.She has insisted that she had seen with her own eyes that Anil Gaud had made fire but we have already given opinion that prosecution case is that it was not Anil Gaud rather it was actually Laljee Mishra who had made fire by his licenced gun therefore, this contradiction is considered to be very important contradiction with respect to the fact as to who had fired upon the deceased.29. P.W.4 Anurag Tripathi has stated in examination-in-chief that he was posted with Dr. K.M. Singh in Sadar Hospital, Gorakhpur with whom he had worked.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he could not tell with exactitude whether he remained posted with the said doctor for two years or not.In post-mortem, the doctor had found following ante-mortem injuries;-" Fire arm injury of entrance on front of chest, neck, lower face, left shoulder, left upper arm in an area of 30 cm x 15 cm long, each measuring from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm long, blackening and tattooing present.Some injuries are cavity deep, some muscle deep and some are superficial.(i) Three metallic pallets are found on the neck, Hematoma 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm long area measuring from neck.(ii) Hematoma under skin of the chest, below left nipple in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm long, left lung punctured.Two metallic pallets present in the base of left lung.Two metallic pallets present in the left arm.Chest cavity contains half litre clotted blood.Two metallic pallets present in chest cavity.Heart NAD."The cause of death is mentioned to be shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury.32. P.W.3, I.O. Ashok Kumar Ojha in examination-in-chief has stated that he had found the occurrence to have been taken place on account of the wall being raised by accused Anil Kumar Gaud on his plot.In the inquest report, it was mentioned that the deceased had been shot dead but no specific arm was mentioned.The site-plan was prepared by him at the instance of informant.The place from where the informant had seen the occurrence, has not been shown in the site-plan.The way by which the accused came there, has not been shown in the site-plan, nor has it been shown as to from where the fire was made upon the deceased.No place is indicated in the site-plan of person other than who had made fire.He did not make any effort to take into possession the said licenced gun, nor did he send the pallets recovered from the body of the deceased, to the Forensic Science Lab for being tested.Why they were not sent, no mention has been in the case diary in this regard.No application was given by him for getting the licence of gun cancelled to the District Magistrate.It is wrong to say that the said injury was caused to the deceased by country made pistol.The said injury was not caused by sten-gun.In site plan, except the presence of informant, presence of none other witness has been shown.The witness Suman had stated to him about exhortation being made by Anil Kumar Gaud and not about the Anil Kumar Gaud making fire upon the deceased.Why the Suman had given such statement, he cannot tell its reason.After having assessed the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that as per the prosecution story narrated in the FIR, the occurrence happened on 2.11.2012 at about 5:15 PM in which the deceased, Roop Chandra Pal is stated to have been fired upon by Laljee Mishra with an intention to kill him when he came to resist construction of wall on a common passage which was being raised by accused Anil Kumar Gaud near the plot which was purchased by him from the other family members of the informant but P.W.1 and P.W.2 have given different version about this occurrence.According to P.W.1 the person who had shot at the deceased was Laljee Mishra while according to P.W.2, it was Anil Kumar Gaud and according to I.O. he had found Laljee Mishra to be the assailant therefore, with respect to this most important aspect of the case there is a serious contradiction in the statement of witnesses examined from the side of prosecution which makes their testimonies to be doubtful and also the same would make their presence at the place of occurrence to be doubtful.The weapon by which the said fire was made is stated to be a licenced gun of Laljee Mishra but no justification has been given by I.O. as to why the same was not taken in possession and why he did not send the said weapon along with the pallets which were recovered from the dead-body of the deceased for being sent to the Forensic Science Lab to ascertain whether the said pallets were the same which got embedded in the dead body of the deceased on being fired by the said weapon.The I.O. has also not shown the place from where P.W.2 had seen the occurrence.Though, these are the lacunae left by the prosecution in investigation of this case, for which benefit would not be allowed to go to the accused but we find that even otherwise the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not found to be clinching against the accused-appellants to prove that in-fact they were the persons who were responsible for causing death of the deceased.We have already noted above that the statement of P.W.2 was very inconsistent because she had, at one place, turned completely hostile but when cross-examined, she has supported the prosecution case, to a certain extent but the major contradictions which are found in her testimony and in the testimony of P.W.1 with respect to the fact as to who was the person actually who had made fire upon the deceased is compelling us to take a view that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants in this case.The Doctor has not been examined by the prosecution because of the death of the said doctor hence, nothing much could be asked in regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased.We have already given our opinion that P.W.1 was not in a position to have seen the occurrence from her house because of the distance between her house and the place of occurrence and her presence at the time, when incident happened, is doubtful because as per her version she had reached there only after the occurrence has happened.The argument of learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the accused-appellant Laljee Mishra's passage would also have got obstructed by raising of the said wall hence, he could have no motive to cause death of the deceased because both would have common interest of having that passage open for general public.We find that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in accordance with law, and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and both the accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted and are accordingly acquitted.The appeals stand allowed.

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

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

The facts relevant may be stated in brief as follows :Respondent No. 2-Lalsing Suryawanshi, resident of Aambapur is the original complainant.On 04.12.2016, marriage of Vaishali d/o Lalsing Suryawanshi was arranged with the applicant - Jaywant at Aambapur, Tq. & Dist.The dates 29.01.2017 was fixed for engagement and 01.02.2017 for marriage.However, the groom and their relatives told respondent No. 2 - Lalsing that they had no enough money and if he would finance them for marriage expenses, the said amount would be returned to him at the time of marriage.Hence respondent No. 2 advanced an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to father of bride for meeting expenses of marriage, which would be refundable.Thereafter, Madhu Chaudhari, cousin of the applicant informed him that the bride - Vaishali had eloped with one boy.Respondent No. 2 told them that his daughter has not eloped and she was in the house only.He was informed by the ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 ::: 3 APPLN3657.2017 applicant - Jaywant, his father Pannalal Chaudhari, cousin Madhu Chaudhari, Kapil Gangadhar Suryawanshi, Uttam Raghunath Bhoye, Mohan Bhoye, Sadashiv Deoman Bhoye and Police Patil Bansilal Namde Gaikwad that, his daughter has committed wrong and the marriage would not be solemnised.Respondent No. 2 tried to convince them that she has not committed any wrong and they should come to his village and verify the fact but, he was told by the applicant, his family members and panch that he should pay Rs. 51,000/- to the Gaon Panchayat, lest they would defame his daughter.Respondent No. 2 was frightened and he was requesting them to reconsider but the applicant's cousin Madhu told him that his brother-in-law Jagan Dighya Gawit was a police at Shirpur and he was informed about all the facts about his daughter.Respondent No. 2 was frightened by these threats and told them that he had already paid Rs. 1,50,000/- and amount of Rs. 51,000/- be deducted from the said amount for payment to Gaon Panchayat.Then he was told that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was already spent and he has nothing to do with that amount.He should pay separately Rs. 51,000/-.The investigation revealed that, Vaishali did elope with one person who has given a statement that he was her classmate and knowing her for last 3 to 4 years.They were having love affair and at the relevant time they had eloped at various places.They had also gone to Kolhapur.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission stage.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::This is an application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR at C.R. No. 106/2017 registered on 27.04.2017 with Nandurbar Police Station, Nanduarbar for the offence punishable u/s 384 r/w 34 of the IPC.Due to fear, he immediately handed over Rs. 26,000/- which he had.Thereafter, when his sister-in-law's husband - Dattu Chaudhari from Kolhapur made inquiry with the applicant, the applicant told him that he liked Vaishali too much.The applicant won confidence of ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 ::: 4 APPLN3657.2017 informant's sister-in-law's husband Dattu Chaudhari and told him that Vaishali should be called at Kolhapur.Hence, Vaishali was sent along with Dattu Chaudhari to Kolhapur.Applicant - Jaywant promised to marry to Vaishali and roamed with her in Kolhapur.Then they had gone to Vikramgadh Javhar where the applicant accompanied them and the photographs were also taken.He also gifted one Vivo mobile handset to Vaishali and promised to convince his parents for his marriage with Vaishali.However, after 2-3 days, Jaywant told him on phone that his brother-in-law Jagan Gawit had proposed one girl from his relation for him and, therefore, he was unable to marry to Vaishali as there was stiff resistance from his parents to marry to Vaishali.Then respondent No. 2 demanded Rs. 1,76,000/- back, but the applicant and his relatives declined to refund the said amount.Thus, the applicants and his relatives had extorted Rs. 1,76,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::On the basis of such FIR, crime was registered and was investigated into.The applicant seeks quashing of the FIR on the following grounds.(i) On bare reading of the FIR in true spirit, no offence is disclosed.The FIR is frivolous and imaginary.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::dishonest inducement to deliver any property to the applicant(iv) The money paid for expenses of marriage cannot be termed as extortion.Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit dt. 08.09.2017 and opposed the application.He claimed that the defence is scandalous.There was threat to defame his daughter so as to extort the money.He was threatened that if he would not pay Rs. 51,000/- to Gaon Panchayat, his daughter would be defamed.The facts disclose offence u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC.Learned advocate Shri Bachate advanced arguments as per the grounds raised in the application.Learned advocate Shri.J. R. Shah for respondent No. 2 and Shri.M. M. Nerlikar, learned APP for respondent No. 1/State, opposed the application.The investigating Officer has produced the papers of investigation.Advocate Bachate for the applicant informed us that the applicant is ready to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,76,000/- without prejudice to the defence raised by him but, the complainant declined to agree for settlement hence, the arguments were heard.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::The point for consideration with our finding thereon are as follows:As his father was known to vaishali's father, no action was taken against him.Vaishali stated that, the applicant met her at the house of her maternal aunt at Kolhapur and promised her on 14.01.2017 that he would marry her notwithstanding the resistance from his parents.He also sought permission to allow him to take Vaishali with him for roaming and they roamed at various places in Kolhapur.Her maternal aunt's husband had provided clothes to the applicant.Thereafter also the applicant was in contact with her and he called her on 06.02.2016 at Vikramgadh.She along with her relatives met applicant at Vikramgadh and photographs were also taken.He tried ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 ::: 7 APPLN3657.2017 to force himself upon her but she refused to have sex with him till they would get married.She stated that he had openly demanded physical sex relations with her and he had gifted one mobile set to her.On his request, she had kept one bag of her articles in his room at Vikramgadh as he had assured her that they were going to be married.Later on, he has declined to marry on the ground that his brother-in-law Jagan had proposed another girl for him.He had threatened her that she should not come in his way, lest he would not leave her alive.Vaishali has given a statement making additional allegations.She stated that the applicant told her that he would marry to her notwithstanding the resistance of his parents.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::After considering the arguments of learned advocates and going through the papers, we find that amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was advanced by the informant voluntarily for the purpose of marriage.But, when for whatever reason the marriage was broken, the applicant and his relatives were bound to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as it was paid as refundable advance for marital expenses.It seems that, initially the applicant and his relatives were not ready to refund the amount which amounted to offence u/s 406 of IPC of criminal breach of trust.The wrongful retention of amount would amount to offence u/s 406 of IPC, however, before this court the ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 ::: 8 APPLN3657.2017 applicant has unconditionally offered to refund the said amount.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:14:48 :::If there is such custom to charge huge penalty for settlement, it amounts to extortion.Subsequent offer to refund the amount of Rs.26,000/- would be a mitigating circumstance.The payment will not nullify the offence committed by the applicant and his relatives.We, therefore find that, in respect of amount of Rs. 26,000/-, prima facie there is material to show the offence u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC.In the light of these facts, this is not a fit case for invoking the powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR.Hence, the application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is a First application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.They have already been granted anticipatory bail by this court, therefore, on the ground of parity applicants are entitled for bail.In such circumstances, they be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer and prays for dismissal of application.Applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on them.It is made clear that if the applicants breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicants.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE ns

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants in C.A. 702/96 who were ranked as A-1 and A-7 and the appellants in C.A.563/96 who were ranked as A-2 to A-6, all stood charged, tried, convicted and sentenced as detailed below:Accused Charges(IPC) Guilty(IPC) Sentence(a) P.W.1 Ponnusamy along with his wife Karuppayammal, the deceased and his sons and daughters namely P.W.2 Vijayakumar, P.W.3 Tmt. Sivamani and P.W.4 Mahalakshmi respectively, was living in Pommalapalayam, Ayalur Village.P.W.1 Ponnusamy, A-1 Kumarasamy and A-2 Ramasamy all were co-sharers of Periya Thottam in the said village.On the north of the said thottam, a common track, in respect of which P.W.1 on the one hand and A-1 and A-2 on the other hand had a long standing dispute.On the day of occurrence namely 2.11.1994 at about 10.00 A.M. A-2 came to the track and was removing the thornbushes, and the same was objected to by the deceased Karuppayammal.Following the same, a wordy quarrel broke out.Immediately A-1 armed with aruval attacked the deceased on the middle portion of the head twice.A-2 attacked her with stick on her head and all over the body and shouted ",j;njhL xHpe;J ngh".On hearing the alarm, P.Ws.1 to 4 intervened and tried to rescue the deceased. A-1 to A-7 began to attack P.Ws.1 to 4 indiscriminately all over the body.One Rangaswamy came to the rescue.A-1 to A-7 escaped from the scene of occurrence.The said Rangaswamy hired a taxi and took P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, where P.W.7 Dr. Balamurugan examined the deceased.P6 was the wound certificate given in respect of the deceased Karuppayammal, while Exs.P.W.8 Chinnasamy gave an intimation to the Gobichettipalayam Police Station at 4.15 P.M. regarding the death of Karuppayammal under Ex.(b) At about 5.30 P.M., P.W.12 S. Lakshmanan, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station, on receipt of the information from Gobichettipalayam Police Station, received Ex.P21 F.I.R. was sent to the concerned Magistrate's Court immediately.P.W.14 Jagannathan, Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of the FIR, took up the investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence, prepared Ex.P13 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.9 Murugesan and one Rengasamy and Ex.P26 rough sketch, recovered M.Os.2, 3 and 5 under Ex.P14 mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses and recorded the statements of those witnesses.On 3.11.1994 at about 6.00 A.M., he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, conducted inquest on the dead body of Karuppayammal in the presence of the panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P27 inquest report.He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 the injured witnesses and recorded their statements.He recovered M.O.6 under Ex.P15 mahazar, M.O.7 under Ex.P16 mahazar, M.O.8 under Ex.P17 mahazar and M.Os.12 and 13 under Ex.P18 mahazar.2) Incised wound seen over the middle of the head transversely placed 3 cm x " cm x bone deep.3) Contusion right temporal region 5 x 5 cm.4) Hematoma left temporal region.Fracture skull extending from left to right temporal region and parietal region of extending on to occipital region and found in four pieces.P.W.11 Doctor gave a certificate under Ex.P20 and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of due to extensive fracture skull, subrarachnoid haemorrhage and haemorrhage from the wound.(d) On the arrest of A-1, a confessional statement, which was volunteered by A-1, was recorded.Pursuant to the confessional statement, M.O.1 aruval and M.O.2 stick were recovered under Ex.At about 7.30 P.M., on the strength of Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime No. 165/94 under Ss 147, 148, 324 and 302 of I.P.C. against the accused.(c) On request under Ex.P19 for the conduct of postmortem, P.W.11 Dr. Ramesh, who was on duty that time, conducted the autopsy and has found the following injuries on the dead body of Karuppayammal.External Injuries:1) Lacerated wound obliquely placed left frontal region, found sutured 2.5 x 2.5 cm x bone deep shape with.On Dissection:1) Right side extensive hematoma 10 x 5 cm with fracture in that area of left side.Hematomes scar 10 x 10 cm size with fracture skull.P3 mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 Ramamurthy and P.W.10 Periasamy. A-1 and A-7 were sent for judicial custody.On 14.11.94, A-1 to A-5 gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Gopichettipalayam under S. 164 of Cr.P.C., and the same was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Gobichettipalayam.P.Ws.1 to 4 have also made their statements before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Gobichettipalayam, which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under S. 164 of Cr.P.C. On 13.11.94, P.W.14 Investigation Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused.In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellants/A-1 to A-7, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 27 exhibits and 14 material objects.After the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellants/accused were questioned under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and they flatly denied the same as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court after consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, has recorded a finding that the accused were guilty under the above provisions of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as stated supra, which is the subject matter of both the appeals.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.702/96 with vigour and vehemence raised the following points for consideration by this Court.The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who were all close relatives.While P.W.1 was the husband, P.Ws.2 to 4 were the children of the deceased Karuppayammal.According to the prosecution, one Rangaswamy interfered at the time of the occurrence and took Karuppayammal and P.Ws.1 to 4 to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam.This fact that Rangaswamy brought them to the Hospital has been spoken to by the Medical Officer, who gave treatment to them.But, the said Rangaswamy, for reasons best known to the prosecution, was neither shown as a witness nor examined in the trial Court.If this evidence is scrutinised closely, it would indicate that the deceased was the aggressor.It is true that the property was under common enjoyment, and what was done by A-2, according to the prosecution, was the removal of the thornbushes from the common cart track.At that time, the intervention by the deceased followed by the wordy quarrel has resulted in the occurrence.The evidence does not indicate anywhere that the accused have acted with any pre-meditation or with intention or with motive.As per the prosecution case, at first the deceased was attacked and P.Ws.1 to 4 were attacked one after another by all the accused.As narrated by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4, though they were injured with aruval and sticks one after another, were keeping quiet.It would be nothing but opposed to the normal human conduct, and thus, it would indicate that P.Ws.1 to 4, though they were injured witnesses, have not brought forth the truth, but they suppressed a part of the occurrence, and thus, their evidence should not have been given any credence at all.It remains to be stated that though the intimation was given by the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam immediately to the Police Station situated the next compound, the concerned Sub Inspector went to the hospital only after the death of Karuppayammal and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which is casting a doubt on the prosecution case.The lower Court has much relied on the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 and has found the accused guilty.But, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 would lead to the outright rejection of their evidence, and in view of the doubts and suspicions, the appellants should have been acquitted by the lower Court.Considering the submissions made above, the appellants/accused are entitled for an acquittal.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.563/96 while adopting the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants in C.A.702/96, would further add that there are lot of inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4; that they would speak at one place that they were attacked by card frame, and in the other place, they would say that they were attacked by reaper; and that according to the Doctor, who gave them treatment, at first they have stated that 12 persons attacked them namely 5 women and 7 men, but, the case was brought before the trial Court and charge sheet was also filed against 7 persons, who were the appellants before this Court.After careful consideration of the rival submissions and close scrutiny of the entire materials available, the Court is unable to see any substance in the contentions, all or any one, put forth by the appellants' side.The prosecution came with the specific case that the accused constituted into an unlawful assembly, came over to the place of occurrence and assaulted Karuppayammal, the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4 on the date of occurrence namely 2.11.1994 at 10.00 A.M. Admittedly, A-1 and A-2 on the one side and P.W.1 on the other side had got a rival claim over a path in the common track situated on the northern side of one Periya Thottam, which belonged to both the parties, and on the day of occurrence on 2.11.1994 at 10.00 A.M., A-2 was removing the thornbushes in the cart track which was being questioned by Karuppayammal.So far as the injuries that were caused to P.Ws.1 to 4 were concerned, they have given their version along with the narration of the incident and the injuries caused by each and every accused.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the injured witnesses and the cause that led to the death of Karuppayammal as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4 are thoroughly corroborated by the evidence of the medical person, apart from the documents filed by the prosecution marked as Exs.P6 to P10 which are the wound certificates in respect of the injuries found on them.In such circumstances, in a case like this, when the injured witnesses have been examined, who gave a cogent and clear narration of the event that took place, and the circumstances attendant over the occurrence do not cast any doubt, the prosecution case has got to be necessarily believed.So far as the death of Karuppayammal was concerned, at the time of inquest, panchayatars were examined, and an inquest report was prepared, and at the request of the Investigation Officer, autopsy was also conducted by P.W.11 Doctor, who has also deposed to the effect that the injury Nos. 1 and 2 found on the deceased, would cause death, and that the deceased would have died due to the extensive fracture in the skull.When both the ends are available, the non-examination of Rangaswamy who took the injured witnesses to the hospital, will not in any way affect the prosecution case.The contention of the appellants' side that some of the witnesses in one place have spoken to the weapon of attack as card frame and in the other place have spoken to reaper cannot be given much weight, because it is a minor discrepancy.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)

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

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

No costs.Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.17.9.2014 Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NolanC.T. SELVAM J.,ToThe Inspector of PoliceHasthampatti Police StationCrime No.521 /2012SalemCrl.R.C.No.606 of 201417.9.2014Upon the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.520 of 2012 has been registered on the file of the respondent for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C. against two persons, by name, Manjunathan and Kasimalli.Pursuant to investigation in Crime No.520 of 2012, i.e., a complaint preferred by the petitioner, a case is pending trial in C.C.No.134 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, for offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Pursuant to investigation in Crime No.521 of 2012, the petitioner and three others are facing trial for offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in C.C.No.135 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem.The petitioner moved C.M.P.No.945 of 2013 in C.C.No.135 of 2012 seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Against dismissal of such petition, the petitioner preferred the present petition.This Court taking into consideration the fact that a wordy altercation took place between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant in C.C.No.135 of 2012 (Crime No.521 of 2012) over a trivial issue relating to breaking the branches of a tree and in a state of aggravation, the rival parties have struck blows to each other using iron rods and fortunately without causing any considerable injury, thought it appropriate to require both parties to give the issue a quietus.While the petitioner is before us and agreeable to such a course, the defacto complainant in Crime No.521 of 2012 is not before us.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that despite being informed, the rival party has chosen not to appear.Considering the triviality of the issue, that no considerable harm has been caused to either party and particularly that in investigating the counter cases, the respondent police have not followed the procedure envisaged in Rule No.588 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders and being of the considered opinion that in the circumstances, there is hardly any possibility of conviction in either case, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. directs as follows:The case in C.C.No.134 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and the case in C.C.No.135 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem shall stand quashed.This petition stands allowed.

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

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

It had been contended, inter alia, therein that he (complainant) is the acting Managing Mutwali of Imambara and Trust Estate at 10, Portugese Church Street, Calcutta-700 001, which is an exclusive Wakf property, now under the direct control of this Hon'ble Court and a Special Officer has also been appointed to look after the affairs of the said Trust.On 21.7.86, when the complainant was away from the aforesaid premises the "accused" had come to the spot at 11.30 A.M. with apparatus and had broken upen the shutters which were fixed in front of two shops within the Imambara premises, The "accused " had dismantled the said shutters and had taken away the same in presence of the local people without talking to any authority of the Estate.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J.By the instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code); the petitioners-accused have prayed the Court for quashing the relevant proceedings, being Case No. C/249 of 1986 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, on the grounds set forth therein.On 23.7.86 the opposite party No. 1-complainant had filed a petition of complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against the four petitioners-accused and another under Sections 324, 379 and 440, I.P.C., on the allegations made therein.The petitioner No. 1-accused, Sushil Kar, appears to be the Conservancy Officer, the petitioner No. 2-accused, Tapas Sarkar, appears to be the District Conservancy Officer, petitioner No. 3-accused, Gora Chand Mondal, appears to be the Deputy City Architect, and the petitioner No. 4-accused, Raghu Nath Singh appears to be a member of the Staff of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.Petitioner is a doctor by profession who did her MBBS from Lady Harding Medical College and also diploma in cology and Obstetrics from Maulana Azad Medical College.She claims that she has almost 20 years of experience to her credit as a senior medical practitioner with specialization in Gynaecology and Obstetrics.Her husband is also a doctor and both of them set up, in the year 1984, a clinic called Bharat Hospital in Nangloi area of Delhi.On 24.6.199, complainant again met the petitioner and complained that his wife was not getting relief from pain.The petitioner yet again charged Rs. 400/- and prescribed one injection and some other intoxicant medicines.The complainant requested the petitioner for referring the patient to a Government Hospital but the petitioner refused to do so.When the patient was not getting relief from pain, the complainant took his wife to Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on 25.6.1999 where she was got admitted and operated upon.In the year 1996, this hospital was accorded approval by the Directorate of Family Welfare for the purpose of medical termination of pregnancy as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act').In this complaint it is alleged that his wife Rani Devi was taken to the petitioner for aborting her pregnancy on 21.6.1999, when Rani Devi was carrying pregnancy of 141/2 weeks.Petitioner charged Rs. 2,500/- from him and conducted the operation for abortion.It is alleged that the petitioner acted negligently by conducting incomplete operation, wrongly cut the parts of the body and discharged Rani Devi on 22.6.1999 at 7.00 pm, i.e. on the very next date.The complainant brought his wife to the petitioner on 23.6.1999 in the morning and she again examined his wife and charged Rs. 400/-.However, despite giving the medicine as prescribed by the petitioner, complainant's wife could not get any relief.There the complainant was told that his wife was operated upon by some inexperienced person and the doctors in the said hospital took out the remaining portion of the embryo which was operated by the petitioner.On filing of the charge sheet the petitioner was summoned as accused.Parties were heard and the learned ASJ passed order dated 26.4.2004 framing the charge against the petitioner under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').It may be mentioned that though at the initial stage, on the complaint of the complainant, case was registered under Section 304-A IPC, but later it was converted into Section 314 IPC at the direction of Senior Public Prosecutor.It may also be mentioned that no postmortem was conducted after the demise of Rani Devi.Against the framing of this charge, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1342/2004, however, vide order dated 17.11.2004, it was treated as petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that is how this petition is heard by this Bench.

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan, J.This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.1.1988 (Annex 1), by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and order dated 3.6.1999 (Annex.5), by which his appeal has been dismissed.His services had been terminated vide impugned order dated 20.1.1988 on the ground that he had obtained the employment by misrepresentation.While filling up the application form for the post, every applicant was asked to furnish the particulars as to whether he had ever been implicated in any criminal case.Petitioner filled up the relevant column in negative, and as subsequently, on inquiry while verifying his character, it came in the knowledge of the appointing authority that he had been involved in a Criminal Case No. 42 of 1987, under Sections 279, 337, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, his services were terminated vide order dated 20.1.1988 (Annex. 1).Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal in 1998/asked for reinstatement, which has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 3rd June, 1999 (Annex.More so, the appointing authority did not consider the appeal in correct prospective and dismissed it without giving any reason.As petitioner had been acquitted of the charges in the criminal case, he was entitled for reinstatement.Petitioner did not file any appeal against the said order of termination, rather applied for reinstatement on 4.12.1998 as he was acquitted of the criminal charges.The said application was rejected vide order dated 3.6.1999 (Annex.5).The petition was rightly rejected by the High Court."Be that as it may, undoubtedly petitioner had obtained the employment suppressing the material information sought by the appointing authority regarding the involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.68/1997 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C and sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.The prosecution's story in short is that on 21.11.1996 at about 8.00 p.m in the night the complainant, Jagdish (P.W.1), was standing near the house of Gowardhan situated at Village Mordhadhi, Police Station Mandhata, District Khandwa.The appellant and his father were quarreling with each other.Gowardhan, father of the appellant, requested the complainant to 2 intervene.The appellant had a knife at that time and when the complainant tried to preach him, the appellant assaulted the complainant Jagdish by knife for three times.First he assaulted the victim Jagdish on his back and thereafter on his chest and abdomen.On shouting of the complainant Jagdish, his brother Santosh (P.W.2), Shobharam (P.W.3) etc. came to the spot and Jagdish was taken to Government Hospital, Sanawad.Shri S.S. Parihar, S.H.O Sanawad went to the Government Hospital, Sanawad and recorded Dehati Nalishi (FIR) Ex.P/8 from the complainant Jagdish.Matter was transferred to Police Station Mandhata and the case was registered.Dr. Sodhi (P.W.7) examined the victim at Government Hospital, Sanawad and found three incised wounds to the victim Jagdish which were on his back, chest and abdomen.The victim was referred to Medical College/M.Y. Hospital, Indore.Dr. Satish Shukla (P.W.10) had treated the victim Jagdish.Initially he found three stitched wounds to the victim but, after taking X-Ray etc. it was found that there were injuries to the internal parts of the victim and therefore, blood was collected in the right side of the chest wall.Some blood was also collected in the wound no.3 which was on the back.It was also found that some infection was caused in the wound of back and therefore, wound was opened and pus was removed.As much as 400 ml.pus was removed and blood transfusion was also done to the victim Jagdish.(Delivered on the 13th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.1.1997, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in ST.He was kept in the hospital for seven days and ultimately on 28.12.1996 he was discharged.Dr. Shukla opined that injuries were fatal in nature.3 ASI, Shatrughansingh Parihar (P.W.8A) registered the case and thereafter, investigation was initiated.After due investigation a charge sheet was submitted before the JMFC, Khandwa who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Khanda and ultimately it was transferred to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa for trial.The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea but, he has submitted that he was falsely implicated in the matter.Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C but, convicted him for offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.The complainant, Jagdish, moved an application IA.No.13789/2012 under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C for permission to do compromise.The application was kept pending for consideration because offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C is not compoundable but, if the conviction directed against the appellant is reduced to the offence which is compoundable then such application can be accepted.For consideration of this appeal it is to be seen as to 4 whether the conviction under Section 326 of I.P.C can be reduced to the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C ? Whether compromise application filed by the complainant can be accepted and whether the sentence given to the appellant can be reduced ?Jagdish was the sole eye witness in the case.Initially it is alleged that the appellant and his father were quarreling with each other and due to request of Gowardhan, father of the appellant, complainant intervened in the matter because, he was Up Sarpanch.The complainant has categorically mentioned that the appellant assaulted him for three times by a knife.Since Gowardhan was the father of the appellant and therefore, he did not say anything against the appellant and therefore, the investigation officers did not take him as a witness in the case.There was no enmity shown by the appellant with the complainant Jagdish.It was suggested to the victim that the main gate of the house of Gowardhan was prepared by the tin bends and therefore, he sustained injuries by such erected tin bends.Such type of suggestion appears to be hypothetical.If there was no enmity between the complainant and the appellant then it was not possible for the complainant to lodge a named FIR against the appellant.Shobharam (P.W.3) is an independent witness who, has confirmed that on shouting of the complainant Jagdish, he went to the spot.At that time Santosh (P.W.2) was picking the victim Jagdish, who was lying on the earth.Shobharam and Santosh have confirmed that Jagdish informed that it was the 5 appellant who, assaulted the victim Jagdish.The victim was taken to the nearest hospital at Sanawad where Dehati Nalishi was written by ASI Shri S.S. Parihar (P.W.8A).That Dehati Nalishi was written within 70 minutes of the incident.There is no contradiction between the evidence of the complainant and facts narrated in the Dehati Nalishi.Dr. Sodhi (P.W.6) by his medical report Ex.P/6(2) has confirmed all the three injuries to the victim.He found the injuries on the places where the victim alleged that the appellant assaulted him by a knife.A suggestion was given to him that he met with the Government Advocate prior to his statement and due to instigation of the Government Advocate, he was telling the injuries to be fatal.On the contrary, he was giving advise and mediating between the appellant and his father and therefore, the complainant has not done anything by which a right of private defence could arise to the appellant.Similarly by mediation between the appellant and his father, no sudden or grave provocation was caused to the appellant.It is apparent that the appellant assaulted the victim for three times.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion IA.No.13789/2012 filed by the complainant and the appellant is hereby dismissed.

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

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

The matter has been placed today, in Chambers.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Shailesh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 628 of 2019, under Sections - 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Echotech III, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of trial.3. Perused the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.A written objection under the signature of Shri J.K. Upadhyay, AGA has also been placed on record by the office.Considered the same.Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 4.5.2020 Prakhar

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

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

/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2

['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.

This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Apart from this, as could be seen from the records, while the ground case was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while the ground case was registered for the offences under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code.This is the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the detention order.The detenu, namely, Aruldoss @ Bonda, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai 8

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha in connection with Crime No.51/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-II, 326 of IPC.Under these circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application stating that there are specific allegations against the present applicant regarding commission of offence.There is recovery from the present applicant and in the x-ray report the injury was found to be grevious in nature, but he fairly submits that charge-sheet has been filed on 9.6.2020 and the applicant is not having any criminal history.The Hon'ble Supreme by order dated 23.03.2020 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.C. No.15168/2020 (Gajraj Vs.(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.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.15168/2020 (Gajraj Vs.The application is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer/trial Court, as the case may be subject to verification of the fact that the applicant is having no criminal history with submission of written undertaking and the applicant will abide by all terms and conditions of the different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by the Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic and he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.15168/2020 (Gajraj Vs.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant shall deposit Rs.15000/- in PM CARES Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch within seven days from today.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Panel Lawyer to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.Application stands allowed and disposed of. 6THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.

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

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

Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed o n behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No.601/2019 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Rewa, for offences punishable under Sections 394, 341, 294, 323, 336/34 of IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that on 01.08.2019 applicant along with other co-accused persons stopped the complainant by using filthy language and snatched Rs.12,000/- from him.On that basis, FIR has been registered against the applicant under aforementioned Sections.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU Date: 07/12/2019 11:33:17 2 MCRC-40777-2019 o f Criminal Procedure filed o n behalf o f applicant Ajay Pandey, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE ss Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU Date: 07/12/2019 11:33:17

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking transfer ofinvestigation of the case in Crime No.16 of 2018 from the file of the secondrespondent to the file of the third respondent.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate appearing for the official respondents.This Court does not find any ground to transfer theinvestigation at this stage.There shall be a direction to the respondentpolice to investigate the case effectively and bring the culprits to light.The second respondent is directed to investigate the matter as expeditiouslyas possible and file a final report.5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposedof.1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.(Crime No.16 of 2018).3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Virudhunagar District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 17.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Betul, in Bail Application; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.47/2019 registered at P.S. Shahpur, Distt.As per the prosecution case, co-accused Mukesh Yadav sexually exploited the prosecutrix, who was minor, on the pretext of marriage due to which she became pregnant.On that applicant and co-accused Mukesh Yadav took the prosecutrix in a jeep to the forest where co-accused Dinesh Yadav caused her abortion.During investigation on 24.05.2019 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5715/2019 (Sukhdev Yadav Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence.Even it is not mentioned that appellant took the prosecutrix in the forest along with the co-accused Mukesh Yadav.Charge-sheet has been filed.The appellant is in custody since 24.05.2019 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the trial;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Prosecution story in brief is that on 1.3.2004 at about 11:00 O' Clock in the night deceased was admitted in the hospital.She received serious burn injuries.The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in which she stated that her father-in-law, mother- in-law and the present appellant-husband poured kerosene and ablaze her.The father-in-law, mother-in-law had made a-2- Cr.A. No.35/2005 demand of dowry.Subsequently, on 6.3.2004 deceased was died in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal.Police conducted the investigation and filed chargesheet against the appellant, father-in-law and mother- in-law.The trial court acquitted the father-in-law and mother- in-law from the offence and convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 302 of IPC in alternative 304-B of IPC and awarded a sentence of 2 years RI and fine of Rs.500/- on two counts and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/- respectively with default stipulations.Manoj (P.W.4) is the brother of deceased.He also deposed the same facts of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and the fact that the present appellant had killed the deceased by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene oil.Same fact has been deposed by Dinesh Panwar (P.W.5), who is the brother of the deceased and Hira Bai (P.W.6), who is the sister of deceased.She admitted in her cross- examination that the deceased told her that all three persons had set her on fire.Same fact has been deposed by Asha Bai (P.W.7), who is a sister of the deceased.Madanlal Pandey (P.W.8) deposed that on 6.3.2004 he was posted at Police Chowki Hamidia, Police Station Kohefiza, He received an information from the doctor that the deceased was died.-4- Cr.A. No.35/2005Tahsildar J.D.Singh (P.W.9) deposed that on 1.3.2004 he received information from the Police Town Inspector Multai and thereafter he had recorded the statement/dying declaration of deceased, which is Ex.The deceased deposed in the dying declaration that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband had poured kerosene on her and ablaze her.At the time of giving dying declaration, she was conscious.This fact is certified by the doctor, who signed the dying declaration.Dr. P.K.Tiwari (P.W.13) deposed that on 1.3.2004 he received information from the Town Inspector, Ex.She received burn injuries 65-70%.Thereafter, I referred her to District Hospital, Betul.On 2.3.2004 at around 1:50 in the night, the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, Ex.P.7, I signed the same and certified that she was fit to give dying declaration.He further deposed in para 6 of his cross-examination that on the date of incident, the present appellant was also admitted in the hospital.He had received burn injuries on both the hands and he remained admitted in the hospital for a period of 15- 20 days.Mahadev (P.W.14) deposed that son of the deceased Pappu had come to me and said that Mummy received burn injuries.Thereafter I and my wife went to the house of the deceased.At that time the deceased was crying and saying "save me-save me".We had taken the deceased on Haththela to Hospital Multai.Deceased was saying that she had received burn injuries and appellant doused the fire.The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the trial court has committed an error in awarding the sentence to the appellant and holding him guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.The appellant himself sustained burn injuries.He was admitted in the hospital for 18 days.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the dying declaration of deceased has been disbelieved by the trial court in regard to two accused persons.Hence, the same benefit be accorded to the present appellant also.Contrary to this, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant for his conviction, as awarded by the trial court.The trial court has taken into consideration the dying declaration of deceased, the evidence of Hari (P.W.2)-father of deceased, Mathari Bai (P.W.3)- mother of deceased, Manoj (P.W.4), Dinesh Panwar (P.W.5)- brothers of deceased and Hira Bai (P.W.6), Asha Bai (P.W.7)- sisters of the deceased, in holding the appellant guilty.-3- Cr.A. No.35/2005Hari (P.W.2), father of deceased, deposed that the marriage of deceased was performed with the appellant 6 years prior to the incident.The appellant along with co- accused used to make demand of dowry.The appellant had made a demand of Rs.20,000/-.The deceased had come to my residence 20-25 days before the incident and at that time, the appellant had made a demand of money and I had given Rs.10,000/-.Thereafter, the appellant had taken back the deceased to his house.He further deposed that he along with other family members had reached at Police Station Multai at 4:00 O' Clock and at that time, the deceased had told him that the appellant had poured kerosene on her after taking kerosene oil from the store and set her ablaze.Mathari Bai (P.W.3) is the mother of deceased.She also deposed that appellant had made a demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and she had set the deceased on fire.In his cross-examination, he admitted that appellant Mohan had also received burn injuries on his both hands and legs because he had doused the fire of deceased and when he-5- Cr.A. No.35/2005 reached on the spot, the appellant was dousing the fire of the deceased.14. S.S.Jadaun (P.W.15) and Dr.B.K.Athwal (P.W.16) deposed that the deceased was died due to burn injuries.Investigating Officer U.S.Sharma (P.W.11) deposed that on 2.3.2004, I was posted as Sub-Inspector.On the aforesaid date, I received information from the Primary Health Centre, Multai that the deceased was admitted in the hospital.Thereafter, I sent a requisition to the Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration of deceased.I recorded the FIR against the appellant, which is Ex.I prepared the spot map, Ex.P.8 and signed the same.I seized the stove, match-box and other articles by seizure memo, Ex.Thereafter, I recorded the statements of witnesses Suman Bai, Nitin, Mahadev, Hari, Mathari Bai, Manoj, Dinesh, Bhangi, Asha Bai, Hira Bai and Hari.The accused was arrested vide Ex.After the death of deceased, the offence was converted under sections 304-B and 302 of IPC.The dying declaration of the deceased is Ex.It was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, J.D.Singh (P.W.9).In the aforesaid dying declaration, deceased stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had made a demand of money and appellant, father-in-law, mother-in-law had poured kerosene on her and ablaze her.There is no specific allegation against the present appellant.17. P.W.2 is the father, P.W.3 is mother and P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 are brothers and sisters of the deceased.The Witnesses who have interest in saying that the accused be punished, they are interested witnesses.Hence, these witnesses be categorized as interested witnesses.P.K.Tiwari (P.W.13) admitted that the present appellant had received burn injuries in his both the hands and other parts of the body.He was admitted in the hospital for 15-20 days.He was brought along with the deceased.Independent witness Mahadev (P.W.14), who reached immediately on the spot, deposed the fact that the deceased was telling her that she received burn injuries and her husband tried to douse the fire and save her.The appellant in his statement deposed that he himself received burn injuries to save the deceased.He was also-12- Cr.A. No.35/2005 admitted in the hospital for near about 20 days.In the given facts, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution for not offering any explanation much less a plausible one.Drawing of such adverse inference is given a go-bye in the case of free fight mainly because the occurrence in that case may take place at different spots and in such a manner that a witness may not reasonably be expected to see and therefore explain the injuries sustained by the defence party.This is not the factual situation in the present case.Thus, order of High Court holding that since both the parties had withheld the origin and genesis of the occurrence and since it cannot be determined as to which party was the aggressor, the case had to be decided against the accused treating it as a case of free fight between the parties and convicting appellants on such misconceived ground would not be proper."In the present case, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of crime.The deceased in her dying declaration named three persons.Two accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court.-13- Cr.A. No.35/2005 members of deceased deposed that the present appellant had set the deceased ablaze, as told by her.However, the prosecution witnesses suppressed the fact that the present appellant also received serious burn injuries and he was admitted in the hospital for near about 20 days.In such circumstances, in our opinion, the trial court has committed an error in holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.There is evidence that the appellant had made a demand of money soon before the incident.P.W.1, father of deceased deposed that the deceased had come to his house and told him that the accused had made a demand of money and he had paid a Rs.10,000/- to the accused.Same facts have been deposed by other witnesses i.e. mother, sisters and brothers of the deceased.Hence, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.In regard to award of sentence, the trial court has awarded a sentence of life to the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC.He has completed more than 13 years of actual jail sentence.The minimum sentence provided under section 304-B of IPC is not less than 7 years and maximum sentence is upto life.Hence, in our opinion, the sentence awarded by the trial court can be modified for commission of offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC, as already undergone.-14- Cr.A. No.35/2005Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court for commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby upheld.The conviction of appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside and his conviction under section 304-B of IPC is upheld.

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

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

Item no. 69 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.7389 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.09.2018 in connection with Nakasipara Police Station Case No. 330 of 2018 dated 08.07.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Mujibar Mondal @ Mujibar Rahaman Mondal & ors.... Petitioners Mr. Ainal Bari, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee, Advocate ..for the State Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is directed to correct the cause-title in the presence of an officer of this Court.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Nakasipara Police Station Case No. 330 of 2018 dated 08.07.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is the first application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with crime No. 307/2015 registered at police station Thatipur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 452, 323 and 506-B of IPC.It is alleged that complainant Prakash Jatav lodged a report that the applicant came by a motorcycle rashly.When he asked him not to drive at high speed, he stopped the motorcycle, blocked the road and followed the complainant into his house with a wooden stick and beaten him by fists and kicks and also by the wooden stick.It is also stated that applicant is innocent.During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant submits that he want to withdraw this application with the liberty to surrender before the trial Court.He further requests to issue direction to the trial Court for deciding the application for regular bail on the same day.C. No. 5276/ 2 0 1 5Application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as withdrawn.Applicant is directed to surrender before the trial Court within seven days from today and on his surrender he be taken into custody and on filing application for regular bail, same be decided as expeditiously as possible.(S. K. Palo) V. Judge neetu

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

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