Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

JUDGMENT K.L. Shrivastava, J.This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-9-82 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.Dhar in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1982 holding that for want of sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of the CrP.C, 1973 (for short 'the Code') cognisance of offences cannot be taken against the non-applicant Harbans Singh Chhabra, Tahsildar Badnawar, District Dhar.The circumstances giving rise to the petition are these.The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicant Harbans Singh and three others for action under the Code in respect of offences under Sections 448,219,219/109, 506 and 427/34,I.P.C. on the ground that the said Harbans Singh in collusion with the other co-accused persons unauthorisedly issued a notice to him to close the ventilator of his residence and despite being told that under the M.P.L.R. Code, 1959, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, got the said ventilator closed.

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

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

Shri Pradip Katare, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri RBS Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the non- applicant/ State.In view of availability of case diary, we do not find fit to adjourn the matter because the petition is yet to be considered and decided on the basis of case diary.Hence, the counsel present are directed to make the submission in the matter on merits.On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.254/2011, registered at police station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 420, 120-B of IPC, Section 3(1)(2)(4) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam as well as Sections 45S and 58B(5-A) of RBI Act.Before giving conclusion and finding by the Court, at this stage applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed.Considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed, without extending any further liberty to revive the prayer under Section 438 of CrPC.

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

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

In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 26.8.2020 Arun/-

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

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

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2018 mamta W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 4 of 4W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 4 of 4By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:-Such other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 1 of 4However, this W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 3 of 4 provision is required to be used sparingly to meet the situation where due to the consequent running of the sentences, the imprisonment becomes unduly harsh.As noted above, in the present case, appellant has been convicted in two cases for 397 IPC and the total sentence for the two offences is 7 years + 10 years is 17 years rigorous imprisonment with the petitioner entitled to all the other benefits of remissions etc.W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 3 of 4Considering the nature of allegations and that the term of imprisonment required to be undergone is for the nature of offences committed, this Court finds no round to direct that the sentences awarded to the appellant in the two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 535/2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC and FIR No. 270/2010 under Sections 392/397/34 IPC should run concurrently.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No.1 is married to the son of opp.party No.2 namely Raju and she has initiated proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc against opp.party No.2 and his son in which they are facing criminal prosecution,hence, the present complaint for malicious prosecution of the wife and her family members by opp.Notice on behalf of opp.Smt. Aneeta and others), under Section 380 I.P.C., Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIth, Bareilly shall remain stayed against the applicants.Order Date :- 2.7.2013 NS

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) P.W.1 Kannammal is the sister of the deceased Mallika.They wereresiding at Bagawathiamman Temple Street at Kottaimedu, Thottiyam.P.Ws.2, 3, 4and 5 are also the residents of the same street and are also the relatives ofthe deceased.Heused to often quarrel with Mallika in a drunken mood.Mallika was unmarried.On 3.1.2007 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased went out to attend nature'scall, the accused restrained her and asked to come to his house that night.Then, P.W.1 questioned the conduct of the accused.On the same day, P.W.1 went to the ration shop in front of Venkateswara CinemaTheatre at Thottiyam for receiving the token to get free saree.At about 11.00a.m., when the deceased also went over there, the accused quarreled with her andthreatened her that he would kill her. P.W.3 also witnessed the same.At about12 Noon, when P.W.1 was in her house, P.W.5 informed her that the accused wasquarrelling with Mallika in the public road.Immediately, P.W.1 went to theplace.At about 1.15 p.m., the deceased was comingin front of the house of one Periyakkal.At the street junction, the accusedwaylaid Mallika, stabbed with a knife on her hip, thigh and again on stomach.When she fell down, he sat on her and gave number of blows.P.W.4 has alsowitnessed the occurrence.P.Ws.1 to 4 tried to go near Mallika; but, theaccused threatened them with dire consequences.Immediately, the accused fledaway from the place of occurrence.The said Mallika met her death.ImmediatelyP.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report.(b) P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent policestation, on receipt of Ex.P1, the complaint, given by P.W.1, registered a casein Crime No.5/2007 under Sec.302 of IPC, at 2.00 p.m. The express FIR Ex.P12,was sent to the Court.(c) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR,took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and preparedEx.P6, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P13, the rough sketch.Then, herecovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.He conductedinquest on the dead body of Mallika in the presence of witnesses andpanchayatdars and prepared Ex.P14, the inquest report.Then, he enquired thewitnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent to theGovernment Hospital for the purpose of postmortem along with Ex.P10, therequisition.The accused volunteered togive a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P8, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1,knife, which was recovered under a cover of Ex.P9, the mahazar.He was sent forjudicial remand.(g) P.Ws.1 to 4 were taken to the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, andtheir statements were recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., which were marked asExs.P2 to P5 respectively.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This criminal appeal has arisen from the judgment of the SessionsDivision, Tiruchirappalli, made in S.C.No.144 of 2007 whereby the soleaccused/appellant stood charged under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC andon trial, he was found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonmentalong with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and fiveyears Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.506(ii) IPC.No separate sentence wasgiven under Sec.341 IPC.2.Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(d) P.W.7, the Senior Assistant Surgeon, attached to the GovernmentHospital, Musiri, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on thedead body of Mallika and has given Ex.P11, the postmortem certificate, whereinhe opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to injuries to the vital organs about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(e) On 5.1.2007, P.W.9, the Investigator, came to know that the accusedsurrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.(f) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Hefiled an application for police custody, which was ordered.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence and from the dead body, and also M.O.1, knife, recovered from theaccused, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Departmentwhich resulted in two reports namely Ex.P22, the Chemical Analyst's report, andEx.P25, the Serologist's report.On completion of investigation, theInvestigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10witnesses and also relied on 25 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned underSec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses.He denied them as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced, and took the view thatthe prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, itentered a judgment of conviction and sentence which is the subject matter ofchallenge before this Court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.T.Senthilkumar,learned Counsel would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrencehas taken place on 3.1.2007 at about 1.15 p.m. in a public place; that P.Ws.1 to5, who, according to the prosecution, were occurrence witnesses, were allclosely related to the deceased and also to P.W.1, her sister; that it would bequite clear that they were all interested and partisan witnesses; that accordingto the prosecution, there was a quarrel between both the deceased and theaccused even by 6.30 a.m. on that day, and it continued till the time ofoccurrence; that as far as the other part of the quarrel is concerned, all thewitnesses have given inconsistent versions; that according to P.W.6, the V.A.O.,he immediately received the information and went to the spot, and at about 1.30p.m., he was available there; but, the police did not come, and it was he whogave information to the police; that under the circumstances, the claim of theprosecution that P.W.1 went over to the police station and gave a complaint asfound under Ex.P1, was not correct, and it was rather false; that further,according to P.W.1, she was in her house, and it was P.W.5 who informed that theaccused was quarrelling with the deceased, and only on that information, sheproceeded towards the nearby ration shop; but, P.W.5 would claim that P.W.1 wasin the house, and he accompanied P.W.1, and hence, the claim of P.W.1 that shewas informed by P.W.5 was nothing but false; and that under the circumstances,both these witnesses could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.5.Added further the learned Counsel that according to the prosecution,P.Ws.3 and 4 went over to the ration shop and on their way back, they saw theoccurrence; that as far as P.W.3 was concerned, she did not go to the rationshop at all; but, her husband P.W.4 went; that contrarily, P.W.4 has deposedthat it was not he who went to the ration shop; but, it was his wife P.W.3, andthus, it is highly doubtful whether P.Ws.3 and 4 have gone to the ration shop atall on that day and witnessed the occurrence, and that part of the evidencecannot be believed; that according to the witnesses, number of occasions, theaccused attacked her with knife; but only a few injuries are noticed, and thus,the eyewitnesses could not give correct account for the injuries sustained; thatall would indicate that these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence atall; that apart from that, the medical opinion canvassed, was not in favour ofthe prosecution, and hence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyondreasonable doubt.6.The learned Counsel would further submit that in the instant case, therewas a quarrel as spoken to by the witnesses, at about 1.15 p.m. at the place ofoccurrence; that due to the quarrel, the accused has lost his control and hasacted so; that even if the fact that he has stabbed the deceased to death istaken to be proved, that would not attract the penal provision of murder; thatit is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and that this legal aspecthas got to be considered by this Court.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all theabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.8.It is not in controversy that one Mallika, the sister of P.W.1, was doneto death in an incident that took place at about 1.15 p.m. on 3.1.2007, at theplace of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution.Following the inquest madeby P.W.9, the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.7,the Doctor, who has categorically opined and also deposed before the Court thatshe died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The factthat Mallika died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by theappellant/accused, and hence, without any impediment it could be factuallyrecorded so.9.In order to substantiate the charge that it was the accused who stabbedher to death, and when the eyewitnesses intervened, he criminally intimidatedthem, the prosecution had examined five witnesses as occurrence witnesses.Itis true that all these witnesses were related to the deceased and P.W.1, hersister.At the same time, it is to be pointed out that they were all closelyrelated to the accused also.Under such circumstances, the first comment madethat the witnesses are closely related and thus, they were interested in thedeceased, and they have come forward to give such evidence cannot becountenanced.All these eyewitnesses have clearly spoken in one voice that theywere all present at the place of occurrence.According to P.W.1, she was in thehouse, and on information by P.W.5, she rushed over to see the quarrel.As far as P.Ws.3 and 4 areconcerned, they were all near the ration shop.The fact that on that day,tokens for free saree were issued in the village was not in dispute.Thus, allthe witnesses have claimed that they went over to the ration shop only for thepurpose of getting the free token on that day.The occurrence has taken placeat 1.15 p.m. in a public place nearby the ration shop.All the witnesses hadoccasion to see the same.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counselfor the appellant that according to P.W.1, she was in the house, and she wasinformed by P.W.5 about the quarrel; but, according to P.W.5, she was in thehouse, and he accompanied P.W.1 need not be given much importance for the simplereason that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 it would be quite clear that theyrushed to the spot.Who gave information is not the material fact.Whetherthey went to the place of occurrence and whether the occurrence has taken placeare material.Now all the witnesses have spoken in one voice.10.Apart from the above, the evidence of these witnesses stood fullycorroborated by the medical evidence canvassed.The postmortem certificate hasalso been issued.In the case on hand, the occurrence has taken place at about1.15 p.m. The FIR has come into existence at 2.00 p.m., and the case has beenregistered, and it has also been sent to the Court within a reasonable time.Theinquest has been made by the Investigator within a short span of time, and thewitnesses have also been examined, and their statements have been sent to theCourt on the next day.All put together would be pointing to the truth of theprosecution case.Hence, the prosecution has sufficient evidence pointing tothe complicity of the assailant namely the appellant before this Court.From the evidence available, it is quiteclear that the accused was 37 years; but the said Mallika was 45 years, and shewas unmarried.There was no proposal by him to marry her.On the contrary, hewas making a demand to share bed, which was thoroughly reflection of his immoralattitude.It was against the individual freedom and social order.According tothe evidence, it was he who often quarrelled with her in drunken mood, callingher to his house.There was nothing to provoke him.Naturally, one wouldexpect her to refuse the same, and nothing else could be expected, but, only arepulsive answer from the lady.Accordingly, she did.Thus, nothing was thereto provoke him.He armed with a weapon namely knife, stabbed herindiscriminately and caused her death instantaneously.The same was rightly done by the lower Court.12.In the result, this criminal appeal must fail and fails, and the sameis dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge Tiruchirappalli2.The Inspector of Police Thottiyam Police Station Trichy District (Cr.No.5/2007)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No.343 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 343 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 427 and 448 of IPC.Hence they prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.Perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ksa ToThe Inspector of Police, Golden Rock Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018 21.11.2019

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.5355 of 2018, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Gajraj, who has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) ()/109 of IPC and Sections 5(L)/6 read with Section 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 4 years, 5 years and 15 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.As per the statement of prosecutrix, no allegation of rape has been made against the present appellant.The only allegation against the him regarding his presence at the time of occurrence.Considering the aforesaid so also on the ground of parity with Sitaram and Biharilal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, (I.A. No.5355 of 2018) is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant- Gajraj is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 19th November, 2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The complainant's case was as follows: He was a student of Class VII of Samshi Secondary School in the district of Malda.The petitioner was the Head Master of the School.On August 12, 1961, during school hours one other student named Hiran lost one of his books while in the School.The complainant was found to have stolen that book.The petitioner thereupon treat him with a cane and also gave him fists and blow.ORDER R.N. Dutt, J.This revisional application is directed against an order of conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner was on this allegation tried tinder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.He pleaded not guilty.The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days.The complainant, a boy of very tender age, was found to have stolen a book of another student in the school.There were some strokes with a cane and there were some fists and blows too; from the medical evidence it appears that there were 5 ecchymosis but all of them were of minor nature.One tooth was found loose and that could have been caused by some blow.The motive for the beating is very relevant for determining if it was in good faith.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The second respondent is the Administrative Officer (Estate).However, till date, this scheme has not been implemented.The petitioners and similarly situated persons forwarded several representations/ letters to the respondents, but the respondents are declining to implement their own scheme.This petition is founded on the basis that though the ex- employees and who have been allotted quarters and accommodations, styled as "staff quarters", ordinarily have no right, title and interest in the same, yet, going by the representation to these persons that their tenements would be converted into ownership or permanent tenancy that they have a Page 5 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc right to apply and for being considered along with similarly placed municipal employees or ex-employees of the Municipal Corporation.That is how they claim a vested or pre-existing legal right, enabling them to apply for a writ of mandamus.In para 4 of this petition, it is stated that the petitioners have formed a proposed co-operative housing society of the occupants of municipal tenements.The petitioners proceed to annex lists of the municipal employees and the two lists that are annexed contain the names of original employees or their nominees.This circular states that the Municipal Commissioner has passed an order.That order pertains to Deonar, Govandi, Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon) and Parksite (Vikhroli).Page 10 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc These colonies contain structures.These are chawl type structures and single storeyed.These have been occupied by retired employees of the Municipal Corporation.For all these reasons and to Page 12 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc discourage the tendency as noted in the circular, the Municipal Corporation formulated a policy, whereunder, they directed all the authorities that from 1st October, 2010, this policy and this circular should be implemented strictly.The penal rent is determined in terms of this circular.The petitioners are relying upon some communications and which have been addressed to the occupants in Ghatla village, informing that eviction proceedings would be commenced for failure of that occupant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the tenement.Therefore, the expectation is that similar benefit will be extended to these occupants as well.The employees in this waiting list are awaiting allotment of staff quarters.On account of shortage of staff quarters, it is not possible to allot these quarters to the employees, who are working in emergency municipal duties.These are retired employees/ex-employees of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.They have been residing in the ground floor structures of the Municipal Corporation situate at municipal colonies in the suburbs, namely, Mithanagar (Goregaon), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Parksite (Vikhroli), Malvani (Malad) and Deonar.The petitioner association has 600 serving and/or Page 19 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc retired municipal employees.This association has been registered as Charitable Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (earlier Bombay Public Trust Act).By this petition, the petitioners are claiming enforcement or implementation of resolution dated 1st September, 1989 of the Municipal Corporation on the subject of conversion of these ground floor structures/accommodations from leave and licence basis to ownership/lease basis to the co-operative housing society.The petitioners have set out the very checkered history of how the Mithanagar and Deonar land came to be acquired by the Municipal Corporation and how the tenements were constructed.It is claimed that respondent no. 1 constructed 368 tenements at Goregaon for the purpose of housing dis-housed persons and allotting the surplus tenements to municipal employees.Though the scheme was floated, there was no response to accept the allotment and therefore, as an incentive, respondent no. 1 offered ownership rights of semi-permanent structures at the concessional and consolidated price of Rs.4,680/-, if the occupants form a co-operative housing society.They could not even afford and arrange the payment of Rs.4680/- Page 20 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc at that time.That is how they were accommodated and on sympathetic grounds.It is clear from the record, according to the petitioners that Deonar land was dumping ground.Some portion of the land was utilised for housing the municipal employees and the Municipal Corporation constructed about 582 semi- permanent structures.Most of them were granted on leave and licence basis.By circular dated 31st January, 1968, the Municipal Corporation offered "Cheap Tenements" at Malvani Municipal Colony, Malad (West) to the full time municipal employees on ownership basis.A copy of this circular is annexed as Exhibit 'B' to the petition.Despite concession, there was no response and Class III and Class IV municipal employees preferred to take the allotments on leave and licence basis.The members of the petitioner association/sangh are Class III and Class IV employees.Thus, such an allotment cannot be termed as allotment of staff quarter/service quarter much less a service tenancy.This is a leave and licence agreement simplicitor.It is stated that 1211 tenements were constructed at S. G. Barve Nagar, Ghatkopar (West) in the year 1959-60 for project affected persons and allotting the surplus 200 tenements to the municipal employees on leave and licence basis.In the year 1966, the tenements were converted into permanent tenancy basis subject to payment of the standard rent and furnishing fresh agreements.Thus, the tenements of the members of the petitioner sangh were also liable to be converted into permanent tenancy basis.A copy of the said letter is annexed as Exhibit 'D'.It is in these circumstances that the Municipal Tenants' Association represented to the Improvement Committee of the Municipal Corporation to grant/allot the tenements in such Page 22 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc colonies on ownership basis.After continuous persuasion, the second respondent to the petition accepted these proposals.The Municipal Commissioner, thereafter, disclosed his intention to grant the tenements at Parksite (Vikhroli), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon) and Deonar on ownership basis.The original Marathi resolution and a translated copy thereof in English are annexed as Exhibits 'E' and 'E-1' respectively.Page 22 of 80They are not the dis-housed occupants of municipal premises because such premises have become unfit for human inhabitation by passage of time.These are ex-municipal servicemen or employees, who have retired from municipal services.During their tenure, they were allowed to occupy the municipal premises on account of the specific orders of allotment.The terms and conditions of this allotment are clear.Rather, they are the rules of allotment.It is the entitlement of employees, who have put in 10 years service and their eligibility for allotment of the staff quarters, which is placed in the forefront, but the allotment is conditional.The allotment will be on the basis of seniority in service, taking into account the date of joining the service.The allottee should execute a leave and licence agreement.The licence fees have to be paid by him.He would render himself liable to departmental action under the Municipal Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules for violation of Page 45 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc the conditions of allotment.The allotment is of a residential tenement.It is for residence of the employee and his/her family members.What we have noted from these circulars is that when such authorities are empowered to take a harsh decision, then, all the more allowing the petitioners to retain the tenements, despite ceasing to be in service and retiring decades back would, as rightly contended before us by the Corporation, be putting a premium on their wrongful and illegal acts.No premium attaches Page 47 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc to such patent illegality.He has, in his detailed letter addressed to the Government, pointed out that all these persons while entering the municipal service have undertaken to vacate the municipal tenements on ceasing to be in municipal services.Such undertakings and agreements are in force.What he has highlighted is that even if there are Improvement Committee and General Body recommendations from the year 1989, there is huge wait list of the municipal employees awaiting allotment of municipal accommodation.If the existing premises are handed over on permanent tenancy/ occupancy, then, this wait listed Page 49 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc employees can never be provided any municipal premises.Thereafter, he highlights as to how municipal governance is the primary duty and responsibility of the Municipal Corporation.(4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced.Page 63 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.That was a case where the death-cum-retirement gratuity was claimed by a Government servant, who worked and retired as Director General of Income Tax.While working, he occupied a pooled Central Government accommodation.The licence fee was fixed at a certain amount.He had to pay the increased licence fee.Thereafter, he was transferred to Delhi.However, he continued to retain the Government premises.We would, therefore, direct the Municipal Corporation not to take into consideration the pendency of these petitions and the period during which the interim order was in force, so as to deduct and adjust the municipal dues in the aforesaid manner.To that extent, the Municipal Corporation stands restrained from enforcing its circulars and decisions withholding or seeking to adjust the retiral dues.DATED :- JANUARY 6, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)The Writ Petition No. 957 of 2013 was directed to be heard along with other writ petitions on board.Those petitions, which have been already admitted, are tagged along with this petition and by consent of all counsel, we have heard these petitions together.Respondents waive service.Since all the pleadings are complete, this petition and others are heard finally.In Writ Petition No. 957 of 2013, the 83 petitioners have impleaded the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, established and incorporated under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the MMC Act"), as the first respondent.Page 3 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 3 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::It is the case of these petitioners that they are ex-municipal employees.They have retired from the services of the Municipal Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation.It is stated that in or about 1989, the Municipal Corporation decided to allot residential accommodation in its possession to its employees and the claim is that they were to be allotted on permanent tenancy/ ownership basis.The petitioners were informed to form an association of such persons.Though the petitioners claim to be ex-employees, a statement is made in the petition in para 2 that they are either ex-employees or slum dwellers, who are photo-pass document holders.We must, at once, clarify that we are dealing with the claims of ex-employees of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, who have approached this court on the footing that there is a representation from the Municipal Corporation to them that their occupancy would be converted on permanent tenancy/ownership basis and in terms of certain decisions taken by the Municipal Corporation.It is relying on these decisions that the ex- employees are claiming a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, Page 4 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc directing the Municipal Corporation not to make applicable a circular dated 7th October, 2010 Annexure 'E' to the petition and that the respondents should release their retiral benefits/dues with effect from the date of their retirement, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from that date till payment.The petitioners are also claiming a direction to the respondents not to evict them from their respective tenements.Page 4 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The petition proceeds on the footing that the tenements, which are occupied by the present petitioners, were included by the Municipal Corporation in the scheme of permanent housing accommodation in the year 1992 and on 25th April, 1992, the Municipal Corporation issued a letter to that effect.In the year 1975, the first respondent/ Municipal Corporation acquired lands at Ghatla village, Chembur, Mumbai for development of the scheme for housing dis-housed persons.The said land was marshy land and was being used as dumping ground for garbage collected in Mumbai.Considering the situation and topography of the land, the Municipal Corporation decided to construct semi-permanent ground floor structures for housing dis-housed persons as well as its employees.The first respondent constructed 56 colonies comprising of 478 tenements, each admeasuring about 140 square feet for the purpose of housing the dis-housed and allotting the surplus tenements to the municipal employees.After a lapse of time, the municipal tenants' association represented to the Improvement Committee of the first respondent and requested that these tenements be converted into permanent tenancies or granted on ownership basis.After great persuasion, the first respondent accepted these proposals.By a decision, the Page 6 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Municipal Corporation made its intention clear that the land of the tenements at Parksite (Vikhroli), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon West) and Deonar would be granted on ownership basis.The Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution dated 1st September, 1989 bearing number 343 to this effect.It was also clarified that these tenements were not staff quarters.They were not given to the employees as service tenements, but were allotted on leave and licence or rental basis.The tenements were not related to the service conditions.Page 5 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 6 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The petitioners state that 313 tenements, out of 478 are occupied by the municipal employees.These persons were assured as above.Therefore, they were told to form a co- operative housing society.There are 165 project affected persons, to whom the first respondent has allotted tenements on ownership basis.It is claimed that the petitioners are members of societies included in the scheme of conversion of municipal tenements into ownership basis.Then, there is a reference made to various meetings with the Municipal Corporation and proposals exchanged therein.It is submitted that the proposals have been accepted.They were recommended for the sanction of the Municipal Corporation, but are still pending.The petitioners, therefore, complain that though the proposals have not been Page 7 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc finalised, yet, the eviction proceedings have been initiated against some of the retired employees of the Municipal Corporation.They have approached this court by challenging the proceedings on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination.They argue that some of the similarly placed persons have been allotted tenements on permanent basis or there is a conversion effected.Therefore, those against whom eviction proceedings are initiated, are entitled to be treated on par and similarly.Then, there is a reference made to a conversion of 'H' Block of the Deonar Colony in favour of the municipal employees into ownership basis.Then, some tenements in 'B' Block of Mithanagar were converted into ownership basis and the occupants were permitted to form a co- operative housing society.Then, the argument is that the Municipal Corporation issued a circular on 16th October, 2008, whereunder, the retired employees were allowed to retain their accommodations by making payment of normal rent till the finalization of the court proceedings.It is also alleged that 10% of the gratuity amount was withheld and from out of remaining 90%, accommodation rent would be recovered.A copy of this circular is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition.By this circular, the Municipal Corporation decided to impose and recover penal rent at three times the present rent from the occupants of the tenements in question.As to how this circular works to the prejudice of the present petitioners and similarly placed occupants is then explained and copy of the circular is annexed as Annexure 'E'.It is then complained that despite specific directions issued by the court not to evict the employees who are occupying the staff quarters and not to take coercive action, the Municipal Corporation is issuing eviction notices to the retired employees.The Municipal Corporation has not taken a decision on the proposals and recommendations, which have emanated from several statutory authorities.That is how the petitioners have approached this court.Page 7 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 8 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Their second grievance pertains to withholding of their retiral dues.According to the petitioners, these dues have not been released because they refused to handover possession of the tenements in their possession.This act is completely contrary to the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.It is claimed that terminal benefits and particularly gratuity and pension are not a bounty, but a right.That has co-relation with the services rendered.These services have been rendered to the Page 9 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc complete satisfaction of the municipal authorities.None of these employees had been visited with penalties or other punishments, which would enable withholding their terminal benefits.The terminal benefits are withheld only because of their alleged wrongful possession of the municipal tenements.It is complained that withholding of these terminal dues works as double jeopardy in the sense that the petitioners cannot afford a housing accommodation in Mumbai.Secondly, the rentals being, as they are, even they cannot be paid in the absence of the terminal benefits being released and in the form of money.Thirdly, some of these persons, who are old and incapacitated, cannot support themselves in the absence of these terminal benefits, some of which are admissible monthly.In these circumstances that the petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed.Page 9 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Together with this, the eviction proceedings should be commenced.A communication follows that order.There also an ad-interim order has been passed directing the Municipal Corporation not to evict the members of the petitioner association from the present accommodations.Then, there is a reference made to a further ad-interim order in Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2009, which is more or less on similar lines.Page 10 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Then follows a circular dated 7th October, 2010, which is challenged.A perusal of this circular would reveal as to how the Page 11 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc policy of the Municipal Corporation has been that in the event a municipal employee does not vacate and handover the premises styled as municipal staff quarters, to the Municipal Corporation, post his/her retirement, then, for next three months he can be granted permission to occupy the same on payment of prevailing market rent plus service charges.If any employee dies while in municipal service or is unable to vacate the premises on account of illness and medical treatment, then, the heirs/employee are allowed to occupy the premises for six months on similar lines.Thereafter, penal rent be charged and recovered from such employees.However, despite such directions and policy, there is a growing tendency of not handing over the municipal premises.The municipal premises are retained unlawfully and illegally, thereby, depriving those in-service and awaiting staff quarter allotment.This has inconvenienced those in-service employees and has also affected the municipal affairs.Therefore, what the Municipal Corporation has decided is that some tenements have to be allotted as a special case to the municipal employees on permanent tenancy basis.Therefore, the others, who are in- service or those who have retired, are expecting a package of this nature being extended to them.Page 11 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 12 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Thereafter, Brihanmumbai Mahapalika Upnagar Baithi Chawl Rahiwashi Sangh addressed a representation dated 29th April, 2009 to the Municipal Commissioner inviting his attention to allotment of certain tenements in Deonar on permanent tenancy/ownership basis as special case.The petitioners have filed an affidavit in rejoinder, dealing with the affidavit in reply dated 13th June, 2014 filed in this court by the Municipal Corporation.We were unable to obtain even a copy of this reply, though it is stated to have been filed in the record of this court.Neither this court's staff or the registry was able to trace out the original Page 13 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc affidavit in reply nor have they obtained a copy of the same from any of the advocates appearing for the parties.The tenor of this affidavit will have to be gathered from the affidavit in rejoinder.Page 13 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The affidavit in reply proceeds to state that the tenements are constructed by the respondents by making budgetary provisions.The said quarters are allotted to the employees during service tenure and are required to be vacated on retirement from the municipal services.The quarters so constructed under any budget cannot be given on ownership basis.Certain premises are treated as service quarters and allotted to the municipal employees because they are undertaking particular work and where the presence of the said employees is required all the time, namely, Fire Brigade, Hospitals, Water Works etc. The service quarters are allotted free of charge and except the employees and their family members, no one else is allowed to occupy the same.It is stated that if these service quarters are allotted on ownership basis, the functioning of these departments will be seriously affected.The tenements are constructed for allotment to the municipal employees and according to the service seniority, these allotments are made to those employees who have put in more than 10 years service and to those who have more than three years to retire from the Page 14 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc service.In special cases, an employee should have put in service of more than one year and should have about three years to retire.The tenements are allotted to the municipal employees on leave and licence basis and such allottee has to execute a leave and licence agreement as well as undertaking to vacate the municipal tenement within three months of his/her ceasing to be in municipal service.The rules prescribe that these respondents will not entertain any proposal for alternative accommodation to any municipal employee on his ceasing to be in service.It is stated that in Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, approximately 1,30,000 employees are working.In comparison to the number of employees, the staff quarters are totally insufficient and inadequate.There is a very long waiting list.The tenements are allotted to the municipal employees as staff quarters and to the project affected persons on tenancy basis and not on ownership basis.As far as the challenge to the circular is concerned, the affidavit explains as to how the Municipal Page 15 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Commissioner was required to step in and issue this circular.Page 14 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 15 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 16 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::It is to such an affidavit that the petitioners have responded and by contending that the same is silent on the policy of the Municipal Corporation to extend the benefits, which are referred to in the petition.Therefore, once a promise is given to the municipal employees, who may have retired from the services, that the quarters allotted to them would be granted on permanent tenancy basis or ownership basis, then, that assurance or Page 17 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc promise has to be fulfilled.The Municipal Corporation cannot back out of the same.Page 17 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::It is on these materials that we have heard these petitions.The Municipal Corporation has tendered a compilation containing the policies, circulars, resolutions and judgments of this court, whererunder, similar challenge was negatived.Finally, the Municipal Corporation relies upon the correspondence on the subject.No tenement can be allotted out of turn or as a special case save and except in accordance with law, settled policy and rule of law.Therefore, the retired employees have no right in the property and they cannot claim that they must be granted the tenements on permanent ownership basis or permanent tenancy basis.None of the decisions and relied upon by the petitioners' counsel can be said to be binding, inasmuch as the law does not permit the petitioners to rely upon certain Page 18 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc resolutions and recommendations.Eventually, everything has to be placed before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation.The General Body has yet not passed any resolution conferring any right.Therefore, the policy decision not to grant the conversion nor to permit retention of the quarters on the above basis binds the Municipal Corporation.Page 18 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Then, there are other petitions, which have also been argued.The principal among them is a petition challenging similar action and enforcement of a promise and assurance.Writ Petition No. 1457 of 2010 pertains to New Khardeo Nagar Co-operative Housing Society.Mr. Rupawate appearing in Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2009 would submit that the said petition has been filed by an association of the retired employees or their heirs and legal representatives.There was another option for allotment on leave and licence basis.Rupawate submitted, during the course of arguments, that the members of the Sangh belong to the poorest strata of the society.They were allotted the ground floor structures in the municipal colonies on leave and licence basis.One of the members, namely, Tanaji Ramji Pawar was employed as 'Jamadar'.The allotment was on leave and licence basis.The municipal fees was Rs.38.01 per month.The security deposit of Rs.76.02 and agreement fee of Rs.1/- was recovered from him after execution of Page 21 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc the leave and licence agreement.The possession of the tenement was handed over to him.No House Rent Allowance was deducted from the salary and therefore, similarly placed employees can claim the benefit and in terms of the Municipal Corporation resolution.Page 19 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 20 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 21 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Thus, the conversion was to be effected in terms of this resolution.However, despite the preliminary work of formation of a co-operative housing society was completed, the Additional Municipal Commissioner informed one of the promoters that some information be provided in terms of his queries raised in the order dated 30th April, 1988, copy of which is at Exhibit 'F'.Thereafter, by another letter dated 27 th January, 1990, addressed by the Ward Officer (Estates) of the Municipal Corporation, the General Secretary of the proposed co-operative housing society was informed that their request to convert the tenements will be considered on compliance of certain requirements.A copy of the said letter dated 27th January, 1990 is annexed as Exhibit 'G'.Then, the Senior Ward Officer (Estates) sought approval of his superiors in December, 1991, so that the conversion can be given effect to.The 20 identical tenements at Malvani Municipal Colony were converted into ownership from leave and licence basis in pursuance of the municipal decision and contained in the resolution noted above.The petitioners rely upon an office note in that behalf.Once the Malvani Colony was identically placed, then, there is no reason not to consider the request of the petitioners, made from the year 1990 and pursued throughout.Page 23 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The petitioners do not dispute that there are budgetary provisions, under which the staff quarters and other tenements were constructed.Equally, they are aware of the mandate of section 64 of the MMC Act. However, there is a provision enabling grant of lease, sale or creating rights in respect of municipal properties and there is a special power conferred in the Municipal Commissioner, who can act in accordance with the sanction of the Municipal Corporation.It is in these circumstances that the petitioners rely upon their representations, the outcome of several meetings, the prior decisions and equally the steps taken with regard to some of the Page 24 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc tenements in other municipal colonies.The petitioners place reliance on their representations and the assurance given to them on 20th October, 1989 by the Municipal Corporation.As required, an offer was submitted by the petitioners.The petitioners complied with the requisitions and other terms in the letters of the Municipal Corporation.It is in these circumstances that the petitioners submit that they were hopeful of the benefits being granted.They were also hoping that till the outcome of the proceedings pending in this court, no coercive measures would be initiated.The petitioners also relied upon certain correspondence with their architect.It is in these circumstances that the petitioners concede that their earlier petition could not be proceeded for want of registration in favour of their association.The fresh petition now filed is not barred and they only seek enforcement of the Resolution No. 343 dated 1 st September, 1989 and every consequence flowing therefrom.Page 24 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::To such a petition, there is an affidavit in reply filed by one Narayan Venkatesh Pai, Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Estate), in-charge in the employment of the Municipal Corporation.After reiterating the contents of the similar affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 957 of 2013 and the 2010 petition, what has been stated is that there was waiting list of Page 25 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc 10113 employees.They are awaiting regular allotment and 35 employees are awaiting allotment as special cases.The affidavit explains as to how even the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation was informed that it will not be possible to consider the request of the petitioners.The proposals and which were discussed, never gained any finality.There may be recommendations and proposals, but there are no firm decisions.It is not as if the resolution relied upon by the petitioners can be said to be a decision in itself.That resolution of the Municipal Corporation has to be considered in the backdrop of the legal provisions and the powers vesting in the Municipal Commissioner/Corporation.The Municipal Corporation passed a resolution thereby requesting the Commissioner to regularise the tenancy and that is how the subject Resolution No. 343 dated 1st September, 1989 reads.It cannot create any right in favour of the petitioners by itself.Rather, the Municipal Commissioner has passed an order on 1 st November, 2007 directing retention of 10% amount of the gratuity of the retired municipal employees and recover the rent Page 26 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc from the remaining 90% amount.Further, he has decided to initiate proceedings for their eviction.Page 25 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 26 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The other petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 2165 of 2009 is also claiming the same reliefs and which is filed by certain individuals, who are members of the Brihanmumbai Mahapalika Upnagar Baithi Chawl Rahiwashi Sangh.In terms of identical pleadings, these petitioners also claim same reliefs.Though we have not been shown any affidavit in reply specifically filed in this petition, we can safely say that the stand of the Municipal Corporation is adequately disclosed in the affidavits filed in reply to the other petitions.Mr. Rupawate appearing in these two petitions for the petitioners submits that this is a case where the Municipal Corporation has itself initiated the proposals.Though the budgetary provision may be claimed to have been made, but the construction of the premises is not from the municipal budget.Going by the pleadings of the petitioners, the Page 27 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc premises cannot be termed as staff quarters.Mr. Rupawate has invited our attention to the record of pages 62-63 of Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2009 to submit that the resolution of the Improvement Committee is not quashed or set aside.It remains on the record of the Municipal Corporation.The Corporation may place its interpretation on such resolution, but if the MMC Act is perused, it is evident that the Improvement Committee is one of the important committees, through which the municipal administration and municipal functions are discharged.This committee is empowered to deal with the municipal estates.Mr. Rupawate would submit that the Commissioner may write to the Government in the year 2007 and may seek to resile from this resolution, but in terms of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 64 of the MMC Act, so long as a decision is not taken by the State Government, all the resolutions of the Municipal Corporation are binding on the respondents.The State Government has not taken any decision on the Municipal Commissioner's proposal.The Municipal Commissioner as well has not followed up the matter.Once the State Government has not replied to the Municipal Commissioner's letter, then, it is not possible for the Municipal Corporation to assume that Resolution No.343 is a mere proposal or recommendation.Our attention is invited to the fact that the record would indicate that throughout the Municipal Corporation Page 28 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc was seeking to rely on its own decision and grant the request of the parties.In that regard, Mr.Rupawate relies upon the documents at pages 84 to 86 and pages 92 to 96 of the paper book.He would submit that the record of the petitions from pages 59 to 70 would reveal as to how the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika has taken a decision to enforce the proposals of the Improvement Committee.Thus, it is not a mere recommendation or proposal of the Improvement Committee, but a final binding decision of the Municipal Corporation, which is sought to be enforced in this petition.Therefore, the requirement that the petitioners must possess a pre-existing legal right so as to seek a writ of mandamus is satisfied.He would submit that the writ petitions must succeed.Page 27 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 28 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::On the other hand, Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation in these petitions would submit that the writ petitions have no merit.They must be Page 29 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc dismissed for they are not founded on any legal right.The petitioners are not project affected persons or those municipal tenants whose homes or structures were dilapidated and therefore, they had to move out for being accommodated by the Municipal Corporation in distinct or other buildings.The petitions are filed by ex-employees in the sense they have served the Municipal Corporation and obtained a service accommodation during their tenure.These persons, on retirement, have refused to vacate and handover their tenements to the Corporation.The Estates Department, therefore, feels acute shortage of housing accommodation and to house the existing in-service employees.It is in these circumstances that Mr. Sakhare would submit that it is immaterial whether the premises are handed over on deduction of House Rent Allowance or on leave and licence basis.Looked at from any angle, they are municipal premises/staff quarters and none can claim a vested right to occupy them.The right to occupy emanates from the employment with the Municipal Corporation.Even the allotment is not as of right.It is based on availability of accommodation and fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.Having fulfilled that, the municipal employee becomes entitled to occupy the municipal property.Therefore, he occupies it as a part of the services, whether as licencee or otherwise, yet, the property retains its character as "municipal property".Page 30 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 29 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 30 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::There can be at best a recommendation or proposal for sympathetic consideration of the petitioners' plight, particularly on retirement.The grievance that on retirement such people, who have served the Municipal Corporation, would be rendered homeless, has resulted in the proposals being mooted.They cannot bind the Municipal Corporation.They remain as recommendations and proposals.No finality is attached to them for in terms thereof, a decision has to be taken by the competent authority under the MMC Act. That decision has not been placed on file.In the circumstances, Mr. Sakhare would submit that there is no right in the petitioners and the petitions ought to be dismissed.Even on the second point, Mr. Sakhare would submit that bearing in mind the conduct of the petitioners, particularly of not vacating or wrongfully retaining the municipal properties and premises, the action of withholding their terminal dues has rightly been taken.They cannot insist on the terminal dues being released even though their wrongful conduct has caused loss to the Corporation.That has adversely affected the budgetary proposals.The payment of pension and gratuity is from public funds.Therefore, in larger public interest, the Municipal Corporation has discretion to withhold the terminal benefits.The argument that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no such Page 31 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc power is conferred in the authority and therefore gratuity and pension cannot be withheld, would not apply here.In the present case, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has its own regulations and rules, governing pension and conditions of service.Therefore, these conditions of service, which prescribe terminal benefits do not envisage the releasing of the same if there is a loss caused to the Municipal Corporation.In the present case, there are municipal dues, which are outstanding.These petitioners are not entitled to occupy the premises, after their cessation from municipal services, at a concessional or lower rate.These petitioners would have to pay the prevailing market rent.The differential rent has to be recovered and that can be recovered and adjusted against the terminal benefits.Therefore, wrongful retention of the Corporation's property must visit them with such consequences.There is nothing wrongful and illegal about the act of the Municipal Corporation.The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is inapplicable to this case.The right to obtain pension also flows from the Municipal Rules.It is thus, both benefits, namely, pension and gratuity, can be obtained only under the Rules of the Municipal Corporation.These rules enable the Municipal Corporation to effect deductions or make appropriate adjustments.For all these reasons, he would submit that the second contention also has no merit.Page 32 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 31 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 32 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::That jurisdiction cannot be utilised to grant any benefits or reliefs to a wrongdoer or a law breaker.This court's jurisdiction is used and utilised by such persons and even if they cannot obtain substantive relief, they would walk away with a monetary gain.In such circumstances, he would submit that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.They are not entitled for any relief.The writ petitions be dismissed.Mr. Sakhare has relied upon the compilations, which have been tendered on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of documents and judgments.This court should, therefore, not grant any relief in favour of the petitioners.Their petitions be dismissed.Page 33 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 33 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::The arguments of Mr. Rupawate and Mr. Sakhare respectively are adopted by Mr. Nayak and Mr. Pakale.Nayak, in addition, has tendered a compilation of judgments to submit that the pensionary benefits are obtained for services rendered.In law, there is no warrant for such action.Mr. Nayak would, therefore, submit that going by the law of the land, this action cannot be sustained and the petitions to that extent deserve to be allowed.As far as the substantive reliefs are concerned, just like any other municipal property occupants, even the petitioners are relying on the assurances and promises given to them by the Municipal Corporation.The Municipal Corporation cannot pick and choose occupants for granting benefits.If they have granted certain benefits and to a particular class of occupants, who also enters the municipal premises initially with some authority and Page 34 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc later on refuses to handover the same, then, there cannot be a different treatment to the petitioners.They cannot be picked and chosen for eviction or recovery by coercive means.Hence, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is violated.Page 34 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Mr. Pakale has invited our attention to the pension regulations, copy of which has been handed over to us.Pakale would submit that the Pension Rules, 1953 have been framed by the Municipal Corporation.Rule 2 clarifies that these rules apply to all municipal servants who hold a lien on a permanent post or would hold a lien on such a post had their lien not been suspended under the Municipal Service Regulations.Mr. Pakale has referred to section 81(2) of the MMC Act to submit that these rules have a statutory force.The word "pension" is defined in these rules and according to Mr. Pakale, in a comprehensive and wide sense.That includes gratuity.Mr. Pakale would adopt the arguments of Mr.Sakhare on this point.Additionally, he would submit that as far as the municipal servants are concerned, they are in a peculiar position.The State Government/Municipal Corporation has provided composite monetary/retirement benefits as a civil security measure to their employees.The employee, who is covered under the said rules, on his retirement, obtains substantial amount credited to the GPF Account and pensionary benefits.The employee makes no monetary contribution towards the pensionary benefits.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Mr. Sakhare and Mr. Pakale have relied upon the following judgments in support of their above contentions:-(i) Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and Anr.Page 36 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 36 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(ii) U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Ors.For properly appreciating the rival contentions, we must first clear the factual background.We must clarify at once that this is not a case of those persons who are in occupation of municipal properties and premises because they are displaced by a public project and therefore, styled as project affected persons.Even if the allotment of Page 37 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc municipal premises in favour of the employees is on leave and licence basis or in lieu of the Housing Rent Allowance, still, the nature of occupancy remains the same.This occupancy does not create any right, title or interest in the municipal property, which is a public property.Page 37 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Equal protection of the law postulates that those not entitled to any relief based on a right cannot continue to insist on the same.Once a leave and licence arrangement in law does not confer any right, title and interest in the property, much less of tenancy, then, we do not see how the Municipal property, coming in the petitioners' possession during the course of their services, places Page 38 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc them in a different class.They are comparable with those municipal servants to whom municipal premises are allotted in lieu of payment of House Rent Allowance.The House Rent Allowance is paid because those occupying their own or rented premises should be in a position to bear the monetary liability.In some cases, the salary is not enough to meet these expenses and therefore, such schemes, namely, payment of House Rent Allowance or grant of housing accommodation in lieu thereof, are proposed and implemented.These schemes are implemented so as to assist the municipal employees and public servants and in return, it is expected that they render efficient and prompt services.The municipal services are rendered to fulfill the mandate of the constitution of India and Sections 61 and 63 of the MMC Act. We need not highlight as to what are the duties of the Municipal Corporation and its functions.There is enough indication in that regard in the MMC Act itself.That contains both, the obligatory and discretionary duties.Eventually, all municipal services are rendered for the welfare and benefit of the residents of the city.The Municipal Corporations themselves occupy a constitutional status.The Constitution envisages establishment and incorporation of a Municipal Corporation so as to ensure better and quality municipal governance.No provision has been brought to our notice in the MMC Act, which obliges the Municipal Corporation to make a provision for housing its retired employees.Page 38 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 39 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::The right that has been claimed and sought to be enforced is based on a decision of the Improvement Committee.The Improvement Committee is stated to have considered and sympathetically the request of certain types of occupants of Municipal Properties.We have been shown several documents in that regard and from the paper book.It has been pointed out that though the allotment is made on a specific condition that the allottee is in municipal service and therefore, he would be Page 40 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc required to comply with certain conditions, including executing an agreement and undertaking to handover the premises.Yet, in 1966, some association was informed by the then Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) that the request of the employees, to continue in occupation as tenants on their retirement, can be accepted.Reliance is placed on the letter dated 24th June, 1966, whereunder, one administrative officer (Estates) has informed the Secretary of the municipal employees' association that this Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvement) has approved their request subject to condition that they pay standard rent and furnish fresh agreement if they desire to continue to remain in occupation of their tenements.That letter refers to the plight of the municipal servants, who have been rendered homeless because of certain developments.That specifically refers to the condition of the municipal tenements as well.Therefore, Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon) and Deonar Municipal Colonies and Parksite (Vikhroli) contain Page 41 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc structures and singly storeyed.They were granted on leave and licence basis.However, there is a conversion proposed by the Municipal Commissioner and on ownership basis.Therefore, the recommendation of the Municipal Commissioner was placed before the Municipal Corporation's General Body and that General Body resolved that these proposals/recommendations of the Municipal Commissioner can be temporarily approved provided the co-operative housing society of such occupants presents a concrete proposal for consideration of the Commissioner and thereafter the Commissioner forwards it for approval of the Municipal Corporation.Thus, this is a proposal which has to be initiated from the Municipal Commissioner.The General Body has considered them and resolved to accept them provided fulfillment of certain terms and conditions and satisfaction of the same by the Municipal Commissioner.In that event, the House may consider approving the same.Beyond this, Page 42 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc we do not read anything, much less a vested right, which can be claimed by the petitioners to continue in occupation and possession.Once they understand this as only a request made by them to the Municipal Corporation for consideration of their cases sympathetically, then, all the more we do not see how moved by their plight alone, the municipal properties can be handed over to them permanently.Further, if this court were to allow such a request and issue the writ as prayed, that would be a mockery of the rule of law.This court's orders and writ cannot be contrary to the MMC Act. The municipal property can be disposed off only in accordance with section 92 of the MMC Act. The petitioners ought to be aware of this settled legal position and as annunciated in the MMC Act. No public property can be disposed off even by a public body except as authorised by law.If we agree to the request of the petitioner, none would ever vacate staff or service quarters, but retain them even after their retirement.Those in public service and fulfilling the criteria of a public servant would then have to wait for allotment of premises in the event they require them.We cannot direct a Municipal Corporation and particularly the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which has a work force of more than one lakh employees, to grant the permanent occupancies and in the form requested.There is no dispute that it becomes difficult for the Municipal Corporation to house even the staff members who render emergency services.Thus, those working and serving in the Firebrigade, Water Works and hospitals, whose presence is required by the establishment 24/7 have to be housed at distant accommodations.In that event, their availability is a huge question mark and not assured.Therefore, when their presence is required to meet an emergency, then, all the more such request as made by the petitioners cannot be granted.Once the municipal premises have not been allotted to them independent of their identity as municipal servants, then, all the more such reliefs as are claimed in these petitions cannot be granted.Page 40 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 41 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 42 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 43 of 80Mr. Rupawate placed reliance on a letter, which has been addressed by the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai to the Government.We have carefully perused that letter.That letter highlights what we have Page 44 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc been shown from the records of the present petitions.The Municipal Corporation has placed before us the entire compilation of documents, based on which we must consider these cases.There are as many as five compilations placed before us by the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation.These compilations contain policies and relevant circulars.We have carefully considered a policy and which has been stated to be in force, which is for allotment of staff/service quarters.The circulars empower the Municipal Commissioner and higher authorities therefore to withhold the retrial benefits of those retirees who are continuing to occupy the tenements even after the permissible period.We would advert to this aspect a little later.It had not passed a firm resolution nor has taken any final and binding decision.It, as noted above, only directed that the Municipal Commissioner should forward the necessary proposal specifying the terms and conditions for allotment for due consideration and specific approval of the Municipal Corporation.There are further representations and correspondence, which would indicate as to how this whole proposal was not found to be feasible.It was not possible to pick up some tenements in occupation of retired persons and conferring on them alone the benefit of permanent Page 48 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc occupancy or tenancy.These agreements have certain sanctity and a legal efficacy.The Municipal Corporation is right in insisting that they abide by their undertakings and voluntarily surrender the premises in their possession to the Municipal Corporation.Thus, his case was that by accepting all the terms and conditions, the benefit is obtained in the form of allotment of staff quarters and municipal premises.The Municipal Commissioner points out that in the last five decades or more, new premises could not be constructed by the Municipal Corporation.It is not possible to obtain any vacant land or property for construction of new houses.The Municipal Corporation serves the residents and members of the public.The Municipal Corporation is a public body.Those joining the services of the Corporation and later on retiring from the services would never surrender or handover the municipal premises in their occupation.That would set a bad precedent.The State Government is neither accepting the stand of the Municipal Commissioner set out in his letter dated 20th December, 2007 nor has rejected it.Page 50 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Mr. Rupawate has invited our attention to Section 64 of the MMC Act. That appears under sub heading "Respective Functions of the several Municipal Authorities".Section 64 reads as under:-Page 44 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 45 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 46 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 47 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 48 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 49 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(a) perform all the duties and exercise all the powers specifically imposed or conferred upon him by this Act;Page 51 of 80J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-(c) above, as if there has been a failure by the General Manager to perform his duties or exercise his powers:Provided that, the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee may by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total number of its members restrain the General-Manager from carrying out any such directive or directives received by him from the Commissioner; and in the case of such a restraint, the General Manager shall not be deemed to have failed in carrying out any such directive.(e) be responsible for implementing the decision of the Corporation, the Standing Page 52 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc committee, the Improvements Committee, the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee and the Education Committee:Page 52 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 53 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc (4) Subject whenever expressly so directed in this Act to the approval of the corporation or the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee and subject also to all other restrictions, limitations and conditions imposed by this Act, the entire executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Chapter XVIA of this Act, vests in the General Manager who shall also--Page 53 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(a) perform all the duties and exercise all the powers specifically imposed or conferred upon him by this Act and perform such other duties in connection with the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking as may be required of him by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee;(b) prescribe the duties of, and exercise supervision and control over the-acts and proceedings of all municipal officers and servants appointed under Chapter XVIA and subject to the regulations for the time being in force under section 460V, dispose of all questions relating to the service of the said officers and servants and their pay, privileges and allowances;Page 54 of 80J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::As held above, there is no decision or order of the Municipal Corporation accepting the petitioners' request to convert staff quarters in their occupation and possession into permanent occupancies.Similarly, as is clear from Section 92 of the MMC Act, a municipal property, with respect to its disposal, is governed by the same.Page 55 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::After clause (d) appears clause (dd).Page 56 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 56 of 80Page 62 of 80Page 63 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused.(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeitedDuring the period of his occupation, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated.The Estate Officer levied damages.Then, against that, an appeal was filed before the District Judge.The further proceedings are also referred in the judgment and order of the tribunal, from which, the appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose.Page 64 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::".....The Tribunal on a consideration of the above held that death-cum-retirement gratuity (hereinafter referred to as 'D. C. R. G.') could not be withheld merely because the employee has not vacated the 4 1994(69) FLR 1137 Page 65 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc allotted premises during the course of his employment.Inasmuch as the appellant continued to retain the allotted residence even after retirement, interest at the rate of 10% could be paid to the appellant.Page 65 of 80The respondent has not entered appearance.C. R. G. cannot be withheld merely because the claim for damages for unauthorised occupation is pending, should in our considered opinion, have granted interest at the rate of 18% since right to gratuity is not dependent upon the appellant vacating the official accommodation.Having regard to these circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case in which the award of 18% is warranted and it is so ordered.The D. C. R. G. due to the appellant will carry interest at Page 66 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc the rate of 18% per annum from 1-6-1986 till the date of payment.Of course this shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to recover damages under Fundamental Rule 48-A. Thus, the civil appeal is allowed.However, there shall be no order as to costs."Page 66 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::That was a decision rendered against the Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Dehradun and another by this court.The ONGC was aggrieved and dissatisfied with this decision and carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.In the instant case, however, it is the specific case of the Commission that the Commission is having a statutory status.In exercise of statutory powers under Section 32(1) of the Act, regulations known as the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Death, Retirement and Terminal Gratuity) Regulations, 1969 have been framed by the Commission.In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [1975] 1 SCC 421 the Constitution Bench of this Court held that regulations framed by the Commission under Section 32 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission 5 2003(3) Mh. L. J. 168 6 (2005) 5 SCC 245 Page 67 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Act, 1959 are statutory in nature and they are enforceable in a court of law.They provide for eligibility of grant of gratuity, extent of gratuity, etc. Regulation 5 deals with recovery of dues of the Commission and reads thus :- The appointing authority, or any other authority empowered by the Commission in this behalf shall have the right to make recovery of Commission's dues before the payment of the death- cum retirement gratuity due in respect of an officer even without obtaining his consent or without obtaining the consent of the members of his family in the case of the deceased officer, as the case may be."The above regulation leaves no room of doubt that the Commission has right to effect recovery of its dues from any officer without his consent from gratuity.According to the Commission, he could be allowed four months' time to occupy the quarter which was granted to him.Page 68 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::We have to strike a balance.Page 71 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 72 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 73 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::We, therefore, direct that if such of the petitioners, who surrender and handover peaceful possession of their premises (municipal premises in their possession) within three months from today, the Municipal Corporation shall not make any further deductions, but release all the balance sums due and payable with proportionate interest to such employees.In the event the Page 74 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc petitioners do not handover the premises within this period and continue to retain them, then, all consequences in law shall follow.Meaning thereby, the Municipal Corporation can proceed with its action under section 105B and other provisions of the MMC Act and recover penal rent/damages/compensation as well.That can be recovered by attaching movable and immovable properties of the occupants.Page 74 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::However, we have seen a very peculiar feature of this case, Some of the petitioners have retired long time back.Some of these petitions have been filed and are pending in this court for more than five years.We have also found that some assurance, which cannot be termed as a promise enforceable and within the meaning of Page 75 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was extended from time to time.At least those occupancies from 1960 onwards were taken into account for consideration and extension of genuine benefits.These are municipal structures, which have been now in occupation of these persons for more than four decades.They have not made any provision for housing in Mumbai, either for themselves or their family members.In the event the municipal Corporation decides to develop these properties, particularly at Parksite (Vikhroli), Deonar (Chembur), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon), Malvani (Malad) etc. and in the event any private party/developer or builder is engaged for development of these municipal properties/land, then, dependent upon the agreements that such developers and builders are ready and willing to execute with the petitioners and take over the entire responsibility of their re-housing/re-accommodating, then, the Municipal Corporation shall not, in any manner, prevent the petitioners from obtaining the benefits under such private arrangement of their rehabilitation.Even if these persons desire relocation to other municipal lands, which are developed/redeveloped, then, even to that course, the Municipal Corporation shall have no objection nor should prevent them from obtaining the benefits in terms of the agreement with the developers.Once they assume this character, then, the petitioners cannot retain them and endlessly.The above advantage or benefit can be availed by the petitioners only after the municipal premises are handed over to the Municipal Corporation.This order and direction, therefore, to the Municipal Corporation is independent of its powers and its position in law.Page 75 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 76 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 77 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 77 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::To support the view that we have taken, it is necessary to refer to other judgments relied upon by Mr. Sakhare.Sakhare emphasises that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. D. Bandi vs. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.7 observed that there are rules like Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, whereunder, action can be taken for continuing to remain in occupation of Government premises unauthorisedly.Thus, apart from initiating proceedings for eviction against serving Government servant, action by invoking this rule can also be taken against those who have ceased to be in service.Even with regard to criminal prosecution, the attention of the Government of India and the State Government was invited to Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as amended by the Orissa Legislature vide the Penal Code (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1986 and it was emphasised that this provision enables the Government to prosecute the offenders for the offence of criminal trespass and even under Section 447 of the IPC.Though the provision in the IPC was recommended to be amended, most of the State Governments did not evince any interest and therefore, 7 (2011) 15 SCC 718 Page 78 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc that proposal was not pursued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.It is in these circumstances that we are of the opinion that it is too late in the day to complain that no adjustments can be made or that even if adjustments or recoveries are permissible, they should not be made in the subject case.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has commented upon the increasing tendency to hold on to the Government property and termed that there is a mushroom growth of unauthorised occupation of Government premises in almost all parts of the country in flagrant violation of the rules prevailing in the civilised society, which is detrimental to the interest of a large number of Government servants, who have been waiting for years together for allotment of Government premises.Page 78 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::We have found that his reliance on a Single Judge Bench judgment of this court in the case of Ramchandra Keshavrao Paralikar and Anr.vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay8 is apposite.From the discussion above, it is apparent that the law has not undergone any change.The learned Single Judge's view on the aspect and point noted above still holds the field.We respectfully concur with the same.8 Writ Petition No. 118 of 1983 Page 79 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc8 Writ Petition No. 118 of 1983Page 79 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Our order and directions, particularly in relation to the consideration of the petitioners' request would have to be dealt with by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) and subject to the approvals of the further higher authorities.(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 80 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 80 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::

['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is also alleged that the applicant is not calling the meeting of company and have kept the agenda book and resolution book of the company in his possession with a view to gain control over the company.He without calling any meeting of the 2 board of Director of company prepared forge resignation letter of complainant Deepak and accepted his resignation on 18.12.2014 whereas he has never given the resignation.( 27 /06/2019) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.1091/2015 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.(2).Brief facts of the case are that complainant Deepak Kumar Mandwani has given a written complaint to the police alleging that he and applicant Sunil are Director of the M/s Varadmurti Agro Tech Private Limited.The said company is owned 44 square feet diverted land situated at survey No. 193, 203, 204 of Village Tejpur Gadwadi, Tehsil and District Indore.The rate of the aforesaid land has been increased, therefore, the applicant Sunil Kumar illegally take over the aforesaid land.He also inducted his real brother applicant No.2 as director of company with intent to grab land of company.Thereafter, the applicant filed the aforesaid viz. appointment of applicant No.2 as director and removal of complainant Deepak Mandwani as director on the website of Registrar of Companies.On the basis of aforesaid complaint FIR bearing crime No.56/2015 was registered at police Station Juni Indore against the applicants for the offence under Section 420,467,468,471/34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.(3).Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

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

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

He has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of being husband of the deceased who died five years after her marriage due to poising.He further submits that the applicant and deceased are husband and wife and have two issues.They were living peacefully.There was no demand of dowry.The deceased was a short tempered lady on account of some dispute she had taken poison.According to him there are only general allegation against the applicant.There was no earlier complaint of any matrimonial dispute.It was the applicant who informed about the death of the deceased to the informant.He is a family man.Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Sanni, who is involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2014, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, District, Aligarh.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that applicant is innocent.The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

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

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

In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on August 10, 2016 in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.24 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 under Section 147/148/149/353/332/333 /186/323 /325 /341/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of: Lakshmikanta Jana and others....petitioners....for the petitioners....for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.24 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 under Section 147/148/149/353/332/333/186/323 /325/341/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.(Asim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

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

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

Heard on I.A. No.3162/2016, which is second application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant- Ashok S/o Govind Parihar.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that first application was allowed and appellant was released temporarily on bail for 10 days on the ground of marriage of daughter of the appellant.He has not misused the liberty granted to him and surrendered before the trial court on the date fixed by this court.He further submits that he has already suffered a jail sentence for one year and seven months out of five years total sentence awarded to him and he also challenged the inference drawn by the trial court regarding age of the prosecutrix which was assessed as 12 years on the basis of her school record.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that the prosecutrix belonged to the Scheduled Caste and she was only 12 years of age when the incident took place.Present appellant has tried to outrage her modesty which might have left an indelible mark on psychic of the prosecutrix.He further submits that even during the trial he remained under custody.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.02.2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

One of the voice out of these miscreants was that of Rahul.Thereafter 15-20 gun shots were fired causing damage to window panes and office furniture when staff working at toll plaza saved themselves by hiding here and there.Guards performing duty at toll plaza had also fired gun shots in their self defence.It is also alleged that a SUV, which was standing at the toll plaza, was also damaged.Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations......"No.1, 2, 3 and 6/State.Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.7/CBI.This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, claiming handing over of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in regard to Crime No.109/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena for its independent and effective investigation.Brief facts leading to present petition are that on 24.02.2019 a report was lodged by one S.S. Sikarwar working as Senior Toll Plaza Manager at Chhoda Toll Plaza, to the effect that at 10.33 pm on 23.02.2019 he had received a call on his mobile phone from one Rahul Kansana S/o respondent No.5- Endal Singh Kansana, a former Minster and a sitting MLA and such call was attended by his Deputy Toll Manager, Hotam Singh, as complainant S.S. Sikarwar had left his mobile and had gone to attend call of nature 2 W.P. No.4473/2019(PIL) when Rahul Kansana abused Deputy Toll Manager Hotam Singh and threatened that he will see to it that toll plaza becomes in- operational.At about 00.50 am 15-20 persons armed with weapons came to toll plaza and shouted on the employees of toll plaza threatening them to kill.It is further mentioned that though miscreants had come in 4-5 vehicles but registration numbers of two Scorpio vehicles have been mentioned in the FIR registering Crime No.109/2019 with further request that such incident has been recorded in the CCTV cameras available at toll plaza and this incident was given effect to by Rahul Kansana so to permit free passage of his vehicles without payment of toll tax.It is submitted that when aforesaid report was lodged at Police Station, then there was lot of pressure on the Superintendent of Police, namely; respondent No.4- Shri Riyaz Iqbal, who was transferred to Morena only on 11 th January, 2019 vide Annexure P/4 but soon after the incident he was transferred from Morena to Bhopal vide order dated 26 th February, 2019 (Annexure P/5), which 3 W.P. No.4473/2019(PIL) is indicative of extraordinary clout wielded by respondent No.5- Endal Singh Kansana on the authorities of the State and therefore, petitioner is not hopeful of any independent investigation in the matter and therefore, has prayed for transferring the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).In that case facts were that one member of 7 W.P. No.4473/2019(PIL) Parliament had written a letter to the Chief Minister and on said letter, Chief Minister had directed that investigation be conducted by Criminal Investigation Department (CID).Allegation was levelled by the Counsel for the petitioner that parallel inquiry or re- investigation by Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is demoralizing the police force and the alleged accused have been released without any trial.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Appellants, Yadu Nandan Mandal and Diwakar Mandal were tried alongwith Ganesh Mandal and Shyamdeo Jha for offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34,201/34 and 379/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') on the allegations of havingabducted and murdered Gauri Kant Jha and Aditya Nath Jha, disposed of their deadbodies and committed theft of their bicycles.The trial Court acquitted Shyamdeo Jhabut convicted the remaining persons under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC andsentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.However, all the accused wereacquitted of the charges under Sections 304/35, 201/34 and 379/34 IPC.All theconvicts preferred appeal against the judgment of the trial Court.During thependency of the appeal, accused, Ganesh Mandal died and, on that account, appealfiled by him abated.So far as the remaining two appellants are concerned, the HighCourt confirmed their conviction and sentence.Hence, this appeal by special leave.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pressed thisappeal on the question of sentence and made a prayer that the sentence ofimprisonment awarded against the appellants be reduced to the period alreadyundergone as appellant No.1 - Yadu Nandan Mandal has remained in custody for aperiod of more than five years and appellant No.2 - Diwakar Mandal has remained incustody for a period of more than seven years.Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties andtaking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that ends ofjustice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against theappellants is reduced to the period already undergone.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding theconviction of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against them isreduced to the period already undergone.The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bailbonds.[B.N. AGRAWAL] ......................

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER S.K. Agarwal, J.This revision has been filed against the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2000, arising from the order dated 17-10-2000 passed by the Juvenile Judge.Gorakhpur in Crime Case No. 277 of 2000 (State v. Vikrant alias Sonu) under Section 377/511, I.P.C. Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur.On 7-8-2000 a report was lodged against the applicant for an offence under Section 377/511, I.P.C. PS Badhalganj.The case was registered as Crime No. 277/2000/-.When the charge sheet was submitted in court the applicant claimed himself to be a juvenile and sought the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act thereby desired to be tried by a Juvenile Judge.The informant opposite party No. 2 strongly contested the claim of his being a juvenile in revision and advanced the submission that he appeared in High School examination in 1998 from National Inter College Badhalganj.The said school has not issued a certificate to him on his demand.It is demanding an appropriate order from the Court for issuing the same to him.He made an application before Juvenile Judge for giving him necessary order in this regard.An order was given but despite that the copy of school leaving certificate was not issued to him.Despite that the court rejected his plea on the ground that no power is available to it under the law to force the Principal of National Inter College, Badhalganj to send a copy of the same or to direct him to appear in this court along with the necessary documents.The applicant was subjected to medical examination also.The medical examination report shows that he was about 17 years at the time of his medical examination.The complainant-informant had also filed a copy of extract of Parivar Register.This had been challenged by the father of the accused by filing an affidavit wherein it has been averred that in the copy filed by the informant the date of birth was wrongly shown.Apart from it the date shown therein is that of his eldest son and not of this applicant.No counter-affidavit was filed by the informant to the affidavit filed by the father of this applicant.In these circumstances the Juvenile Court preferred to accept the High School Certificate produced by the father of the applicant as admissible in evidence.Placing the reliance on the documents he declared the applicant a Juvenile.In the impugned appeal the above order was disturbed.It was seriously contended by the complainant informant opposite party No. 2 that the trial Judge has erred in not making a serious endeavour to call for the record from the National Inter College.Badhalganj from where this applicant had appeared in High School examination and failed.It would have furnished substantive evidence.The trial Court had failed to appreciated it.But there is a very important circumstance which goes in favour of the applicant that his father had filed an affidavit challenging the date of birth shown in the extract of Parivar Register filed by opposite party No. 2 before the Juvenile Court and adverted certain facts in order to prove the applicant a juvenile.As no counter-affidavit was filed to the affidavit by the opposite party No. 2 alleging that the entries of extract are fake and were procured to deny the applicant benefit of being a Juvenile.In these circumstances the trial Court thought it better to place reliance on the High School Certificate produced by the applicant.The most crucial fact, which may have impressed the formation of the opinion, is that failure to file any response to an affidavit disputing entries of extract of Parivar Register filed by him.It makes it clear that the informant opposite party No. 2 had been manipulating the evidence against the applicant.I am not inclined in view of the fact and circumstances discussed above in favour the applicant that he in all likelihood was a Juvenile when he committed the offence or even when he made his application for such a declaration before the court.In these circumstances adverted to above I find force in the submissions.This revision deserves to be allowed.The order dated 17-10-2000 is hereby restored.The applicant is declared a juvenile.

['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

M.C. 68/2015 Page 1 of 7 Delhi in Complaint Case No.25/2014 titled SEBI v. Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd. & Ors.M.C. 68/2015 Page 1 of 7The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner seeking striking off/expunction of para 8 of the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Crl.A criminal complaint was filed by the SEBI against Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd. and its directors before the Court for violation of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and Regulation Nos.5(1) read with 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the SEBI Rgulations, 1999 constituting offence punishable under Section 24(1) read with Section 27 of the SEBI Act. In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused company raised an amount of about Rs.22 crores from general public in violation of the provisions contained in Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act. Despite the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) Regulations and public notice dated 18.12.1997, the accused pesons had failed to get the CIS registered with SEBI or to wind up the said schemes or repay the amount collected from the investors.Cognizance on the complaint was taken by the learned ACMM on 15.10.2001 and the accused persons were summoned under Section 204 Cr.P.C. On 08.12.2011, accused Rajesh Sud and A.V. Mahindra were declared proclaimed offenders.M.C. 68/2015 Page 2 of 7

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3124 of 2013 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of F.R. No.70 of 2013 (State vs. Ismeet Singh and others) arising out of case crime no.692-A of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506, 465, 467 and 468 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki as well as impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.12, Barabanki.The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3267 of 2016 has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.18 Barabanki in Criminal Case No.418 of 2013 (Sudhir Kumar vs. Ismeet Singh) arising out of case crime no.692 of 2012 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, P. S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barbanki.Since both the petitions arising out of the same incident, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.On 15.03.2012 one Sri Sudhir Kumar through opposite party no.2 Sri Nand Kishore Srivastava, who is the agent of the said company, had applied for insurance of his Truck bearing its registration no.An incident took place by the Truck of Sri Sudhir Kumar and his truck was seized by the police and later on the said truck was released by the court concerned in favour of the vehicle owner on the release application moved by him.After the release of the vehicle, the owner of vehicle came to the petitioner's company and started pressurizing him to pay the compensation, which was refused by the petitioner.On denial of the compensation, two First Information Reports have been lodged - one by Sri Sudhir Kumar, the truck owner as Case Crime No. 692 of 2012 and another by Sri Nand Kishore as Case Crime no.692-A of 2012, who is an agent of the Company.Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly.

['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2).The facts of the case are that in the year 2008-09 the Government of India authorized the firm Amit Kumar Atul Kumar Gautampura to buy wheat for FCI.On 29.04.2008 Mr. Amit Kumar and Ashish purchased 340 sacks of wheat from the farmers and it was loaded in a Truck bearing registration No.MP-09-K-1799 for sending it to Laxmibai Central Warehouse Indore.The truck was driven by Prakash and one Nilesh was cleaner of the vehicle.When at about 12:30 am the truck reached between Agra and Ushapura, one white Maruti van without having any registration number came from behind and stood in the middle of the road, this forced the driver to stop his truck.Thereafter 5-7 persons came out of the Maruti Van and 2 they entered into the truck from both the sides.One of them pulled the driver out and he started driving the truck.They also threatened to kill the driver Prakash.When the truck reached Khajuriya then culprits shifted the driver and cleaner into Maruti Van and they took the Maruti van towards Aerodrum.They took the driver and cleaner to the field and tied them with a rope and left from there threatening to kill them.Thereafter Prakash and Nilesh opened the rope and reached Lebad where they informed the incident to Yashpal through public telephone.Then they reported the matter to the police station Depalpur and lodged FIR (Ex-14).(14/01/2020) The applicant has preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by Third Additional Session Judge, Indore in MJC No.9114/2017 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 451 & 452 of Cr.p.C. has been rejected by which they prayed for interim custody of seized property (340 sacks of wheat).(3).During the investigation police arrested the applicants and on the basis of their memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, recovered 200 sacks of wheat from Vasudev, 100 sacks from Baliram and 7 sacks from Rajesh.Thereafter police apprehended the Lakhan, Liladhar and Gabbar and on the basis of information given by Liladhar 10 sacks of wheat was seized from him.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused person before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Session and after completion of trial applicants and other co-accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 395, 365, 506-B and 412 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 3 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.However, the trial court directed to hand over the seized wheat to its owner.Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicants preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C.(4).This order was challenged by the complainant in revision petition No.351/2008 filed before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.The said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2008 and complainant was directed to file fresh application before the trial court for getting interim custody of the wheat.Revisional court also ordered that any objection raised by the present applicants in relation to the application will be considered by the trial court.But complainant did not complied with the said order then the applicants moved an application before the trial court on 24.08.2009 for interim custody of seized property but it was not decided and kept pending.The trial court vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 directed that the seized property will remain in the custody of the complainant which already given to the complainant in interim custody.It is further submitted that from very beginning of the investigation and trial the applicants were claiming seized property stating that they are the owner of the said property.But the trial court did not consider the facts and even without deciding the pending application of the applicants pass a final judgment and orders to return the seized property to the complainant.Hence, learned counsel for the applicants prays for setting aside the impugned order and prayed that seized property (340 sacks) be handed over to the applicants.(5).Learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding given by the trial court regarding the custody of seized property and prays for dismissal of the petition.(6).From perusal of the record of the trial court, it 5 appears that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur vide its order dated 30.06.2008 allowed the application filed by the complainant for taking the seized wheat in interim custody and direct the police to hand over 50 quintal of seized wheat to complainant M/s Amit Kumar Atul Kumar and in compliance of the aforesaid order the wheat was given to Vijay Kumar Jhajri on supurdginama.Thus, it is clear that the wheat was already handed over to the complainant party on supurdginama by the trial court and revisional court has not recall its interim order dated 24.05.08 regarding interim custody of wheat, therefore, the complainant party has not filed fresh application for getting of the seized wheat on Supurdginama.(7).Although the applicants moved an application before the Court of Third Additional Session Judge, Indore for granting interim custody of the wheat but this application has not been decided by the trial court and the order-sheet does not disclose that any point of time the counsel for the applicants had prayed for hearing the aforesaid application.After completion of the trial though accused persons were acquitted however seized property (wheat) was directed to 6 return to the complainant party.(8).From the perusal of the record of the trial court it does not reflect that applicants/accused did not make any claim in their examination recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that they are the owner of the seized wheat, to contrary they have denied the seizure of the wheat from their possession.They also not filed any documents to establish that they are the owner of the seized property.The applicants and other co-accused have been acquitted by the trial court only on the basis that the prosecution has failed to establish that the wheat has been recovered from the possession of the accused persons on the basis of their memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, merely on the ground that during, the trial applicants have filed an application for interim custody of the seized wheat, it cannot be said that they are entitled to get seized property after completion of the trial.Hence, the present appeal filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION KUMAR COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c4547 15d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d NAYAK 05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.01.31 13:44:10 -12'00'

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

S. P. Verma for the appellant.C. P. Lal for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBOSE J.-Twenty-four persons, among them the two appellants,were tried for offences under sections 148, 307/149 and302/149, Indian Penal Code.Sixteen were acquitted and theremainmg eight were convicted.On appeal to the High Courtfive more were acquitted and the only ones whose convictionswere upheld were the two appellants, Nar Singh and RoshanSingh, and one Nanhu Singh.By a curious misreading of the evidence this Nanhu Singh wasmixed up with Bechan Singh.What the High Court reallymeant to do was to convict Bechan Singh and acquit NanhuSingh.Instead of that they acquitted Bechan Singh andconvicted Nanhu Singh.As soon as the learned High CourtJudges realised their mistake they communicated with theState Government and an order was thereupon passed by thatGovernment remitting the sentence mistakenly Passed on Nanhuand directing that he be released.This occasioned an application under article 134(1) (c) ofthe Constitution by Nanhu Singh and the two appellants NarSingh and Roshan Singh for a certificate.They are quite clear as to whatthey would have done if, in their judgment, the law had leftthem scope for the exercise of any discretion, for they say-" Ordinarily no certificate can be granted to them as thereis nothing of an exceptional nature in their cases."We hold therefore that the certificate was wrongly grantedto the appellants and will treat their case as one underarticle 136(1) for special leave.The High Court gives a clear finding thatthere were more than five persons and believes the eye-witnesses who identify the two appellants.A numberof persons joined in an attack at two in the morning onhelpless persons who were asleep in bed.At least one ofthe assailants was armed either with a gun or a pistol.

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

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

She had given to the examining doctor the history of injury to be "fall".She was referred to the surgery department.There was history of pain in the abdomen and vomiting.There is nothing in the MLC which could indicate that she was unconscious at any stage.In due course, the parental family had also come to the hospital.Soon thereafter, there was a change of story.The parents and the complainant insisted that MLC be recorded.In the same context, it may be mentioned that PW-7, the father of the complainant, in the course of his evidence would claim that when he had arrived at the hospital none of the members of the Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 4 of 10The complainant, in the course of her testimony (as PW-2) spoke about she having lost consciousness.The matter was then being followed up by Head Constable Hari Prakash (PW-9), who would confirm that he had gone to the hospital and met the complainant and her relatives.He would do so regularly.Thus, the first version that was offered by the complainant was after a gap of about ten days of the accident wherein she had suffered ruptured liver, it being a dangerous injury on which account she had to be shifted to the hospital.In the statement (Ex.PW-1/A) which formed the basis of endorsement by PW-12 Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 5 of 10 leading to registration of the FIR (Ex.As noted earlier, no such incident had taken place on 22.04.1998 since later testimony would relate to what had happened on 23.04.1998, her father (PW-7) even having spoken about the visit to the matrimonial home on 23.04.1998 to handover Rs.20,000/- in cash.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 5 of 10She alleged that she had visited her father's house to arrange for the demand to be fulfilled, she being accompanied by her husband (A1), her father having given her cash of Rs.5,000/- stating that he was unable to make any further arrangement.She further alleged that after a few days she was physically assaulted, at about 12 o'clock in midnight, by the appellants herein and the two sisters-in-law (Kavita and Varsha) and turned out of the house, she being asked to go back to her father's house and arrange for a plot of land from him.She stated that against the said backdrop she had remained at her parental home for about 8-10 months and that, after a panchyat had been held, assurances having been held out, she was taken back by the appellants to their house.While lodging complaint (on 04.05.1998), she spoke about another incident that had occurred eighteen days prior thereto in which a Maruti car had been demanded and when she had declined to acceded to such demand, she was asked to bring Rs.20,000/- and the documents of the house of her father in lal dora, and also arrange for Crl.By judgment dated 29.07.2002 in Sessions Case No.87/1998, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) held the appellants guilty and convicted on charge for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The trial had been held on the basis of charges for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC, Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 406/34 IPC, the case also involving two others, namely, Kavita and Varsha as accused.By the aforementioned judgment, the trial court held that charges under Section 307/34 IPC and sections 406/34 IPC had not been proved.It was also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the complicity of Kavita and Varsha, Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 1 of 10 who were thus, acquitted.By order dated 30.07.2002, the trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each as sentence for offence under Section 498-A IPC against the appellants herein directing that in default of payment of fine they would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, extending to them the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 1 of 10Feeling aggrieved by the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and by the order on sentence passed in its wake, the present appeal was filed, the prime contention being that it is a motivated case set up on false accusations.The acquittal of the appellants on the charge for offence under section 307 and 406 read with section 34 IPC or, for that matter, the acquittal of Kavita and Varsha on all the charges, on which they were put on trial, has not been challenged by the State by any appeal or petition.The said decision of the trial court, thus, has attained finality.This appeal was presented in August, 2002 and the sentences were suspended by order dated 05.08.2002 whereby the appeal was entertained.The turn of the appeal to be taken up for final hearing has come up from the list of regulars after more than sixteen years.Submissions of both sides have been heard at length and the record has been perused.The second appellant Om Prakash (A2) is the father of Crl.Kavita (A4) and Varsha (A5), who were also tried, were unmarried sisters of A1, role having been attributed to each of them in the various episodes that were narrated as the basis of accusations of cruelty being meted out to the complainant [Sunita (PW-2)].The prosecution case primarily depended on the evidence of PW-2 and her parents, viz., Savitri (PW-5) and Kartar Singh (PW-7).Appeal No.587/2002 Page 2 of 10Prosecution had also referred to the evidence of Naresh (PW-8), maternal uncle of the complainant.But then, the procedure adopted for taking on board his version is unknown to law.He was not examined by the prosecution, but simply tendered for cross- examination at the hands of the defence counsel.His version, therefore, is not available.Interestingly, in the present case the statement of the complainant was also recorded by Mr. B.S. Jaglan (PW-12) sub- divisional magistrate (SDM), during the time she was assumably under treatment in the hospital for certain injury, even though there is nothing on record indicating any reason to believe that the complainant was under risk of losing her life on account of such injury.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 3 of 10The sequence of events leading to the registration of the first information report (FIR) No.242/1998 in the Police Station Paschim Vihar on 04.05.1998 need to be noted at the outset.This is recorded in the MLC (Ex.The document makes an interesting reading, its author PW-6 confirming the contents to the effect that when the victim was brought to the casualty of the said hospital, she was accompanied by her husband (A1).Appeal No.587/2002 Page 4 of 10 matrimonial family of the complainant, i.e., appellants herein, were present there.This apparently cannot be believed because there is substantive evidence to show that it was the husband (A1) who had taken the wife (the complainant) first to a private nursing home and from there, upon reference, to DDU hospital, the complainant having remained hospitalized there for a long time.During the course of treatment, the complainant underwent surgery, her liver having been found to be ruptured, it being an internal injury.There is also evidence brought on record, primarily through the defence witness, and the trial court believed the same, to accept the defence version that the husband (A1) and one of his friend Rajinder had donated blood for aiding and assisting the successful surgical procedure for the complainant.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 6 of 10 surety for loan to be taken for a car.She alleged that when she had refused to accept all these demands, she was physically assaulted by the appellants and the said two sisters-in-law with legs and fists, this having resulted in she suffering injuries and losing consciousness.The entire story narrated in the FIR cannot be believed per se inasmuch as the MLC in contrast would show that she had been brought to DDU hospital one day prior to what she would project to be the date on which she was taken there, her statement in the court confirming that she was taken from the nursing home directly to the said hospital.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 6 of 10She stated that at about 6:00 a.m. when she was feeding her daughter, the parents-in-law, accompanied by the two sisters-in-law, had come and had brought up the subject of the house in lal-dora area and a cash of Rs.50,000/- in cash.She stated that when she had refused to go to the parental home to make such arrangements, the mother-in-law and the two sisters-in-law tried to strangulate her with hands.She also stated that the husband had come on the scene at that stage and with the assistance of his mother, father and two sisters he had beaten her rendering her unconscious.She spoke about visit to the house by a Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 7 of 10 private doctor on whose advice she was taken to a private nursing home and from there to the other hospital.On further questioning, she also spoke about certain demands made in the past, this leading to cash of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- having been given on two different occasions.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 7 of 10The statement forming the basis of FIR does not match with statement before SDM.Statement more or less on the above lines given by PW-2 during the court deposition consists of lot of improvements.The contradictions arising out of such improvements were brought out by extensive cross-examination.Her parents (PW-5 and PW-7) also deposed similarly, their respective cross-examination also bringing out many an improvement on material aspects.Similar is the case of the cash of Rs.50,000/- being demanded.The trial court examined the evidence which had been led and found it difficult to believe that there had been any attempt on the life of the complainant.Taking note of the first version to the medical officer (before whom the complainant had been brought) on 24.04.1998 indicating the history of injury to be a "fall", the trial Judge refused to believe the complainant in her allegations that she had been subjected to intentional assault by fists and legs at the hands of the husband or any of the members of his family.The trial Judge refused to believe that the sisters-in-law (Kavita and Varsha) had any Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 8 of 10 role to play in any harassment - physical or mental - meted out to the complainant in the matrimonial home.Even which rejecting the evidence to such effect, the version of the complainant and the word of her parents has been accepted to return finding of guilty against the appellants for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.This, in the considered opinion of this court was inherently contradictory and most unfair.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 8 of 10Upon appreciation of evidence, it is indeed difficult to believe the allegations against Kavita and Varsha.But, while rejecting the case against said two persons that very evidence attributing similar role concerning the appellants on same set of incidents has been accepted on its face value.In view of the somersault as to the history of the serious injuries with which the complainant had been brought to the hospital on 24.04.1998, the theory of fall as the cause of injury having been accepted, the version of the complainant as to the intentional assaults by the appellants is rendered in very poor light this seriously affecting her credibility.As noted earlier, despite opportunity, and the approach by the police official on regular basis, even while she was in hospital, the complainant consciously avoided giving any version.The MLC itself shows that the change of the version from the original one of "fall" (which has been accepted by the trial court) was at the instance of the parents.The fact that the statement alleging history of harassment for dowry was lodged after a period of ten days renders it a case possibly of an afterthought, such delay, in the facts and circumstances, having remained unexplained.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 9 of 10Doubts arise as to the purity and wholesomeness of the version forming its basis.In above view, this court concludes that the word of PW-2, as indeed that of her parents, cannot be accepted on its face value.The appellants deserve the benefit of such doubts.Thus, the appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.Trial court record be sent back forthwith.R.K.GAUBA, J.APRIL 03, 2019 vk Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 10 of 10Appeal No.587/2002 Page 10 of 10

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

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

It is alleged that Accused No. 1 was arrested on the same night and that the Police thereafter went in search of original Accused Nos. 2 to 5, who are the present Appellants, at their respective villages.The prosecution alleges that the four Accused came to be arrested in quick succession and that a relatively large amount of property in the form of gold, jewellery and currency notes, etc., was either discovered at their instance or recovered by the Police in the course of the investigations.JUDGMENT Saldanha, J.It was alleged that the present Appellants, along with original Accused No. 1, had committed an act of dacoity with murder on 7-10-1984 at flat No. 18, 8/2 situate on the 18th floor of Woodlands building, Peddar Road, Bombay.It was alleged by the Prosecution that the five Accused were instrumental in tying up, gagging and ultimately committing the murder of a sole inmate of the flat one Veerchand Dhanji Tajani at about 4 p.m. on the afternoon on that day.It was further alleged that after committing the aforesaid murder, the Accused had ransacked the flat and that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 had hurriedly left the building; whereas Accused No. 1 was found in a tied condition near the entrance of the flat.According to the Prosecution, one Dr. Shroff, who is a neighbour, had noticed original Accused No. 1, who was a servant employed by Tajani, in a tied condition near the entrance of the flat and that he had informed the liftman, Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4), to bring this fact to the notice of the Security Officer.When Suresh Mohite informed the Security Officer, Bali (P.W. 1), he immediately came up and on entering the flat of Veerchand Tajani found him in a tied condition on the bed.Since Veerchand Tajani was already dead, Bali lodged a complaint with the Police, who immediately came there and commenced their investigations.The Prosecution further alleges that the sister-in-law of the deceased and her son were shown the property that was recovered from Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and that a greater part of this property, which was in the form of jewellery, has been identified by them.Ultimately, on completion of the investigations, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were put on trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, at the conclusion of the trial was of the view that there was no evidence against Accused No. 1 and, consequently, acquitted him.As far as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, they were convicted of the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the respective sentences to run concurrently.As regards the alternative charge under Section 411 of the Indian penal Code against Accused Nos. 2 to 5, in view of the aforesaid conviction, the learned Trial Judge dropped this particular charge.The evidence adduced by the Prosecution falls under certain broad heads, the first of them being the evidence of certain witnesses on the basis of which the Prosecution seeks to establish the presence of the present Accused at the scene of offence.Thereafter there is the evidence relating to the discovery, recovery and seizure of the property by the Police and the simultaneous arrest of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 from their respective native places, all of which has taken place in quick succession in the immediate days following the incident.Thereafter the Prosecution has sought to rely also on the fingerprint evidence, particularly that of one of the fingerprints which is attributed to Accused No. 2 and which, according to the Prosecution, was found on a bottle in the flat of the deceased.The next head of evidence on which the Prosecution relies is the identity of the jewellery and the property by the sister-in-law of the deceased, Mrs. Tajani, her son and one Zhavari (P.W. 24), who is an approved valuer.Lastly, there is the evidence of the respective police officers who have recounted the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the manner in which the Accused were traced and arrested.They have deposed about the manner in which the property was retrieved and the other supportive evidence was gathered.It will be essential in the present case, in keeping with the well set law relating to circumstantial evidence, that this Court will have to examine each of the circumstances alleged against the Accused and will have to come to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances, which consists of several links, indicates that every link has been properly established and that the chain of circumstances lead to only one irresistible conclusion which points to the guilt of the Accused and to nothing else.This is all the more necessary because the Accused in their defence have neither admitted their presence nor have they admitted any recovery of property at their instance.They have taken up a defence of total denial.In this view of the matter, the Prosecution case will have to be established on its independent footing in so far as the Accused have admitted nothing.As far as the first head of evidence is concerned, the liftman, Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) has deposed about what had happened on that afternoon.He states that the car lights of a vehicle belonging to one Mr. Apte, who resides on the 24th floor of that building, were found to be on and he was instructed to go up to the flat on the 24th floor and to inform Mr. Apte of this fact.He gives the time as 4 p.m. in the afternoon and states that he had gone to the flat at the instance of Bali (P.W. 1), the Security Officer, and that he conveyed the message at Mr. Apte's flat on the 24th floor.Thereafter he pressed the lift button and got into the lift when it came to the 24th floor.He states that on the way down, the lift automatically stopped at the 19th floor and four young persons boarded the lift, out of whom one was carrying a bag.Another incident occurred immediately thereafter, namely, that when the liftman came to the 18th floor, Dr. Shroff told Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) that the servant of Mr. Tajani was lying in a tied condition outside the flat and that he should call the Security Officer.This was something unusual and out of the ordinary pattern and it is in all probability this circumstance of what transpired thereafter which made Suresh Mohite recall the fact that he had seen the four persons boarding the lift and leaving the building at that time and, furthermore, that their faces had got registered in his memory because of the fact that they appeared to be frightened.Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) thereafter informed Bali (P.W. 1) who, in turn, came to the flat and discovered the inmate of the flat, Mr. Tejani in a dead condition.Obviously news must have spread all around the building particularly when the Police were immediately called in and the most pertinent question which the liftman and th security staff must have been asked by everybody, including the Police, was with regard to who were the persons seen entering and leaving the building around that time.Unfortunately, the matter does not rest there because, as pointed out earlier, Suresh Mohite has identified the four Accused on the 19th October 1984 when his statement was recorded by the Police and when these Accused, along with other persons, were in the Police Station.He has also identified the Accused in the Court.It is true that there is a minor discrepancy in his evidence in so far as he has stated that it was Accused No. 4 who was carrying the bag in the course of his evidence; whereas the defence has brought it on record that he had told the Police that Accused No. 3 was the person carrying the bag.The incident has taken place in the day time.The Accused had boarded the lift on the 19th floor that was closeby to the place where the incident took place and an unusual incident had also occurred immediately thereafter when Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) was informed about Accused No. 1 being in a tied condition.A cumulative effect of these factors does lead us to believe that if the memory of this witness were such that he could point out the four Accused not only to the Police but also in the course of the trial that his evidence on the point of identification and on the all important aspect of establishing the presence of the Accused in the building at that time will have to be accepted.The Prosecution has also relied on the evidence of one maid servant Jayashree Gawade (P.W. 3), who knows Accused No. 3 personally.It appears that initially this witness had turned hostile obviously because she did not want to give evidence against Accused No. 3 whereupon she was cross-examined and material portions of her Police Statement were brought on record in the course of the cross-examination which, in turn, have been proved through the Investigating Officer.Jayashree has stated that Accused No. 3 hurriedly came to the adjoining Shanti Building and that he had told her that he had been removed from service, that he hurriedly handed over an amount of Rs. 450/- to her with a message that Rs. 200/- should be given to his brother Yeshwant and that he also informed her that there was a taxi waiting downstairs as he was leaving for his native place.The evidence of this witness will at the highest indicate that Accused No. 3 on that afternoon had suddenly come into possession of a certain amount of money and that he was in a hurry to leave for his native place.By themselves, these circumstances may appear to be innocuous, but in the light of the fact that this Accused No. 3 was one of the persons who had taken part in the incident which culminated in the death of Mr. Tejani and the ransacking of his flat and that he immediately thereafter came with a certain amount of currency and hurriedly left to his native place would have to be regarded as incriminating circumstances against him in the light of the connection with the earlier incident.The Prosecution has examined Krishnabai More (P.W. 7), who is a maid servant working in the adjoining building by the name Sheth Minar on Peddar Road.This witness has deposed to the fact that Accused No. 3 collected his salary on the afternoon of that day from the person with whom he was working on the pretext that he had to leave for his native place urgently and further that Accused No. 2 had also accompanied him at that time.Again, the fact that Accused No. 3 wanted to collect his salary and go away to his native place or the fact that he was accompanied by Accused No. 2 may, in themselves, appear to be innocuous circumstances, but this Court will have to take note of two factors of some significance, the first of them being that Accused No. 3 was in a desperate hurry to collect his salary for which he waited for some time, that he was accompanied by Accused No. 2 and that he had also stated that he was leaving for his native place urgently without disclosing any special reason for this visit.The urgency and the hurry displayed by Accused No. 3 on that afternoon is a circumstance that would go heavily against him in the light of the fact that his presence at the scene of offence a short time earlier was established and it was, therefore, clear that Accused No. 3 in the company of Accused No. 2 had decided to leave the city immediately which is consistent more with his guilt than with his innocence having regard to his connection with the offence.The Prosecution has also examined Yeshwant Kamble (P.W. 8), who is a Security Supervisor of the Sheth Minar Building on Peddar Road.He has deposed about two facts, the first of them being the friendship between Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the fact that on the date of the incident at about 4-30 p.m. he had seen Accused Nos. 2 and 3 visiting the building and that he had also seen them leaving, one of them carrying a bag and the second one carrying some other item.It is true that this witness is a security supervisor of the adjoining building.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants have vigorously attacked the evidence of this witness and the earlier two in so far as they have pointed out that there is no doubt whatsoever of the fact that the Police have just picked these persons up and recorded vague statements with the sole object of trying to establish the presence of the Accused at or near the place of the incident.Learned Counsel have also contended that even the evidence taken at its face value would at the highest show that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were around the said Sheth Minar Building on that day and that they left in the afternoon, but this would not establish their presence at the Woodlands Building.It is necessary to bear in mind that in the light of the earlier evidence of Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) and the Security Supervisor Bali (P.W. 1) and the fact that the incident had just taken place in the Woodlands Building, the presence of these two Accused in the adjoining building and their hurried departure from that place are circumstances of some consequence and are circumstances that fully fit in with and establish the Prosecution theory.The cumulative effect of the evidence of these witnesses will, undisputedly, indicate that the Prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the presence of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 at and around the scene of offence on the date of the incident and the manner in which they have left therefrom.Before dealing with the strongest circumstance against the present Accused, namely, the recovery of a substantial amount of property, it is necessary for us to refer to the evidence relating to the finger prints.Bhimrao Shinde (P.W. 13), who is a Finger Print Expert, has been examined as also Dattatraya Kathe (P.W. 14), who is a Police Photographer.It is alleged that the Police discovered chance finger prints which were sent to the expert for comparison with the admitted finger prints of the four Accused.The defence Counsel have seriously challenged this finding before the Trial Court and a reading of the very detailed cross-examination will indicate that the challenge put forward was a very substantial one.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has supported his conclusion with detailed reasoning.It has been argued on behalf of the defence that there is nothing unusual or incriminating about the Accused wanting to go to their home town.One factor needs to be borne in mind, namely, that the four Accused leaving Bombay at the same time and not being able to put forward any special reason for their wanting to leave Bombay, where all of them were working, in such a hurry, and going to their native places is a circumstance that is more against the Accused than one that can be regarded as being in their favour.The Police have brought on record the most incriminating evidence in this case, namely, the fact that immediately on the night of 7-10-1984 itself the investigating authorities came to know the names and addresses of all the four assailants.The Police have immediately swung into action and significantly in more than one of the cases the Police reached the native place even before the concerned Accused got there.The Prosecution has examined the respective Police Constables and the Investigating Officers who had gone to these places, traced out the Accused and arrested them and brought them to Bombay.For the purposes of setting at rest this controversy, it would be both necessary and useful to refer to the evidence of Hemlata Manilal Tejani (P.W. 17), the sister-in-law of the deceased, and her son Amrish Manilal Tejani (P.W. 19), nephew of the deceased.These two witnesses are close relations of the deceased and it has come on record that they used to visit his flat and they were familiar with his possessions.

['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.

Ms. Nandy, learned advocate for the State submits, on instructions received from the said officer-in-charge, that the complaint, sent by post, was received on 4th April, 2016 and on the following day Joynagar Police Station FIR No.426 under sections 447/323/354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the said FIR) has been registered and that investigation is in progress.Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the fact of registration of the FIR was not communicated to the petitioner; had it been so communicated, the petitioner could have been spared the tribulations of approaching this Court.It appears from the FIR produced by Ms. Nandy that the said officer-in- charge did not obtain either the thumb impression or the signature of the complainant.Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the Officer-in-Charge, Joynagar Police Station (hereafter the said officer-in-charge) to register an FIR on the basis of her complaint dated 1st April, 2016, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.This is not only in derogation of the statutory rules but also amounts to disobedience of lawful orders of superiors viz. instruction issued by the Director General of Police to officers-in-charge of all police stations under his jurisdiction to ensure that the complainant is made aware of registration of an FIR immediately after the same is registered.I express hope and trust that the Director General of Police shall take appropriate steps in the matter.There shall be no order for costs.ice Office is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police for necessary action.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously., (Dipankar Datta, J.)

['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 42 20.11.2018 Sandip Court No.34 Allowed CRM 8565 of 2018 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 20.09.2018 in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No. 338 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Kalam Md. @ Kalam Hossain & Anr.Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmmed Begg ... For the Petitioners.Mr. Madhusudan Sur, APP, Mr. Dipankar Pramanik ... For the State.It appears that the second petitioner had an affair with the victim but upon the second petitioner apparently rejecting the victim, the victim committed suicide.The first petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner.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 the compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J,)

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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 P.D. Mulye, J.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated August 10, 1983, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 1075 of 1980, whereby the respondent has been discharged.In the alternative it is also prayed that if the impugned order is treated to be an acquittal, then the petitioner be granted leave under Section 378, Criminal Procedure Code, to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner, who is an Income-tax Officer, in the capacity of a public servant, after obtaining the necessary sanction, filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondent, who is an income-tax assessee, for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the respondent had submitted false returns by concealing certain income which was assessable to tax.Therefore, for income escaping assessment, action was taken against the respondent by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Thus, the respondent had submitted false returns with an intent to deceive and defraud the Income-tax Department and to secure a favourable order of assessment.The case was adjourned from time to time for recording evidence before charge but despite obtaining several opportunities, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of the complaint.On August 10, 1983, also, the complainant was absent.The respondent submitted an application under Section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code, along with a certified copy of the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Ex. D-1) to point out that the fact of concealment of income for the years complained of was held as disproved.The learned trial court, therefore, discharged the respondent on the ground that there is no evidence which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction of the accused.Hence, this petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the learned trial court had given several opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence before charge but no evidence was led.

['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The case of the prosecution is as follows:-PW1 is the son of one Mayavu, the deceased.The first accused is the son of deceased Mayavu's wife's sister.A2 is the co-brother of the deceased.Three months prior to the occurrence, PW1 conducted panchayat and performed the marriage between A1 and the person whom A1 loved by name Rani But that marriage was conducted without the consent of A2 and therefore, there was enmity between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased.On 2.6.1994 at about 8.30 pm, while PW1 and his father were sitting in front of their house, the first accused came with MO1 Bamboo stick and A2 with MO2 stick.On seeing them PW1, PW2 and the deceased tried to enter into their house in order to avoid the attack by the accused.But the accused prevented them from going into their house.Immediately, A1 hit the deceased with MO1 Bamboo stick on the head of the deceased, who immediately fell down.When PW1 tried to lift his father, A2 beat him with MO2 stick and also beat on the leg of the deceased; PW1's mother and wife had fled away from the scene of occurrence.Thereafter the accused ran away from the scene.Immediately PW1 went to the Thuvakkudi Police Station along with the deceased, and gave Ex.P1 report; The Police gave a memo around 9 pm on the same date; They remained in the Police Station till 5 am and thereafter, they went to the hospital.The injured was not conscious.On examination, PW9 did not find any external injury.He prepared Ex.P1 is the FIR.Immediately thereafter PW12 went to the place of occurrence at 9.30 pm and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and sketch Ex.JUDGMENT A.K. Rajan, J.1. Appeal against the conviction.The first accused has been charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the second accused has been charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 and 323 IPC.The trial Court after trial acquitted A1 of the offence under Section 302 and A2 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC but convicted A1 for the offence under Section 304 Part II and imposed a sentence of five years R.I and A2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.500/-P7 the Accident Register.Thereafter the case was altered into one for the offence under Section 302 IPC.He searched for the accused, but he could not find them.When the death was known on 5.6.1994, PW12 altered the FIR into one for the offence under Section 302 and sent Ex.P11 express report.After the receipt of Ex.P-11 Express report, PW13 Inspector attached to BHEL Police Station took up the investigation.He went to the hospital and conducted inquest and prepared inquest report, examined Pws1 to 4 and other witnesses.He sent the dead body through constable for autopsy.PW10, Doctor who conducted autopsy stated that he did not find any external injury but on opening the skull, he found injury on the head to an extent of 12 c.m., and there was a blood clot found between the skull and membrance.He also found fracture on the ribs.There was no other injury.PW10, Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury was necessarily fatal.When the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C, he denied the accusation.The trial Court acquitted the first accused under Section 302 IPC and the second accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC but convicted A1 for the offence under Section 304 part II and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and convicted A2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.500 against which the present appeal has been filed.9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the offence committed by the accused would fall under Section 324, because there was no intention of committing murder and also without knowledge that such injury would cause death of the deceased.Considering the fact that there was no serious motive for the offence and the only motive is that the deceased performed marriage between A2 and the girl whom he loved.Further the counsel for the appellants submitted that, had the injured been taken to the hospital immediately after the occurrence, he could have been saved from death.But in this case, the injured was kept in the police station till 5 am next day; Therefore there was a delay of 14 hours before the injured was taken to the hospital.But for the delay, the injured would not have died.This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, though appealing, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the Post Mortem Certificate, it is found that the injury on the head was to an extent of 12 cm and the skull was found fractured.From the evidence on record, it can be held that he did not have the intention to murder the deceased but since they were armed with dangerous weapons, namely bamboo stick and the fact that by using the sticks the deceased was hit on the head would go to show that there was an intention to cause such injury.When the accused caused the injury, the knowledge that it was likely to cause the death can be imputed against him.Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the first accused committed the offence under Section 304 part II.This conclusion of the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal and hence the conviction under Section 304 part II against the first accused is confirmed.The conviction of A2 under Section 323 IPC is confirmed.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the first accused was aged about 25 years and he was just married at that time.With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.Let record of the trial court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.269/2020, first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 30.12.2019 passed in Case No.SC.DOCT/300001/2015 by Special Judge, MPDVPK, Sheopur (M.P.) whereby the appellants have been convicted as under with default stipulation:-Hearing of appeal shall take some time.Even otherwise, appellants have strong case on merits also.Hence, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.345/2020 (RIZWANA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) the prayer made by counsel for the appellants and has prayed for dismissal of the application.Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the jail sentence of appellants have already been suspended for one month, application for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed jail sentence of appellants will remain under suspension on their furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance before Office of this Court on 23.10.2020 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2020.01.14 17:58:47 +05'30'

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts are briefly these.P. W. 6, the elder brother of Reddanna, got suspicious about the disappearance of Reddanna and he went and gave a complaint to the police on 14-4-1949 about his disappearance and his suspicions that he might have been murdered.The police began vigorous investigation.Owing to the great stink in Yedurlagunta valley people came to know that some corpse might have been buried there and P. W. 15 the Circle Inspector of Police went on 17th with P. W. 10, the Sub-Magistrate, and big men and dug up the spot and recovered the skin of the palm and sole of the foot of a decomposed corpse, and not the other portions.JUDGMENT Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.These are two appeals by Venkata Reddi and Vebulu, accused 3 and 4 in S. C. No. 42 of 1949 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddappah.They have been convicted under Sections 302 and 34, Penal-Code, and sentenced to transportation for life, and also under Section 201, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years to run concurrently with the sentences under Section 302, Penal Code.One Reddanna was living in Poanellavandlapalli in Rayachoti taluk in Guddappah district.Though he was married he was not on good terms with his wife for sometime before this murder and he was carrying on with a woman called Chinna Ammani of Ragatiguntapalli, an adjoining village.Accused 2 was also carrying on with the same Chinna Ammani Reddanna wanted to have this Chinna Ammani exclusively for himself, by marrying her, and accused 1 and 2 went and told him on 8-4-1949, that they would get him married to Ammani that midnight.So, taking some jewels of his and borrowing some jewels as a loan from a barber P. W. 1, Reddanna set out with accused 1 and accused 2 on the night of 8-4-1949 with intent to get the marriage performed that midnight.Accused 1 and 2 who are closely related, took the help of accused 3 and 4, two persons alleged to be hired assassins, and all the four are said to have murdered Reddana that night while sleeping and waiting for the girl Amman who was said to be on her way, by accused 2 pressing his throat with terrific force and the remaining accused holding his arms and legs, near Marrimani Bhavi in a jungle and buried his corpse there.Thereafter, fearing that the corpse might give out a stink which would be noticed by people in the neighbourhood frequenting that place, they are said to have removed the corpse to Yedurlakunta valley in the jungle and buried it in a pit there.There also they seemed to have feared later on that the body would be discovered by its stink and so removed it and put it in a gunny bag in order to transport it to a more unfrequented place.But small portions of the decomposed corpse, like the skin of the palm of the left band and the sole of the right foot, got left behind in the Yedulakunta valley.The rest of the corpse was put in a gunny bag and taken to Devarthi Bhavi, a disused well, a mile away, and shoved into it.The scar of a cut wound on the skin of the thumb corresponded to such a wound on the thumb of Reddenna.Accused 4 was arrested on suspicion on the night of 21-4-1949 and he offered to show the main corpse of Reddanna.He took the Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub-Magistrate and the big men to Devarathi Bhavi and pointed out the gunny bag containing the remaining portion of Reddanna's corpse.According to the medical evidence of P. W. 9, that corpse could be identified by the heir, teeth etc., by persons who knew the man and the witnesses who were related to Reddanna or knew him well identified the corpse, by the curly hair, coated teeth, jutting forehead bone and other signs and features and also a key of Beddanna (M. O. 1) found with the remains.In the present case, some persons had been suspected in the first instance of this murder and 8 persons were actually charge-sheeted of whom four were committed to the sessions and two finally acquitted.Accused 4 when taken be fore the District Magistrate for recording his statement in order to be tendered a pardon and taken on as an approver refused to make a statement and said that he knew nothing about the murder.It is obvious that the confessions of accused 3 and 4, which are the main pieces of evidence against them regarding the conviction under Section 302, Penal Code are of no value in the circumstances.Nor were these retracted confessions corroborated in any material particulars regarding the murder itself.He was the first to give information about the corpse of Reddanna thrown into the Davarathi Bhavi.

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

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

Record of the Court below in Special Case no. 79/2015 has been received.Heard on the point of admission.Perused the statement of the prosecutrix as well as witnesses.As per the prosecutrix she was below the age of 18 years.Applicant committed intercourse with the prosecutrix for more than one occasion for which she conceived.When the child grown up in the womb of the prosecutrix her abdomen got enlarged.When this fact was asked by other women she narrated the story.Considering the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses, this appeal is having arguable point, therefore it is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.18802/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.T h e appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.Counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was more than 18 years.This Court perused the statement of all witnesses.Different versions come in the statement of witnesses about the age of prosecution.Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 13/03/2019 10:50:24 2 CRA-8326-2018 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.The age of the prosecutrix is to be decided in this appeal.She has not narrated the incident to any one.When his abdomen got enlarged and when asked by other women about that then she narrated the whole story and the incident.Certified copy as per rules (VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vivek Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 13/03/2019 10:50:24

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are related to one crime, therefore both the applications are heard simultaneously and decided by common order.Applicant Vinod Kumar is in custody since 29.4.2014, whereas applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is in custody since 30.4.2015 in connection with Crime No.87/2015 registered at Police Station Laur, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 377, 376, 511 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Vinod Kumar is a youth of age group of 24 years of age and applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is an old person of 58 years of age.There is no criminal past alleged against them.Initially the prosecutrix had stated that the applicants inserted penis in her mouth, however the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother Kavita (PW-1) have been examined before the trial Court and the prosecutrix did not allege that any of the applicant has done as alleged by her in the past.On the contrary, she has stated that the applicants inserted finger in her mouth.No offence under Section 366, 377 or 376 of IPC is made out against the applicants.Similarly, no offence under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act is made out against the applicants.The remaining offences are not so grave.The applicants are in custody without any sufficient reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They set her on fire by using kerosene and matchstick.3] The facts, that are required to be stated for the purpose of this judgment, are as under.She was residing with her minor children at her father's house since prior to two years because she had lost her husband.On 7.2.2011 Nakusha was taken to hospital in injured condition.5] PW 7-Noor Mohammad stated that on 7.2.2011 from 8.00 p.m. he was on duty of Civil Hospital and that Dr. Pathak, the treating doctor, informed him at about 6.00 a.m. on the next morning that victim was admitted to hospital in burnt condition.He then intimated this fact to Shri Bhaskar Bhos, Special Judicial Magistrate by making a phone call at 7.00 a.m. Shri Bhos assured him that he would come to hospital by about 9.00 a.m. As a formality he even sent a letter in writing to Shri Bhos.He stated that Shri Bhos came to hospital but the treating doctor informed him in writing that the patient was unconscious.He stated that Shri Bhos informed him about it.Shri Bhos assured him that he would visit the patient in the evening.7] PW 10-Shri Bhos then stated that in the evening he received one more letter from the police.So he went to Civil Hospital.He went to burn ward where he met Smt. Dr. Sardesai.He stated that Smt.Sardesai made a remark that the patient was conscious.He stated that he then told to the relatives of the patient to go outside, disclosed his identity to the patient and purpsoe of the visit.He stated that he then recorded Nakusha's statement as per her say.He stated that he read over the statement to the patient and she approved the same.He further stated that Nakusha informed him that her husband was murdered and since then she was residing at victim's house.She further informed him that her sister, sister's husband, sister's mother-in-law and sister's father-in-law who were residing adjoining to her house were harassing and beating her.Nakusha then disclosed that it was her sister accused no.2 who ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 5 cra336.12 poured kerosene on her person and accused no.3 set her on fire with the help of matchstick.Nakusha also further stated that her sister's father-in-law was present there with a stone in his hand and was instigating the other accused.This witness also disclosed that Nakusha told him that at the time of incident, juvenile accused in conflict with law-Ram- had held her by her hair.th DATED : 12 January, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.V.Nirgude, J.] 1] This appeal challenges judgment and order, dated 21.4.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2011 convicting ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 2 cra336.12 accused nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause.The learned Judge also convicted all accused nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- with a default clause.The learned Judge made the sentences to run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::2] Accused nos. 1 to 3 are the appellants here.Accused no.1-Umaji is husband of accused no.2-Kavita.Accused no.3-Sindhubai is mother of accused no.2-Kavita.It was alleged that they on 7.2.2011 at 10.00 p.m. entered the victim's house and then assaulted her.At about 6.00 a.m. the treating doctor informed the Police Head Constable Noor Mohammad who was on duty in the hospital that the patient was admitted to hospital in injured condition.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::He stated that in the evening time on that day Shri Bhos recorded victim's statement and handed over the same in an envelope to him.6] PW 10-Shri Bhos stated that as per the request of the police he went to burn ward on 8.2.2011 for recording ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 4 cra336.12 statement of victim Nakusha.He stated that doctor examined the patient and opined that she was unconscious and was unable to make a statement.He stated that he also got the fact verified and sent a report about it.This report is on record and it shows that the treating doctor Shri Dr. Pathak certified that Nakusha was not in a condition to make statement and was unconscious.This report was made at 9.00 a.m. on that day.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::He even stated that Medical Officer also made a remark on the written statement about condition of the patient.The dying declaration is also on record and more or less supports what the Prosecution Witness No.10 stated.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::8] Soon after recording of dying declaration, offence was registered initially for offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and investigation was started.9] The police recorded statements of witnesses.The police also recorded scene of offence panchanama.On 13.2.2011 Nakusha died and therefore, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code replaced the earlier offence.The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and other formalities were completed.Charge sheet was sent against the accused as well as juvenile accused in conflict with law Ram.Entire case of the prosecution depended on the dying declaration.So we would closely look at the credibility of the dying declaration.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::witnesses were examined as Prosecution Witnesses.Vilas Kale is panch who witnesses scene of offence panchanama.Though this panch turned hostile, the investigating officer could prove the panchanama properly.This panchanama indicates that the scene of offence is a room having 10 ft.x 12 ft. measurement.There was an iron cot.In one corner of the room there was an iron showcase where TV was placed.In one corner police noticed a kerosene stove.The police also noticed one five litre plastic can placed in the middle of the room.The can was open and it contained kerosene.The floor of the room was earthen paved and bore burn marks at few places.A piece of saree in burnt condition was also found.It is pertinent to note here that there were no marks of struggle on the spot.Even the can containing kerosene was found in standing position.The scene of offence panchanama, in our view, does not corroborate the dying declaration which is narrated above.Had there been an attempt to catch the arms and then set the victim on fire, there would have been some struggle between the assailants and the victim and in struggle the things in the room would have been disturbed.The kerosene can could not have remained in tact in standing position.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::and 5-Kisan are neighbours and the relatives of the victim who stated that during that night on hearing commotion they went to the victim's house and found her in burnt condition.They even stated that they extinguished the fire.None amongst them stated as to who took Nakusha to hospital, but all of them stated that Nakusha was 'taken' to Mirajgaon Government Dispensary and thereafter she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.These witnesses did not disclose as to who took Nakusha to hospital and who got her admitted to hospital.It was the duty of the prosecution to bring on record evidence to indicate as to how Nakusha was taken to medical dispensary at Mirajgaon and from there how she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.In this regard the investigating officer PW 9-Dhonde also admitted that he did not receive any information of homicidal attack prior to receiving the dying declaration.12] The prosecution was also under obligation to bring evidence on record to prove as to who treated Nakusha at both these hospitals.When a patient is taken to hospital in such a condition the Medical Officers generally record history of the patient, they maintain the case papers, such case papers are written at the relevant time and become very important piece of evidence.It has come on record.As indicated above, that at about 2.00 a.m. or so Nakusha was ultimately admitted to Civil ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 8 cra336.12 Hospital.The prosecution did not examine the medical officer who got her admitted, prepared case papers and started medication to her.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::13] When a patient in serious condition was brought to Civil Hospital, it was certainly a Medico Legal Case and yet PW 7 Noor Mohammad who was present in the hospital during night did not learn about it.He learnt about it only at 6.00 a.m. It was, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to record deposition of the treating doctor who attended Nakusha at the inception.He could have been an important witness to explain as to whether any history of the patient was recorded; though this was a Medico Legal Case why the constable on duty was not immediately informed about it, etc. He could have also informed the Court as to what medication was administered to the patient.This was necessary because at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning the patient was still unconscious.This witness was necessary also to bring on record as to why no action was taken by police till the dying declaration was recorded rather belatedly at 7.35 p.m. This Witness's deposition was also relevant to bring on record as to what happened between 2.00 a.m. till 7.00 p.m. It has come on record in the deposition of PW 10-Bhos that before recording the dying declaration he was required to remove various relatives from the room.No one comes to Court to depose that he was one such relative who ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 ::: 9 cra336.12 attended the patient during that day.What is rather surprising in this case is the fact that till the offence was registered no one spoke of assault on Nakusha.It is for the first time the victim made a statement that she was subjected to a murderous attack.Had this been such a grave incident, from the time of incident at least some one who attended Nakusha soon after the incident would have reported its ghastly nature to the authorities.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::14] The circumstances prior to recording of dying declaration are brought on record through depositions of PW 12-Dr.Vijaya Sardesai and PW 10-Bhaskar Bhos who recorded it.Having regard to the circumstances narrated above, we would rather discard the dying declaration.There is one more reason why we are not giving importance to the dying declaration.Had there been any dispute between these two sisters, the victim would have stated the cause for such dispute.The cause for such dispute would have been equally serious in nature to prompt the assailants committing murder.No attempt is made to bring on record as to what was the cause for alleged dispute between these two sisters.It is an admitted fact that accused no.2 is married and is residing in the same village.The evidence also indicates that she was probably residing in neighbourhood.The father of the victim PW 6-Roopchand did not bring on record as ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 ::: 10 cra336.12 to whether there was any dispute between his two daughters.The deposition of this witness was relevant for that purpose at least.This witness did not support prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::15] We therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.We are, therefore, inclined to allow the appeal.16] In the result, we pass the following order.iii] The accused/appellant Nos. 1-Umaji s/o Sukhadeo Zambare, 2-Kavita @ Kaushalya w/o Umaji Zambare and 3-Sindhubai Sukhadeo Zambare are held not guilty of charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are acquitted of the said charge and they shall be released forthwith, if they are not wanted in any case.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::

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

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

On the complaint lodged by Nithya Pricila (defacto complainant), therespondent police registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2015 and aftercompleting the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.121 of 2016before the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, foroffences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 495 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Mohaideen Quadir Ali and fiveothers including Niranjani (A-6), for quashing which, Niranjani (A-6) isbefore this Court.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learnedcounsel appearing for the second respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if theentire complaint given by the defacto complainant, her 161 statement and thecharge sheet is read, there is no allegation against Niranjani (A-6) that shehad committed any of the offences enumerated in the charge sheet.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainantsubmitted that the trial had begun in this case on 04.04.2017 and the defactocomplainant has been examined as P.W.1 and, therefore, this Court should notinterfere.Under normal circumstances, when once the trial begins, this Courtwill be loath to interfere to stifle the prosecution.However, in this case,the allegation of the defacto complainant is that she got married toMohaideen Quadir Ali (A-1) on 15.09.2007 and that her husband was working as Liaison Officer in Annamalai University, where Niranjani (A-6) was alsoemployed.She has further alleged that her husband had developed illicitintimacy with the said Niranjani (A-6), pursuant to which, she was ill-treating her.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant took this Courtthrough 161 statement of the defacto complainant.On a perusal of the same,it is seen that except saying that her husband has been talking to Niranjaniover phone very frequently and that he was having illicit intimacy with her,there is absolutely no shred of evidence against Niranjani for havingperpetrated any act directly against the defacto complainant.The allegedaffair of A-1 with Niranjani (A-6) may be a ground for causing mental crueltyto the defacto complainant, for which, A-1 alone can be held responsible andnot Niranjani (A-6).Niranjani (A-6) does not fall within the meaning of theword "relatives" under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.As regardsthe contention against 495 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not the case ofthe defacto complainant that A-1 had married her.It is her only case that hehas been talking to her continuously over mobile phone and that she suspectsher husband's fidelity.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that theprosecution against Niranjani (A-6) is indeed an abuse of process of law andhas been predicated on surmises and suspicion of the defacto complainant.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theproceedings against Niranjani (A-6) in C.C.No.121 of 2016 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 04:58:04 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case in brief are that one Niyamat Ullaha Khan was running his business of Tobacco and Khaini under the trademark in the name and style of "Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini" and when he died in 1992 his sons started the said business adding some additional words in the said trademark.The respondent-plaintiffs started their business of Tobacco with the trademark in the name and style of "Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini" w.e.f. 1993, whereas the appellant-defendant started his business with the trademark in the name and style of "Chand Khajoor Chhap Anwar Dulha Khan" with emblem of Rais Dulha Khan, Bareilly depicting Central Excise Registration Certificate No. 8/R-1 BLY/93 on the wrappers.JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddarth Verma & Sri Pulak Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- defendant and Sri M.A.Qadeer & Mr. D.S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bareilly in Original Suit No. 6 of 2005 allowing interim injunction application of the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing, marketing and trading the Khaini and Tobacco with the name and style of "Bargad Fed Chhap Asali Nawab Dulha Khan".The respondents-plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 6 of 2005 seeking injunction on the ground that the appellant-defendant changed his trademark and caption and started his business with effect from February, 2005 in the name and style of "Bargad Ped Chhap Asli Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini" on the wrappers in which the words 'Bargad' and 'Asli' were written in very small letters and was in very much resemblance with the trademark of respondents-plaintiffs causing deception, misguiding the customers which resulted in damaging and affecting their business.In the plaint it has been stated that the trade mark "Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan" of the plaintiffs- respondents was registered at number 611689 (subsequently corrected as 611389) under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and the plaintiff No. 1- respondent Taj Mohammad Khan assigned the said trade mark and Copyright "Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan" to plaintiff No. 2-respondent Mohd. Imran Khan by means of assignment deed dated 15th December, 2003 and since then Mohd. Imran Khan plaintiff No. 2 has been running his business as a assignee of Taj Mohammad Khan (plaintiff No. 1 -respondent).It has also been stated that the plaintiffs have a large volume of sales of their product under the registered trade mark "Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan" which was carved, designed, coloured and written in a distinctive style on the wrappers for many years and their customers as well as the traders have identified and recognized the goods as such being the exclusive merchandise of the plaintiffs and none else.The plaintiffs are the creator and the author of the artistic work, design, style and colours of lettering of the said trade mark and are the legal owners, proprietors and user of the same and they have been continuous user thereof and have thus acquired exclusive right to use its registered trade mark under the Copyright Act in respect with their goods.In the plaint it has also been alleged that the appellant-defendant by using identical and or deceptively similar mark or artistic work as referred to above started his business from February, 2005 which is bound to cause confusion and deception in the mind of unwary class of customers amounting to falsification of plaintiffs' registered trade mark and to cause heavy financial losses to the plaintiffs-respondents to which the appellant-defendant was not entitled to under law.It has also been asserted that purchasers of Khaini and tobacco are mainly illiterate public who are being confused, misled and deceived by purchasing the inferior quality of Khaini and Tobacco manufactured by appellant-defendant knowingly and willingly and without consent of the plaintiffs-respondents and thus the appellant-defendant violated the plaintiffs copyrights in the artistic work, lettering and colouring etc in the registered trade mark and has committed offences punishable under Section 78 and 79 of the Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. 43 of 1985') and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under Sections 420, 485, 486, 487 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant-defendant did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs-respondents and did not refrain from manufacturing, marketing and trading their products of Khaini and Tobacco with falsified mark "Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan" which was causing irreparable loss and injury whereas on the other hand it did not affect the appellant-defendant at all in any manner.The plaintiffs-respondents alongwith plaint had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported with an affidavit seeking temporary injunction upon which an exparte interim order was granted.The appellant-defendant No. 1 in rebuttal to the said injunction application filed his objections/counter affidavit before the trial court.In para 1 it is stated that the alleged trademark 'Ped Chhap Dulha Khan' was not registered in the Trade Mark Office by the respondent-plaintiffs and the number mentioned as 611389 was only application number and not the registration number.It was also asserted that the appellant-defendant No. 1 had moved an application for registration before the trademark office for registration of his trademark in the name and style of 'Asli Nawab Dulha Khan Ped Chhap'.After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record the trial court passed an order restraining the appellant-defendant from using the trade mark 'Bargad Ped Chhap Asali Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini Tambakoo Choona Sahit' for the purpose of manufacturing marketing and trading the Khaini and Tobacco till the pendency of the suit.Thus, the suit itself was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1999').In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.No order as to costs.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) P.W.1 was living with his wife Pappathi @ Pargavi.P.W.2 is his brother-in-law.They were all residing in Door No.128/17, Vijaya Nilayam, Thomas Church Road, Udhagamandalam.He was carrying on a chicken stall near Kavitha Hotel in which the accused was employed.He was also having video player in his house which was rented out.P.W.8, who is the friend of the accused, came to the shop on 28.7.2004 for taking the CD player on rent.P.W.1 asked his servant namely the accused, to go to his house and bring the CD player.On the same day at about 11.30 A.M., P.W.5 Logammal saw the deceased Pappathi and was conversing with her.The deceased Pappathi at about 11.30 A.M. was conversing with another lady.At about 1.15 P.M. P.W.9 was actually in the godown with his two servants.He saw at about 12.45 P.M., the accused coming out of the house of the deceased.He heard the cry of the deceased.Immediately the servants and P.W.9 rushed to the house of P.W.1 and found the deceased in a pool of blood.(b) P.W.1 received a phone call between 12.45 and 1.00 P.M. Immediately, he proceeded to his residence, where he found the deceased in a pool of blood.Then, he informed to P.W.2, who also rushed over there.At that time, the accused was standing at the door step with the child of the deceased.P.W.1 along with the accused proceeded to Vijaya Hospital, Udhagamandalam, and on seeing the injuries on the body, the Doctor advised them to take her to the Government Hospital.Accordingly, they took the deceased to the Government Hospital.P.W.11, the Doctor, who was on duty at about 1.30 P.M., medically verified and also declared her dead.P7 is the accident register copy wherein all the injuries which were found on the body, were noted.(c) P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, at about 2.30 P.M., on receipt of the information from P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Government Hospital and found the dead body of Pargavi, and immediately he also made a request to P.W.11, the Doctor, to collect the hair found in the hands of the deceased.Accordingly, P.W.11, the Doctor, collected the same.(d) In the meanwhile P.W.1 went to B1 Police Station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P1, at about 3.00 P.M., on the strength of which P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.465 of 2004 under Sec.302 of IPC.The printed FIR Ex.P28, was despatched to the Court.(e) P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation.He called the finger print expert to the place of occurrence, and finger prints were actually collected.He also prepared Ex.P2, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P39, the rough sketch.The occurrence place and also the dead body were caused to be photographed through P.W.10, the Photographer.The photographs and the negatives are marked as Exs.P4 and P5 respectively.(f) P.W.14, the Scientific Officer, also made a visit and collected the hair from P.W.11, the Doctor.The admissible part is marked as Ex.Following the same, he produced M.O.3, bloodstained keys, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, in S.C.No.4 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 342, 376 read with 511, 302 and 201 of IPC.On trial, he was found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 of IPC.No separate sentence was given under Sec.201 of IPC, while he was acquitted of the other two charges.On 28.7.2004, the Investigating Officer recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared, Ex.P40, the inquest report.(g) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, attached to the Finger Print Bureau, was called, and he also took the finger prints from the available materials there and has taken them for the purpose of verification.(h) P.W.12, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Udhagamandalam, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pappathi and found 23 injuries.She has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.She gave her final opinion under Ex.P12 that the death was due to shock and profuse haemorrhage.(i) The Finger Print Expert after verification and also the analysis, has given his opinion in Ex.P22, the report, that the finger prints which were taken would be tallying with that of the accused.He came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.19 and one Jayaprakash.Thereafter, he took the Investigator and produced M.O.4, screw driver, M.O.5, gas regulator, M.O.6, bloodstained pant, M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, and also M.O.8, knife, which were all recovered under independent mahazars.Then, he was sent for judicial remand.All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis.P32 to P34 are the serologist's reports and Exs.P48 and P49 are the Chemical Analyst's reports.The Investigator, after completion of the investigation, filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and also relied upon 49 exhibits and 12 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined; but, only one document was marked as Ex.After hearing the arguments on either side, the trial Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the charge of murder and also screening the evidence and hence found them guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and awarded the punishment as referred to above while it made an order of acquittal in respect of other two charges.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered; that the Sub Inspector of Police who was examined as P.W.17, has also claimed so; that P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, has deposed that on hearing the information from the hospital, he proceeded to the hospital, and there he found the dead body in the mortuary and also made a request to the Doctor P.W.11, to collect the hair in the hands of the dead body, and only thereafter, the FIR has come into existence; that as regards Ex.P1, the report, inconsistent versions were given, and thus it would cast a reasonable doubt in the report, Ex.P1, coming into existence.5.Added further the learned Counsel that the prosecution has proceeded only on surmises; that it rested its case on the circumstantial evidence since it had no direct evidence to offer; that according to the prosecution, it was P.W.9 who saw the accused coming out of the house immediately; that P.W.9 would claim that he was also present when P.W.1 also came there; that if to be so, P.W.9 immediately would have informed to P.W.1 that the accused was present at the time of occurrence, but not done; that the same was informed only after eight days; that till the time, he was keeping mum; that it would be indicative of the fact that P.W.9 could not have seen the accused in the place of occurrence at all; that the prosecution was unable to explain under what necessity the accused was to attack the deceased with the two weapons namely screw driver and knife; that the prosecution would come forward to state that the deceased also died out of strangulation; that in the instant case, the hair which was collected immediately from the dead body, according to the Investigator, was sent to the Court after a period of one month, and a request was given after a period of five months; that all would go to show that the investigation was not in the proper direction; and that it is pertinent to point out that even after the occurrence, the accused was actually kept under the service of P.W.1 for long months i.e., for a period of few months.6.Added further the learned Counsel that in Ex.P1, the report, it was mentioned that death was caused by an unknown person; that even P.W.1 had not even the suspicion against him; that the prosecution much relied on the arrest, confession and recovery of M.Os.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; that the only witness examined by the prosecution was P.W.19; that P.W.19 was the Ward Councilor; that he has given evidence in some other case registered by the very same Police Station, and thus it would be quite clear that he was a stock witness; that the evidence which was projected through him should have been rejected by the Court; that under the circumstances, the prosecution had no evidence; that it is a fit case where the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused; that only on surmises and presumptions, the prosecution has tried to project its case, but could not do so; that apart from that, the lower Court has not appreciated the contentions put forth on the defence side, and hence, he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and considered the same.Following the inquest made by P.W.20, the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.12, the Doctor, and she has issued the postmortem certificate, Ex.The Doctor has opined under Ex.P12 that the deceased died out of shock and profuse haemorrhage.Thus, the prosecution was able to show that she died out of homicidal violence.This fact was never disputed by the appellant, and hence it has got to be recorded so.9.True it is, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but it has relied on the circumstantial evidence.The Court is not unmindful of the caution made by the settled principles of law and also by the decisions of the Apex Court that the Court must thoroughly be satisfied that the prosecution has placed necessary facts and circumstances and also proved the same pointing to the guilt of the accused without leaving any doubt in the mind of the Court and also pointing to the hypothesis except the accused no one could have committed the offence.In the instant case, even if this test is applied, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused.The Court has noticed all the following circumstances which are pointing to the guilt of the accused.On the date of occurrence, P.W.8 came to the shop for getting the CD player on rental basis.Immediately, P.W.1 sent the servant namely the accused, to his house to take the CD player.It is also an admitted fact that the accused went over to the house of the deceased namely the wife of P.W.1, during the relevant time.Even according to the prosecution, the accused was actually in the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence.That apart, from the evidence of all the witnesses, it would be quite clear that the accused was available in the house of the deceased at that time.According to P.W.1, when he went to the house, he found the accused standing on the door step of his house, and thus, the accused was actually present at the time and P.Ws.5 and 9 have seen the deceased lady at about 11.30 A.M. When P.W.1 went to the house at about 1.00 P.M., he found the dead body.Therefore, the occurrence should have taken place in the short interval, and at that time, the person who visited the house was the accused.P.W.9 has also deposed to the effect that the accused was coming out of the house.When P.W.1 went to the house, the accused was standing at the door step and holding his child; but, he did not tender any explanation how the occurrence has happened.Out of this, two are weapons of crime.One is the screw driver and the other is the knife.According to P.W.12, the Doctor, the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, are all on the front side, and they could have been caused by these two weapons.When this recovery has been made from the accused, pursuant to the confessional statement, he has also produced a pant and shirt marked as M.Os.6 and 7 respectively.All these material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition made by the Investigator through the concerned Court, along with the clothes of the deceased lady and of the accused.It is pertinent to point out that all these material objects which were clothes worn by the lady and also the clothes worn by the accused, apart from the weapons of crime contained the same blood group, and thus, the prosecution was able to prove the nexus between the crime and the accused not only by the recovery of the weapons of crime pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused, but also by the scientific evidence which was pointing to the guilt of the accused.Further, it can be well stated that except the accused, no one was found in the place of occurrence at or about the time, and the presence of the accused is an admitted fact.12.Now, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the report, Ex.P1, and the FIR have not come into existence as put forth by the prosecution cannot be accepted for the simple reason that on hearing the information about the same, an intimation was given to the Inspector of Police who rushed over to the hospital.But, at the same time, P.W.1 on ascertaining the fact that his wife is actually dead, proceeded to the Police Station and gave the complaint, Ex.P1, pursuant to which the case came to be registered by P.W.17 under Sec.302 of IPC.Only thereafter, at the time of investigation, it was revealed that it was the accused who was involved in the case.That apart, mere delay in sending the hair, which was collected from the hands of the deceased, to the Court or the requisition for examining the same by itself cannot be a reason to doubt the prosecution case.It is pertinent to point out that when the hair was actually put to scientific analysis, it was found to be inconclusive, and hence the prosecution did not make out a point out of the same.15.Above all, at the time of the investigation, the finger print expert was called, and finger prints were actually taken from the materials available.They were also compared with the finger prints of the accused and were found to be tallying.Thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.But at the same time, it was within his knowledge, and he has suppressed the entire information.1.The Sessions Judge Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam2.The Inspector of Police B1, Police Station Udhagamandalam3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

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

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

On 28-4-1985 at about 12 Noon, while she was waiting at the bus stop of Janki Devi College for going to her house at Sardar Patel Marg, Dhaula Kuan Delhi the accused Ram Bahadur, as per the prosecution evidence, approached her and told her that the maternal uncle of Laxmi is unwell.Laxmi agreed to accompany him to inquire about the health of her uncle.The accused then took her in a three wheeler Scooter to the Railway Station and made her sit in a train scheduled for going to Moradabad.On that very evening they reached Moradabad.On enquiry as to where is her maternal uncle, the accused is alleged to have threatened her to keep quite.It is the further case of the prosecution that on the morning of 30th April, 1985 Laxmi was taken to a bathroom at the Railway Station.The accused also followed her.In the bathroom, the accused asked Laxmi to undress herself.She felt nervous and raised alarm.She came running out of the bathroom.After covering some distance she met Vijay Raj, Mumtaz, Narain Singh and Jagdish, who were working as labourers at the Railway Station.Statement of Mumtaz was recorded and case registered.As the accused and Laxmi had come from Delhi and the offence of kidnapping had taken place there, the case was transferred to Delhi, for further investigation.On 3.5.1985, Laxmi was brought to Chankaya Puri Police Station where her statement Ex. PW-3/A was recorded.The case was then referred to Police station RajinderNagar.There also her statement Ex. PW-2/DA was recorded.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.These persons apprehended and secured the accused who was chasing Laxmi.Both of them were produced before the Moharrar at Police Station Moradabad.She was not sent for medical examination.He refused to join the same.On the basis of the facts disclosed in the report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., a prima facie case under Sections 363, 366, 354, and 506 I.P.C. was found to have been made out.The charges were accordingly framed.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.(3) The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses out of which the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother are important.The evidence of the remaining witnesses is of formal nature.(4) In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied his involvement of kidnapping, intimidating or outraging the modesty of Laxmi.He even denied his arrest at the Railway Station Moradabad.He, however, did not produce any evidence in defense.(5) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge on consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to bring any material to justify the conviction of the accused under Sections 366, 354 or 506 Indian Penal Code .He, however, held him guilty of the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code .and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 .In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(INDORE):Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned counsel for the State.Heard on admission.Also heard on IA No.8542/18, which is an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Ghanshyam.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Jhabua in Special Sessions Trial No.09/2017 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under sections 363/34, 366/34, 354-A of the IPC and u/s 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectivelywith further default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn Court's attention towards the contradictions in the evidence of -2- Parvatibai which have been reflected in paras-21 & 22 of the impugned judgment.The contradictions are mainly in respect of the fact that Parvatibai states in para-9 that on the date of the incident she remained in the house through out the day and in para-10 she states that the accused left her behind Seelkhodari and were apprehended from village Para whereas as per prosecution case she was rescued from the clutches of accused from the motorcycle in which she was being taken.Heard learned counsel for the State as well.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and the jail sentence passed against the appellant shall remain suspended and the appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to his depositing the fine amount (if already not deposited) and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26.03.2019 and on such further dates as may be fixed -3- in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.C.c as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2019.01.31 18:05:01 +05'30' hk/

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::The prosecution case in short compass is that on 08-05- 2019, complainant - Adikabai Angad Ughade, resident of Kasari, Taluka Dharur, District Beed approached to the Police of Dindrud Police Station, District Beed, and ventilated the grievance that she is residing along with sons, daughter-in-law and eking livelihood by doing labour work.It has been alleged that in the previous year the complainant had obtained advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from Bhagwat Pandurang Bade.The person Pappu Bade had taken the guarantee of repayment of amount.Accordingly, she refunded the entire amount.The complainant further grumbled that on 08-05- 2019, at about 7.00 a.m. when the complainant and her sons were present in the house, the appellant came and hurled abuses to the complainant and her son.He was saying that why they did not settle the previous dispute.The appellant assaulted the complainant with the help of wooden log and caused bleeding injury to her.Thereafter one Sushila, Ramprabhu Bhagwat, Satwashila and daughter in law of Pandurang Bade came there and assaulted the complainant.They threatened to kill her.They all hurled casteist abuses to the complainant with intention to insult and humiliate them on her caste within a public view.1. Heard.The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.This appeal is directed against the impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the appellant in Crime No. 87 of 2019 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Dindrud District Beed, under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 ::: 2 921-CriAl-927-19 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as "Act of 1989", for the sake of brevity).Therefore, she filed the report.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::3 921-CriAl-927-19Pursuant to FIR, the Police of Dindurd Police Station registered the Crime bearing No. 87 of 2019 and set the penal law in motion.The appellant, apprehending his arrest, filed Misc.Criminal Application bearing No. 199 of 2019 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that there are allegations sufficient to make out the offence under the Act of 1989 and in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellant is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail in this case.The impugned order of rejection of application for anticipatory bail of the appellant is the subject-matter of present appeal.The learned counsel for appellant vehemently submits that the appellant is innocent of the charges pitted against him.He has not committed any crime, but he has been falsely implicated in this case to wreak vengeance on account of earlier dispute.According to learned counsel, on the report of one Anita W/o Ramprabhu an offence bearing Crime No. 88 of 2019 is registered against present complainant, her husband and three sons in said Police Station.However, with an intention to give counter blow to the said crime, the present FIR came to be lodged by the present complainant.Therefore, statutory bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to preclude the appellant for::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 ::: 4 921-CriAl-927-19 availing benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in this case.Therefore, there is no any impediment to entertain the application for relief of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of appellant.The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any recovery nor custodial interrogation of the appellant is required for the sake of investigation.Therefore, impugned order rejecting application for bail by learned trial Court be set aside and appeal be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::6. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 raised, the objection and submitted that the Section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercise of discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.. The first informant and his family members are from SC/ST community.It has also been observed that the application for anticipatory bail could be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertained only on the basis of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not embarking upon an roving enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the FIR.Paragraphs No. 13 and 15 of aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him.Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law."In the present appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of sections 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellant which reads as under:Punishments for ofennes of atronities :-(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Snheduled Caste or a Snheduled Tribe :-[(va) nommits any ofenne spenifed in the Snhedule, against a person or property, knowing that sunh person is a member of a Snheduled Caste or a Snheduled Tribe or sunh property belongs to sunh member, shall be punishable with sunh punishment as spenifed under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for sunh ofennes and shall also be liable to fne.]After perusal of FIR lodged against the present appellant, prima facie, it reveals that the ingredients of aforesaid penal provisions do not match with factual score of the present case.It means that there must be prima facie affirmation or say in the FIR/ complaint that the accused is not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.In the present complaint, absolutely there is no averment to the effect that appellant-applicant is belonging to higher caste or atleast that he is not a member of Scheduled Caste.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::In the matter-in-hand, averments in regard to appellant that he is not the member of SC or ST community or he is belonging from higher caste, is totally absent in the alleged FIR.Moreover, there are no allegations attributed to the appellant that he had an participation in the act to hurl casteist abuses to the complainant.It would also fallacious to draw inference that the appellant had an knowledge about the caste of complainant.There was no any whisper about all these factual aspects in the FIR.Therefore, statutory bar under::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 ::: 8 921-CriAl-927-19 Section 18 of the Act, 1989, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::Taking into consideration all the circumstances discussed above, there is no impediment to conclude that in spite of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, for invocation of powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the recitals of FIR of the case itself, as to whether prima facie case is made out by the first informant against present appellants.As referred supra, the scrutiny of factual score reveals that there are no sufficient material available on record prima facie to arrive at the conclusion that the allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution constitute offence under the Act of 1989 against appellant.Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for relief of pre-arrest bail on behalf of appellant.According to prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred at the house of complainant.It has not alleged that the appellant-accused after assault taken away the weapon-wooden log with him.Therefore, no question arises about recovery of weapon at the behest of appellant-accused.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::9 921-CriAl-927-19 However, the appellant has shown inclination to co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.In such circumstances, it would justifiable to allow the bail application filed before learned trial Court on behalf of the appellant.In sequel, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 10-07-2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, in Misc.Criminal Application No. 199 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.The application of the appellant filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for his pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Court is hereby granted.The present appellant be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 87 of 2019 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Dindrud, District Beed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellant-applicant shall not indulged, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witness.The appellant- applicant shall attend the Dindrud Police Station, Dindrud, District Beed, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::10 921-CriAl-927-19Fees of the learned Advocate Mr. Somani appointed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is quantified at Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), which would be payable by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was giving tuition to the prosecutrix Geeta Kumari and her sister at their residence.It is stated that on 30th April, 1989 at about 7 PM the appellant came to their house and in the presence of the family members told Geeta Kumari P.W.1 that he won't be giving tuition on that day and went away.Immediately, thereafter, it is stated that PW-1 left the house telling the members of the family that she was going to grand-father's house to watch television.It is further stated that on the way she met by the appellant and he on the pretext of taking her to a movie took her in his motor cycle towards Muzaffarpur.From Muzaffarpur, he took her in a train to Jasidih from where he took her to Devghar.The prosecution further states that there he forced PW-1 to marry him and made her sign certain papers.JUDGMENT Santosh Hegde, J.The appellant herein was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 182/89 for offences punishable under Section 366A and 376 of the IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on each of those counts but the sentences were directed to run concurrently.On appeal, the High court of Patna has confirmed the said sentence.On 10.5.89, PW-1 was recovered from the house of the appellant by the police.After investigation, a case was registered against the appellant and he was charged as stated above and having been found guilty by the two courts below the appellant has filed this appeal.The factum of the recovery of PW-1 from the house of the appellant is not in dispute.While it is the case of prosecution that it is the appellant who either by inducement or threat took away PW-1 from her house, the defence case is that PW-1 had eloped with somebody and her love affair having failed with the person with whom she eloped and she being scared to get back to the house had come to the house of the appellant who the had informed PW-6, the father of the girl about PW-1 coming to his house.The defence further states that after being annoyed and having found none else to blame her father has foisted a false case against the appellant.As noticed above, one of the charges of which the appellant has been found guilty is under Section 366A which refers to procreations of a minor girl.To establish this charge, the prosecution has to prove that PW-1 was a minor on the date when she was taken away from her house.In regard to this fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-1 the girl herself, PW-6, her father and PW-10 the Doctor who examined her.So far as PW-1's evidence is concerned it is prima facie not acceptable when she says that she was only 14 years on the date when she was taken way from her father's house.This evidence runs counter to all other material on record to which we shall refer presently.4. PW-6 the father of the girl in his evidence has stated that he was married in the year 1952 and he had two daughters.If that be the year of birth of PW-1 then the incidence in question being in the year 1989, PW1 ought to be 19 years on that day.This witness further says that PW1 had appeared for her Board examination in the year 1988 and had failed.This also gives an indication that it is likely that the age of PW-1 on the date of incidence was around 19 years.5. PW-10 the doctor in his evidence has stated that PW1's X-ray photograph showed partial epiphyte seal fusion of iliac crest.In her opinion, PW1 appeared to be 17 years old which opinion of the Dr. is from the very language used by her shows it to be approximate.The physique of PW-1 as explained by PW-10 also indicates the probability of PW-1 being above the age of 18 years.In this background if we examine the evidence of PWs.6 and 10 it is clear that evidence of PW-1 is wholly unreliable when she states that she was only about 14 years old.Even though PW-10 Dr. stated that PW-1 appeared to be 17 years old cannot be held that this evidence is conclusive enough to come to the conclusion that PW-1 was really below 18 years on the date of incidence, in view of positive statements made by PW-6 the father.We have already referred to the evidence of the father, according to whose evidence PW-1 was 19 years of age when she left the house of the father.In such situation, we think it not safe to come the conclusion that PW-1 was less than 18 years of age on the date when she left the house of her father.While discussing this part of the prosecution case, the Trial court in its judgment has not considered the evidence of PW-6 the father at all.It merely relied upon evidence of PW-10 accepting the same on its face value, without discussing the other material that was available on record.Even the High Court in this regard in its judgment merely stated "Dr. who examined the prosecutrix found her age to be 17 years....." the High Court has not independently given any finding either accepting this evidence or not.In this background for the reasons already stated hereinabove we think that the prosecution has failed to establish that PW-1 was less than 18 years of age as on the date of incidence.If that be so, charge under 366A of which the appellant was found guilty by both the courts below shall fail.The leaned counsel for the State, however, contended that if the charge under Section 366A should fail then, the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 366 for kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her to marry.He has referred to the evidence of PW-1 in this regard and contends that even though there is no specific charge under Section 366 still on the material available on record a conviction under Section 366 could be based and no prejudice would be caused to the appellant.But then, we will have to notice that even to establish the charge under Section 366 IPC, there should be acceptable evidence to show that either PW-1 was compelled to marry the appellant against her will and/or was forced to or induced to intercourse against her will.This would therefore, require the prosecution to prove that there was some such undue force on the PW-1 either to marry the appellant or to have intercourse with him.Therefore, both for the purpose of 366 and for the purpose of Section 376 IPC, there should be material to establish that either the alleged marriage or the intercourse has taken place without the consent of PW-1 if she is above the age of 18 years or 16 years as the case may be.In this regard, if we examine the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that on the date of incidence when the appellant came to her house and told her that he will not be taking tuition class as on that day, she decided to go to her grand father's house to watch TV.She says on the way she was met by the appellant who took her on his motorcycle promising her of taking her to a movie at Sitamarhi.She found on the way that he was not going to Sitamarhi but was going to Muzaffarpur Railway Station.According to her, she protested but she was threatened.She alleges that the appellant forced her to sign some papers to marry him.In our opinion, it is extremely difficult to accept her evidence when she states that she was taken by the appellant without her consent.if we see sequence of events starting from 30th April 1989 to 10 of May 1989 it is clear that she has accompanied the appellant willingly.The evidence of PW-1 indicates that there was a prior planning by her with the appellant together to elope, and it is because of that, the appellant came to PW's house on 30.04.1989 and told her that he will not be taking tuition on that day and immediately thereafter PW-1 left her house on the pretext of going to her grand father's house to see Television.It is not her case that when she was accosted by the appellant on his motorcycle, she went with him under a threat.On the contrary, the evidence shows that she willingly went with him on his motorcycle to see a movie at Sitamarhi.She says she was threatened only when she protested as against she being taken to Muzaffarpur.On the contrary, we notice she was with him from 30th of April to 10th of May, during which period she had travelled by train, temp and stayed with the appellant without there being any evidence of her having protested or having made any effort to seek help from others or even trying to run away.Apart from that from the record, it is seen that PW-6 in the FIR had stated that "I got information from my wife in the house that Geeta went away by taking clothes and a gold chain and she took Rs. 500/- in cash in total amounting to Rs. 8500/-.This evidence though subsequently resiled by PW-6 indicates that PW-1 had planned her departure from the house in advance and had willingly gone away with the appellant which also indicates that there was no threat or inducement either in regard to her leaving the house or in regard to accompanying the appellant.In such situation in the absence of any other material to show to the contrary it will be difficult to accept the prosecution case that either there was a forcible marriage or rape as contended by the prosecution to find the appellant guilty under Section 366 or 376 IPC.Since the courts below proceeded on the basis that PW-1 was a girl below the age of 18 on the date she left the house they have not properly appreciated the evidence in regard to her consent which is a mandatory requirement before finding a person guilty under Section 366 or 376 IPC.There is no doubt that the appellant who was a tuition teacher of PW-1 has misused the trust reposed in him by the PW-1's family but then since the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that PW-1 was below the age of 18 and the evidence on record indicates that PW-1 had willingly gone away with the appellant and in the absence of any threat, coercion or inducement, having been established by the prosecution we think it not possible to rely on the prosecution case to come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him under Section 366A and 376 IPC or even 366 as contended by the learned counsel for the State.For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds.

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

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

Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J:He has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine, he will undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.It is not disputed that Sansarwati was the wife of the appellant and they have five children.They were married for thirteen years.In the present case, there is no eye witness and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence of dying declaration, seizures made from the spot of the occurrence, i.e., house of the appellant and Sansarwati at D-17/42, Shahabad Dairy, Delhi, motive and conduct of the appellant.5. PW-2 has stated that Sansarwati, his sister used to complain that the appellant gave her beatings and did not pay for household expenses.His sister's brother-in-law, Sunil and his wife Sunita used to reside in the same locality, i.e., after two-three houses and they used to give beatings to her occasionally.On 29th September, 2004 at about 2.30 p.m., PW-2 was taking lunch at his residence when he was informed by one lady, who was a relative and resided in the same neighbourhood, that his sister was burnt.He rushed to the house of his sister and found her on the ground floor of the house in a burnt condition.Another person Prem Sagar (sic.Prem Kumar) PW-5 had made a telephone call to the police and PCR officials arrived at the spot/residence.Sansarwati was put in the gypsy, and thereafter in the ambulance at G.T. Karnal Road bye pass, and was taken to JPN Hospital.The deceased was conscious, when PW-2 had reached the residence and remained conscious till she was taken and admitted in JPN Hospital.Sansarwati told him that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire with a match stick.He reached the residence of his sister within two-three minutes and it must be between 2.30 to 3 PM.G.T. Karnal Road was at a distance of five kilometres.His statement was recorded on 28th September, 2004 before the death of his sister.His sister expired on 1st October, 2004 at 5.30AM.PW-2 is the brother of the deceased.He was residing very near to the house/residence of the deceased.PW-2, when cross-examined had stated that his house was 2-3 houses away from the residence of his sister, i.e., deceased.His presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence is also proved from the testimonies of the PCR police officers PW6 SI Pradeep Rana and PW20 Head Constable Omender Kumar.The said bottle is clearly visible in the photographs, which were taken by PW-7, Manish, resident of B-688, Shahabad Dairy, Delhi, who was carrying on business in the name of Sonu Photo Studio.He had taken photographs at 8 p.m. The bottle of kerosene oil was seized from the first floor.He had seen the smoke at a distance of about twenty meters.We may note here that the appellant and PW-2 were working in a gas agency and were responsible for supplying gas to customers.She had stated that first at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. she had heard cries "aag lag gayi aag lag gayi" coming from the house of Murari Lal and Sansarwati had received burnt injuries.All five children were crying.Somebody called the police.After some time, accused Murari Lal along with his brother Hari Prasad came there.A. No. 541/2012 Page 12 of 19 date of occurrence at 10 A.M. and she had also come to see him off as he had left for his village.He accepted that the appellant had purchased a plot in the name of his daughter and had rented a shop to a doctor.The prosecution, in support of their case, had examined twenty witnesses.On the question of dying declaration, statement of PW-2, Soudan Singh, brother of the deceased, PW-13, Dr. Ritu Saxena, who CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 1 of 19 had recorded the Medico Legal Report (MLC), and SI Praveen Kumar, PW-18 are relevant.We may notice that the trial court has disregarded the dying declaration recorded by PW-18, SI Praveen Kumar, and Exhibit PW-18/A. This aspect has been examined in the paragraphs below.A. No. 541/2012 Page 1 of 19The police officials had also recorded her statement in JPN Hospital.On being cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he corrected himself and stated that the date of occurrence was 27 th September, 2004 and not 29th September, 2004, which was stated by him by mistake.When cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant, PW-2 had stated that his bhabi had come and informed him that his sister was CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 2 of 19 burnt.He had met his sister on 30th September, 2004 and at that time his sister was unconscious.His sister had given her statement to the police and then told him about the incident.Statement was given to the police on the spot in the presence of the other persons, but his sister had not put any thumb or foot impression on the statement.His sister was married before him and when she was married PW-2 was residing in Bullandshair.A. No. 541/2012 Page 2 of 19He was with Sansarwati when she was admitted in the hospital.PW-13, Dr. Ritu Saxena, CMO, Casualty, LNJP Hospital had admitted and recorded the MLC.The MLC Exhibit PW-13/A records that Soudan Singh, brother of the deceased Sansarwati, had brought her to the hospital in a CATS ambulance.The MLC further records that the patient was conscious and her pulse was 80 per minute, though she had burns all over the body to the extent of 98%.The MLC Ex. PW13/A also records that CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 3 of 19 the patient had given alleged history of burns due to pouring of kerosene oil by her husband at her house, in Shahbad Dairy at 2.50PM.It was recorded that this was stated by the patient herself, i.e., Sansarwati, the deceased.A. No. 541/2012 Page 3 of 19There was no reason and cause for the deceased to falsely and wrongly state that the appellant was guilty and responsible for the burns and that he had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, a grave and serious charge against her husband, who was married to her for thirteen years.There was no reason for PW-13 to wrongly record the said statement immediately on the admission of the deceased in the hospital in the MLC Exhibit PW-13/A. It is also clear from the MLC that the deceased despite severe burns the deceased was conscious and oriented.As noted before, her pulse was 80 per minute.There is evidence and material to suggest and show that the relationship between the appellant and the brothers of the deceased were not cordial but this does not mean that PW2 would have falsely implicated the appellant and would have wrongly attributed her injuries/death to the appellant.The statement made by the deceased to the PW2, as already recorded and noted above, was again reiterated to PW13, a doctor.It was also recorded in the MLC.A. No. 541/2012 Page 4 of 199. PW-13, Dr. Ritu Saxena in her cross-examination had stated that when she examined the patient, i.e., the deceased, she was conscious.The deceased was admitted there and till he left, she was speaking.PW-2 was extensively cross-examined by the accused on 11th April, 2005 but he withstood the said cross-examination and remained steadfast on his statement implicating the appellant.He had also stated that he had not seen the appellant accused at the spot as he was busy looking after the deceased sister.In the cross-examination, on the said date, he wanted to substantially change his statement and had stated that his deceased sister was crying "jala diya jala diya" but had not named any person, who had burnt her.He stated that the deceased had not made any statement to the police in his presence.However, when re-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he accepted that the statement made on 11th April, 2005 was his correct statement and the deceased sister had told him that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.He reiterated that the police officers also reached the hospital and had recorded the statement of his sister.His statement dated 11th April, 2005 was correct.11. PW-18, SI Praveen Kumar, who was also the Investigating Officer, had recorded the statement of the deceased Sansarwati, which is Exhibit PW-18/A. The same forms a part of the rukka resulting in registration of the FIR.Initially, Section 307 IPC was invoked, which CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 5 of 19 was converted on the death of Sansarwati into Section 302 IPC.The said endorsement was proved by the prosecution through PW-17, Dr. Arun Goel.He had stated that Dr. Ajay Sagar had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known.He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ajay Sagar and had stated that the endorsement at point B on Exhibit PW-13/A was in his handwriting and duly signed by him.PW-17 was, however, not present in the ward at 6.10 p.m. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the patient had not cried or resisted when she had received 98% burn injuries.It would have been certainly better and wiser if PW-18 had ensured that the dying declaration was recorded by a doctor or Magistrate.This would have assured greater credibility and taken care of any question or contention.It is an additional factor and ground to hold that the two dying declarations should be accepted as true and trustworthy.The dying declarations are identical and implicate the appellant as the person, who had poured kerosene oil and then ignited the fire burning Sansarwati, the deceased, his wife.This aspect has been elucidated from paragraph 17 onwards.A. No. 541/2012 Page 5 of 19It was a plastic bottle, which still had some oil in it.Burnt cloth and match stick was also seized vide memo Exhibit PW-14/A. This is proved from the testimony of PW-14, ASI, Shiv Narain and PW-18, SI Praveen Kumar.The presence of kerosene in the bottle is established by PW-15, Ms. Veena Amba Pd., Junior Scientific Officer, CFSL Laboratory, Hyderabad.The plastic bottle, as per the CFSL report, (Exhibit PW-15/A) had blue coloured liquid which was kerosene.However, kerosene could not be detected in the match box or the burnt clothes.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per Exhibit PW-19/C, the first report recorded by Police Control Room was that "a wife had caught fire because of gas cylinder".The said information was possibly given by PW-5, Prem Kumar.PW-5 had stated that he saw smoke from the house in question between 2-3 p.m. Public persons were saying that the house of the appellant had caught fire.He came to his house and informed the PCR from his mobile.Naturally and normally, it can be expected that they would be using gas cylinder at home, which is a convenient method of cooking, rather than using kerosene oil stove for the purpose of cooking.PW-14 and PW-18 were not cross- examined and it was not put to them that any kerosene gas stove was available or found in the house.No question was put to them regarding whether the kitchen was damaged or was there anything which indicated that the deceased had got burnt accidently while cooking in the kitchen.A. No. 541/2012 Page 7 of 19Referring to the statement of PW-5, it was submitted that five children of the accused appellant were present in the house but they were not questioned.PW-5 in his cross-examination had stated that children of the accused later came down from the house and were questioned by the firemen.Police did not interrogate the children of the accused appellant.There is no evidence or material to show that firemen had come to the house.PW-2 in his cross-examination had stated that the accused and his sister had five children.The eldest daughter was physically challenged and aged about fourteen years.The second eldest was a boy aged about eight years.The three children used to go to school and two children used to remain in the house.Obviously the said two children were small.The eldest daughter Pavitra had appeared as DW-1 and in her statement, recorded on 29th May, 2006, she had stated that her mother was perhaps pouring CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 8 of 19 kerosene in the stove or trying to ignite the stove when she caught fire and started crying.She was sitting in her room and her mother completely got burnt when the police came to their house.Her father Murari Lal was not in the house and telephone call was made by one Lalti Devi informing the police.In the cross-examination, DW-1 had stated that she does not know how to read and write and was an illiterate.She denied the suggestion that her father had poured kerosene oil on her mother and set her on fire and killed her.DW-1 is the daughter of the deceased and the appellant.PW-2 had stated that the children were residing with the grandmother in the village.Her belated statement appearing as defence witness on 29th May, 2006 has to be carefully scrutinized before it is accepted.She was about 13/14 years old at the time of her statement.We have already commented upon the existence and the use of kerosene stove in the house for cooking, by the deceased.Surprisingly, PW-2 was never cross- examined on the said lines and on the basis of statement made by DW-A. No. 541/2012 Page 8 of 19Having lost their mother, DW-1's desire and wish to help and protect their father, the appellant herein, is understandable.Both of them were not cross-examined and questioned as to why and for what reason statements of DW-1 or other children, of the appellant and the deceased, were not recorded.DW-1, Pavitra had stated that she was illiterate and did not know how to read and write because she had not been to any school.This statement was made to justify her presence at home.However, she had signed her statement in Hindi and also written the date.She had also given a wrong time of occurrence.She had stated that the occurrence had taken place at 12 noon/1 P.M. whereas the occurrence had actually taken place around 2.30 to 2.45 P.M. PW- 2 had clearly stated that the three elder children use to go to school.A. No. 541/2012 Page 9 of 19It may be also interesting to note that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 8th December, 2005 had stated that he was not present at the spot and his daughter had told him that this was a mishap or may be a suicide.The daughter, DW-1 did not state or claim that it was a case of suicide.Relying upon the statements of DW-2 Lalti Devi, DW-3, Mohd. Yakub, DW-4, Hari Prasad and DW-5, Girish Kumar it was submitted that the appellant was not responsible for the said occurrence and had not thrown kerosene oil or ignited the fire.In fact, he was not present in the house at the time of the occurrence.PW-2 had also not seen the appellant.It is correct that PW-2 had not seen the appellant but the appellant's presence is indicated and mentioned in the dying declarations of the deceased Sansarwati.In the cross- examination, she admitted that she had not told the said story or her version to any authority, either police or the court.She was aware that the appellant had been apprehended on the same day on the charge of murdering his wife and she had come to know about the same on the very day.She was not able to give any reason as to why she did not tell to any person and authority, prior to her making the statement in the court that the appellant was not at home and had not been named by the deceased.A. No. 541/2012 Page 10 of 19DW-3, Mohd, Yakub is a beldar, who claimed that he was working with the appellant for the same gas agency.He had stated that (DW-2) Lalti Devi had called him on his mobile and informed the appellant about the said incident, when the appellant was sitting at a tea shop across the road.When cross-examined, DW-3 stated that he had informed the police about his version when police had come to the spot after three days but he could not tell the name or rank of the policeman.Thereafter, he never told the story to any court or police or wrote to any senior officer.More importantly, DW-3 could not explain how (DW-2) Lalti Devi could imagine or know that the appellant and he were together at the date and time of the occurrence.DW-4, Hari Prasad is the brother of the deceased Sansarwati.He had stated that at 2/2-30 P.M. a phone call was received by DW-4 from a lady that there was a fire in the house of the appellant and his wife had received burn injuries.After hearing the message, Murari Lal and he went to the house.He had stated that relationship between the appellant and his wife was cordial and his sister had never complained about her husband or his behaviour.He had spoken to his sister.She never complained against the appellant.His father had come to Delhi after the occurrence to meet the deceased.Statement of DW-4 has to be examined with caution and care before being disregarded as he is the brother of the deceased and has supported the appellant.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he came to know about the arrest of the appellant in the murder case of his sister, after about 2 to 3 days of the incident, but he did not tell the story to the police or any other authority even after the appellant-accused was arrested.He volunteered that he did not know that this could be done.He did not forbid his father or PW-2, Soudan Singh from deposing against the CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 11 of 19 appellant.In the cross-examination he tried to resile from his earlier statement recorded on 11th April, 2005 but when he was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he accepted that his earlier statement recorded on 11th April, 2005 was correct.We do not think the statement made by DW-4 is credible and truthful.DW4 has not stated what he and Murari Lal did after coming to the spot of occurrence, on the said day.Murari Lal could not be seen at the spot by PW2 Soudan Singh.PW5 did not also see Murari Lal at the spot when they reached, after the deceased was injured and burnt.This apart there is contradiction between the statements made by (DW3) Mohd. Yakub and (DW4) Hari Prasad.DW3 had stated that appellant was with him whereas DW4 had stated that he along with the appellant went to the house of the deceased i.e. the house of Murari Lal.Why and how Murari Lal came to him is not indicated or explained.He had suddenly sprung up and decided to support the appellant, probably keeping in mind the interest of the children.DW-4's statement that he came to know about the arrest of the appellant 2/3 days after the incident is not believable and cannot be accepted.In his statement, he had stated that his daughter deceased used to tell him that the accused used to favour his brother and sister-in-law and was not providing proper food or properly maintaining her.His daughter used to tell her grievances.He used to advise her daughter to reside peacefully as it was a family matter.He had met his daughter on the CRL.His daughter was unhappy on account of some dispute, which had arisen 4-5 months prior to the incident between his two sons and son-in-law, i.e., appellant, who had worked together.He was not, however, aware about the cause of the dispute.His sons were not having ill feeling towards the accused but they were not on visiting terms.It was suggested to him that the deceased had committed suicide.The suggestion was denied.A. No. 541/2012 Page 11 of 19A. No. 541/2012 Page 12 of 19DW-5, Girish Kumar had stated that he was residing in the neighbourhood and on 27th September, 2004, at 2.30 P.M. he heard noise of "bachao bachao" and went to the house of the sister of Soudan Singh, who was shouting and was standing in a gali in a burnt condition.Soudan Singh had put a blanket on her and she was completely burnt.Pavitra met them and told them that her mother had got burnt while preparing tea on the stove and one neighbour had called 100 number.He claimed that he had travelled with Soudan Singh and was with the deceased when she was admitted in the emergency in JPN Hospital, and was treated by a lady doctor.Deceased had not made any statement to the lady doctor.On being cross-examined, he denied that he had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital in the PCR van as well as in the CAT ambulance.His presence was not put to PW-2, Soudan Singh, when he was cross-examined.PW-6, SI Pradeep Rana, Jr. Ambulance Officer, CAT Ambulance Service had stated that there was one attendant.He was not cross-examined that DW-5 was also present.A. No. 541/2012 Page 13 of 19In the said case, the police had failed to examine witnesses essential for unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case was based.Some of the eye witnesses to the occurrence named in the FIR, who were important witnesses were not examined and kept back.This, it was indicated, was a special significance given the discrepancy between the FIR and the version of the occurrence given by the prosecution in the Court.20. PW-20, Head Constable Omender Kumar, in his statement had stated that he was posted as Head Constable in PCR, North-West Zone and had received a call that one lady had received burn injuries in Shahabad Dairy.He reached the house and noticed that one lady with burn injuries was lying at the gate of the house and Soudan Singh was present there.She was oriented and speaking.She was taken in the PCR van and then in the CAT van, which was parked at G.T. Karnal bye pass.The lady had given her name as Sansarwati, wife of Murari Lal.In the examination-in-chief, he had stated that the injured lady did not tell anything else to him or his staff.However, when cross-A. No. 541/2012 Page 14 of 19examined by the Public Prosecutor, PW-20 had stated that she had named her husband Murari Lal as the person, who had poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire.This fact was recorded in the Exhibit PW- 19/C, the PCR form, a form in which communication made is recorded.Her husband was not there.He had forgotten the said facts in his examination-in-chief.PW-20 had, therefore, initially denied whether the deceased had said anything to him or his staff, but later on when confronted with Ex. PW19/C PCR form, he had stated that the deceased named Murari Lal as the person who had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.Statement of PW-20 has been relied upon to the limited extent and purpose i.e. that when he had transported the deceased in the PCR van, Soudan Singh was with them and the deceased was oriented and speaking.He had denied that (DW5) Girish Kumar had accompanied them in the PCR van.A. No. 541/2012 Page 15 of 19

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

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

Arguments heard upon the appeal filed under Section 14-A of theS.C./S.T. (Prevention o f Atrocities) A c t on 18/10/2018 o n behalf of appellants viz. Golu Yadav, Halkebhai and Rajkumar.This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16/10/2019 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Damoh.Case diary of Crime No. 254/2019 registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(V-A) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at Police Station Tendukheda District Damoh also perused.Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed of.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present:The Hon'ble Justice Madhumati Mitra C.R.R. 614 of 2019 With CRAN 1613 of 2019 Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala Anr.The petitioners have approached before this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings being C.S.Case No.6173/2018 under Sections 120B/420/406/364/364A/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata.Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts briefly.The petitioners are husband and wife and they are the accused of the criminal proceeding pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata.Petitioners have stated in their application that they were the owner of a piece of land with an incomplete super structure of (G+2).The petitioners formed a company and became its directors and holders of the entire shares of the said company viz M/s. Precious Plastic Pvt. Ltd. The present opposite party proposed the petitioners to take over the said company and develop the project.There was an agreement between the present petitioners and the opposite party who was the director of three companies to take over the company of the petitioners.It was settled that the opposite party was to pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores at the beginning.After completion of the entire construction, a sum of Rs.5 crores would be paid to the petitioners along with 1st floor of the building with car parking space.Opposite party neither paid Rs.5 crores after completion of the building nor handed over the 1st floor of the building as agreed upon.However, the parties came to an understanding.During the course of that understanding the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on several documents.Petitioners came to know that those signatures were converted into some valuable documents.Present opposite party filed protest petition opposing the prayer of investigating officer to discharge the petitioner.The said protest petitioner was rejected by the Learned Magistrate and accused was discharged.Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after taking cognizance transferred the same to the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 11th Court for enquiry and disposal in accordance with law.On 05.04.2018, Learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the officer in charge of Hare Street Police Station to take necessary steps for causing an inquiry over the allegations made in the complaint as per the provision contained in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it appears to me that the short question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the Learned Magistrate was justified in issuing process against the petitioners.The order of issuance of the process has been strongly challenged by the petitioners mainly on three grounds:The 1st ground is that previously the opposite party lodged an FIR in respect of the self-same allegations and police submitted final report after completion of investigation.Opposite party filed protest petition challenging the said final report and that protest petition was rejected.The order of rejection of protest petition has not been challenged.Thereafter, the opposite party instead of challenging the said order filed the present complaint on same facts.It is the specific claim of the petitioners that the present complaint being second complaint is totally barred in the eye of law.Now, I have to deal with the points raised by the petitioners one by one.From the copy of the order dated 05.01.2018 passed in G.R.Case No.2298 of 2015, it transpires that after completion of investigation final report was submitted in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 594 of 2015 and the present opposite party filed protest petition.That order of rejection of protest application had not been challenged by the opposite party.Opposite party filed a second complainant on the same facts."Cognizance taken.Register the case.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 20.01.2016 relating to Crime No.6/2016 registered at Police Station Dheerpura District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294 and 436 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the accused Hardayal that he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas on his head with a sharp cutting weapon and the deceased Thakurdas died due to head injury.There is no allegation against the applicant either he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas or other victim.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co- accused persons for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, hence, no such offence is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Similarly it is not mentioned against the applicant that he set fire on any house.No offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against him.He is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the 2 M.Cr.C. No. 4552/2016 case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.2 M.Cr.C. No. 4552/2016Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE VK V/ -Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.02.07 17:52:20 +05'30'This is first anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Crime No.325/2017 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 341, 294 and 506-B of the IPC.There is old enmity due to litigation about the agricultural land between both the parties.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.It is directed that the applicant will surrender himself before Investigating Officer, within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then in the event of arrest the applicant, namely, Kishunlal Choudhary, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the Objector.This application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Bharat and Hallebhai@ Dhanprasad who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.520/2016 for offences under sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 294 and 506-B of IPC registered at Police Station-Pathariya, District-Damoh.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant no.1 is stated to have attacked the complainant with a spade causing an injury on the head.As regards the applicant no.2, he is stated to have attacked the complainant with a lathi, causing contusion over his eye and on the waist.As regards the applicant no.1-Bharat, learned counsel for the applicants has sought the withdrawal of the application.Under the circumstances, the application of the applicant no.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.As regards the applicant no.2, the injury report depicts that the injuries caused by him are simple in nature and are contusions.The said offences according to learned counsel for the applicant would only constitute the offence under sections 323, 324 of IPC.He further states that he did not share any common intention along with the applicant no.1 of causing any kind of injury that would be grievous to life.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.

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

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

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

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

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

Petitioners are facing prosecution for offences u/s 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC, and u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, on a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.The offences, alleged against the petitioners, though duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code did not, however, culminate in a report u/s 173 of the Code, as an investigation by the Police would normally do, because cognizance of an offence u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act could not be taken by any court except on a complaint by the competent authority by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The complainant, respondent herein, is the competent authority for the purpose.In the course of investigation, large number of documents were seized by the Police and a number of persons were examined u/s 161 of the Code.The application was opposed on behalf of the complainant." The trial Court, however, negatived the claim of the accused to copies being supplied before the commencement of the trial, as in a trial on a police report.

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.Appellant Mohammad Salam challenges his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life inflicted thereunder.The prosecution case was that on 8-11-1983 at about 11.15 p.m., deceased Kallu Lal Jain, a Cloth Merchant of Jabalpur, went along with his brother Mulayamchand Jain (P.W.-9) to the house of one Islam for dunning for credit money of Rs. 35/-, being the unpaid price of cloth due from Islam.Two brothers of Islam named Jannu and Salam (appellant herein) were found standing at the door of the house.When the deceased asked them about whereabouts of Islam, appellant Salam replied that he was sleeping inside the house.The deceased insisted upon Islam being woken up because he urgently wanted money from Islam.At that stage Islam showed himself up and stood behind appellant Salam.While the conversation was going on, appellant Salam got down from the doorsill, of his house and reaching up to the place where the deceased was standing on the road, plunged a dagger into the abdomen of the deceased.After inflicting that injury, the appellant took to his heels.Deceased Kallu Lal succumbed to his injury on 16-11-1983 in Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur.The said evidence satisfactorily proved the prosecution case.It was a case of abdominal stab wound which was viscera deep.The death had taken place due to gangrene and paralysis of the intestines resulting from the abdominal wound.It was held that the supervening cause of death being the result of the wound, the offender was responsible for causing the death.The only point seriously urged by Shri Rajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, was that the only offence brought home to the appellant was the reduced offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, I.P.C. and not the offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. of which the appellant was convicted by the learned trial Judge.The nature of the injury sustained by the deceased was described by Dr. S. K. Nema (P.W. 6), who had assisted Senior Doctor Shri Shrivastava (P.W. 16) in performing operation on the injury.Dr. Nema deposed that the stab injury was situated over the lower part of the sternum and went downwards in the abdominal cavity.Exploratory leprotomy was done for operation.There were two perforations measuring 1/2 cm.x 1/4 cm.each through and through over the pyloric part of the stomach, which were repaired by operation.The deceased however developed peritonitis and septicaemia which resulted in his death.Dr. R. D. Sharma (P.W. 16) deposed that the injury sustained by the deceased was likely to cause death.The learned trial Judge found that the appellant had time, however little, for meditation when the deceased was engaged in conversation with him and his brother; that the appellant had thereafter purposely got down from the door-still of his house and after reaching up to the place where the deceased was standing, had plunged a dangerous weapon like the dagger in question into the abdomen of the deceased which was a vital part of the body.

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

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

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr.Selvam.P.W.1 is his wife andP.W.2 is his mother.They were all residing at Varalotti Village inVirudhunagar District.The wife of the first accused is one Mrs.Rajathi.The deceased had developed illicit intimacy with Mrs.Rajaji.Therefore, thefirst accused had developed grudges against the deceased.This is stated tobe the motive for the occurrence.On 19.07.2009, at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased had returned fromVirudhunagar and after taking food, he was sleeping on the pial of the house.P.Ws.1 and 2 were also sleeping on the same pial by the side of the deceased.At about, 11.30 p.m., all the three accused emerged there.The first accusedhad aruval in his hands and the accused 2 and 3 were unarmed.The accused 2 and 3 held the deceased and the first accused mounted repeated attacks witharuval on his body.The deceased cried for help.P.Ws.1 and 2 also raisedalarm.The first accused intimidated P.W.1 by brandishing aruval.Then, allthe three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased was lying in a pool of blood.He made arrangement for 108 ambulance.They shifted the deceased to the hospital.Accordingly, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospitalat Virudhunagar.P9 is the accident Register.After first aid treatment, the Doctor referred him to theGovernment Rajaji Hospital at Madurai for further treatment.At about 4.00a.m., he was admitted as in-patient.Intimation was sent by the hospitalauthorities both to the police as well as to the learned Magistrate inrespect of the same.P.W.10 the then Judicial Magistrate No.3, Madurai, rushed to theGovernment Rajaji Hospital, at 4.30 a.m., and recorded the dying declarationof the deceased.P.W.10 reduced the same into writing.At 1.00 p.m., on 20.07.2009, he prepared an observationmahazar and a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence, in the presenceof P.W.6 and another witness.He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and few more witnesses on the spot.He also recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth fromthe place of occurrence.On the same day, he arrested the 2nd accused in thepresence of P.W.7 and another witness.Then, on the same day at 4.00 p.m., he arrested the accused 1 and 3 in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.Onsuch arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, hedisclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.3 of 2010 on the fileof the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.The first accused stood charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC andthe accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 342, 302 readwith 34 IPC.By judgment dated 17.06.2010, the trial Court convicted thefirst accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Section 342, 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 342 IPC and sentenced them toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section302 r/w 34 IPC.To the Doctor (P.W.11), at the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar,the deceased told that he was attacked by three known persons.P.W.11, noticed the following injuries:A large cut injury over the left side of cheek extend from leftborder of sternum upto the top the left shoulder.Another cut injury over the left arm 10 cm x 8 cm x 5 cm.Cut injury over the nose (the projection part of nose bringseparate) Elevation part of the nose absent.Another cut injury over the right side of upper lip with missing oflittle muscle.Another cut injury over the cheek curve shape size 5 cm x 2 cm x 1cm.Another cut injury over the forehead on the scalp 8 cm x 2 cm x 2cm.A lacerated cut injury over the right side of back near center ofback internal organ seen (nc) the injury exposing of lung seen through theinjury.Another cut injury over right palm size 5 x 2 x 1 cm.Another cut injury over little, index, finger with ?fracture ofmiddle phalanx.Another cut injury over the right thumb near the middle of thefinger with bleeding 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.One Dr.Thirumalaimurugan, who was attending on thedeceased, gave opinion that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to makedying declaration.On his part, P.W.10 also satisfied about the mentalfitness of the deceased.Then, he recorded the dying declaration.P8 isthe said dying declaration.P.W.16 the then Head Constable attached to the Mallanginaru policestation rushed to the hospital at 11.30 a.m., on 20.07.2009 and recorded thestatement of P.W.1, as the deceased was taken to the operation theatre.Onreturning to the police station, he registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2009under Sections 342, 324 and 307 IPC at 11.30 a.m. Ex.P14 is the FIR.Heforwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P14 to the Court and handed over the case diary to theInspector of Police for investigation.P.W.20, took up the case for investigation and proceeded to theplace of occurrence.In pursuance of thesaid statement, the first accused took P.W.20 and the witnesses to VaralottiBus Stop and produced an aruval (M.O.1) from the hide out.The same was recovered.The deceased, who had undergone surgery, was shifted from the ICU ward to the regular ward and after 28 days, due to the complications, hedied.P.W.20 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 16.08.2009 between 8.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.2.8. P.W.12 ? Dr.Alaudeen conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16.08.2009 at 12.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:-1.Partly healed infected cut wound on left shoulder extending to leftanterior chest wall 20 cms x 1.5 cm x bone deep.2.Partly healed infected cut wound on nose extending to lips & chin 10cms x 2 cms x bone deep.3.Partly healed infected cut wound on left arm 6 cms x 2 cms x bonedeep.On dissection, the proximal humerus is found repaired surginally.4.Partly healed infected cut wound on right postero lateral aspect ofchest wall 15 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.5.Partly healed laparotomy wound in front of the abdomen.6.Intercostal drainage wound on both lateral chest wall.P10 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the deceasedwould appear to have died of multiple cut injuries and the complicationsthereof.Continuing the investigation, P.W.20 forwarded the materialobjects to the Court and made a request to the Court for forwarding the samefor chemical examination.P12 is the chemical examination report andEx.P13 is the serology report.According to these reports, there was humanblood of 'A' origin found on the aruval, lungi as well as on the bill hook.On completing the investigation, P.W.20 laid charge sheet against theaccused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges asdetailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied thesame.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, 20witnesses were examined, 24 documents and 4 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, who have vividly spoken about theoccurrence as eye witnesses.P.W.3 is the neighbour of the deceased, who has stated that at the time of occurrence, he heard a hue and cry from the houseof the deceased.When he went there, he found the deceased was in a seriouscondition in a pool of blood.Then, he arranged for ambulance to take thedeceased to the hospital.P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supportedthe case of the prosecution.He has statedthat on receiving information about the occurrence, he rushed to the place ofoccurrence, arranged for ambulance and took the deceased to the hospital.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, the roughsketch and the recovery of the bloodstained earth and sample earth from theplace of occurrence.P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported thecase of the prosecution.P.W.8 has also not stated anything incriminatingagainst the accused.P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused 1 and3, the confession made by the first accused and the consequential discoveryof the aruval.P.W.10 is the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the dyingdeclaration.He has vividly spoken about the same.4.1. P.W.11 ? Dr.Samiappan has stated that at Virudhunagar Hospital atabout 12.30 a.m. on 20.07.2009, the deceased was brought in 108 ambulance service by his wife for treatment and after first aid treatment, he referredthe deceased to the Government Rajaji Hospital.P.W.12 is the Doctor, whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.He has spoken about the same and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.13 is the Head Clerkof the Magistrate Court, who forwarded the material objects for chemicalexamination.P.W.14 the Head Constable attached to Mallanginaru Police station has stated that he gave intimation to the police that the deceasedwas admitted in the hospital.P.W.15 is the Constable, who carried the bodyfor postmortem.P.W.16 is the Head Constable, who registered the case.P.W.17 has stated that he accompany P.Ws.1 and 2 to take the deceased to the hospital.P.Ws.18 and 19 have turned hostile and they have not supported thecase of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.20 is the Inspector of Police hasspoken about the entire investigation done by him and final report filed.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, on their side,they did not choose to examine any witness nor marked any documents.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Courtconvicted all the three accused.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused therecords carefully.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there arelot of flaws in the case of the prosecution, which would create doubts in thecase and accordingly the appellants are entitled for acquittal.He wouldsubmit that though it is stated that from the Virudhunagar Hospital at about4.30 a.m., the deceased was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, theDoctor, who admitted him has not been examined.Thus, according to him, theearliest information passed on to the Doctor had not been produced.He wouldfurther submit that whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind, at thetime, when he was admitted or not has been suppressed, because of the non production of the Accident Register as well as subsequent treatment recordsmaintained in the hospital.The learned counsel would submit that P.Ws.1 and2 would not have been present at all at the time of occurrence.He wouldfurther submit that there was no motive at all for these accused to committhe murder of the deceased.In the alternative, the learned counsel wouldsubmit that at the most, so far as the first accused is concerned, theoffences would fall only under Section 304(i) IPC and the others areconcerned, absolutely, there is no evidence, he has contended.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently opposethis appeal.According to him, there are no reasons to reject the evidencesof P.Ws.1 and 2, whose evidences are highly convincing and cogent.He would further submit that the dying declaration recorded by the learned JudicialMagistrate cannot be discorded for any reason, wherein the deceased hadcategorically stated that these three accused attacked him.He would furthersubmit that at the earliest point of time, when the deceased was taken to theGovernment Hospital, Virudhunagar, the deceased told him that he was attacked by three known persons.Thus, the medical evidence also corroborates the eyewitness account.Thus, according to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the prosecution has clearly proved the involvement of theseaccused.Thus, the conviction and sentence do not require any interference atthe hands of this Court.We have considered the above submissions.The alleged occurrence had taken place at the house of thedeceased, i.e. on the pial.In our considered view,they can be believed though not fully but partly.P.Ws.1 and 2 have statedthat the accused 2 and 3 held the deceased tightly so as to facilitate thefirst accused to cut the deceased.If we look into the postmortemcertificate, it would go to show that there are number of injuries on thebody of the deceased.In our considered view, when two persons are holdingthe deceased so tightly, it would not have been possible for so many numberof injuries on so many parts on the body of the deceased.After the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, had taken the deceased to thehospital.In Ex.P8, the deceased had stated that three accusedcame, out of whom, one was having a stick and he did not notice as to whatwas the weapon held by the other two persons.He has further stated thatwithin a fraction of time, the occurrence had taken place.He has made avery general statement that out of suspicion he was attacked.He has not atall stated that the accused 2 and 3 held the deceased.He has also notstated that the first accused cut him.The death was also not due to shock and hemorrhage due to theseinjuries.The first accused has got no history of anybad antecedents.Subsequent to the occurrence also, he has not committed any crime.Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravatingcircumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the first accused toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants 2 and3/accused 2 and 3 are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges.The fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them.(ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/firstaccused under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted underSection 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sevenyears and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.(iii) The trial Court shall take steps to secure the firstaccused/first appellant to commit him in prison to serve out the remainingperiod of sentence.2.The Inspector of Police Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station Mallanginaru, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Though said Bapurao used to demand partition of the residential house, yet appellant No. 2 - Laxman was not effecting the same.There used to be frequent quarrels between the two families on account of such demand for partition.The prosecution case is that in the relevantevening, said Bapurao had gone to attend recitation of a religious book (Pothi) at Maroti temple whereas, his two sons had gone to a nearby house of one Ashroba.The deceased was, therefore, alone in the house at about 7.30 p.m. The appellant No. 2 - Laxman then came in front of house of the deceased.He was in drunken condition.He addressed obscenities to her, saying that she had kept illicit relations with all the inhabitants of village Hatkarwadi.She was engulfed by flames of fire and started shouting.The appellants fled away from the house when she started shouting.Her son - Namdeo rushed there on hearing the shouts.He extinguished the fire.Lateron her husband and the son took her to Civil Hospital at Parbhani.In the same night, her dying declarations and Police statement were recorded at the hospital.She narrated to her son as to how she was set ablaze by the appellants.The Police carried out certain investigation into the crime registered on basis of dying declaration given by Muktabai.The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination.The topographical account of the house in question can be gathered from recitals of the spot panchnama (Exh. 29).The residential house is of six feet height.There were eight corrugated zinc sheets on the roof.The spot panchnama (Exh.29) reveals that two corrugated zinc sheets of front side and two of rear side were pushed aside.The surface of the zinc sheets was blackened.A plastic canister containing small quantity of kerosene and a match stick were found in the house.His version reveals that he obtained medical opinion to the effect that Sou.Muktabai was fit to give her statement.He further noticed that she had suffered 86% burn injuries and was unable to sign the statement.He claims that her statement was reduced into writing as per her narration.Muktabai, it may be mentioned that it was recorded by PW7-P.S.I. Babu Pitale.His version reveals that he was attached to Police outpost at Civil Hospital, Parbhani, in the relevant night.He received information at about 23.50 Hrs on 19.2.2004 to the effect that Sou.Muktabai had received 83% burn injuries.He states that he obtained medical opinion regarding physical and mental condition of injured Sou.Muktabai after visiting the Burns Ward.The first dying declaration (Exh. 45) reveals that deceased Muktabai narrated as to how appellant No. 2 -Laxman used to trouble her family members.Her narration shows that appellant No. 2 - Laxman used to regularly trouble herself and used to beat her sons under inebriated condition.His version reveals that in the relevant evening, he and his brother had gone to a neighbouring house whereas, his father had gone to attend recitation of a book (Pothi).His version reveals that he heard voice of his mother and went to the house.Moreover, she immediately gave oral information to him implicating the appellants as authors of the crime.The testimony of PW-4 Munjaji reveals that spot panchnama (Exh. 29) was drawn by the Police at house of the deceased.According to PW-8 Madhav, Muktabai gave oral dying declaration to him when he met her at the Civil Hospital.He is brother of deceased Muktabai.JUDGMENT V.R. Kingaonkar, J.By the impugned Judgment, appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 304II read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ (Rs. Two thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months, respectively, for the above offences.Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred in the evening of 19th February 2004 at residential house of deceased Muktabai.Her husband -Bapurao and appellant No. 2 - Laxman are brothers inter se.Appellant No. 1 is the wife of appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 is their son.Said Bapurao and appellant No. 2 were residing separately but there were disputes on account of demand for complete partition of the residential house.So, Muktabai closed the door of her house.The appellants thereafter entered the house by removing corrugated zinc sheets of the roof.The appellant No. 2 -Laxman poured kerosene on her person, appellant No. 1 - Sarubai instigated the other two appellants to do away with her life saying " remove this thorn !".Immediately appellant No. 3 Dnyaneshwar set her ablaze by lighting a match stick.The post mortem examination revealed that Muktabai died as a result of cardio respiratory failure due to septicemia, which was result of 100% burn injuries sustained by her.On basis of material gathered during investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C.The appellants denied truth into the accusations.They pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh. 14).They did not raise any specific defence.It is suggested that they have been falsely implicated due to the dispute over demand of partition of the house property.At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 9 (nine) witnesses in support of its case.The defence examined DW-1 Laxman, the village Police Patil, in order to disprove oral dying declaration given by deceased Muktabai to her son.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case on basis of the two written dying declarations as well as oral dying declaration of the deceased.The learned Sessions Judge held that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass in the residential house of deceased Muktabai in the relevant night in order to commit cognizable offence and they set fire to her person in furtherance of their common intention.Hence, they were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the outset.Mr. Chatterji, learned Advocate, would submit that dying declarations of deceased Muktabai cannot be safely relied upon.He argued that recording of the dying declarations is not free from doubt.He further argued that versions of the deceased in the two dying declarations are different from one another.He contended that the appellants could not be convicted when the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and are unreliable.As against this, learned A.P.P. Mr. Adhav supports the impugned Judgment.The prosecution case hinges upon the two written dying declarations of Sou.So also, oral dying declaration given by her to the son and also certain attending circumstances.A half burnt quilt was also found there.The spot panchnama was drawn on 20.2.2004, i.e. next day of the incident.House of the appellants is situated in Northern side of the residential premises of deceased Muktabai.The testimony of PW-1 Vaijnath Jadhav reveals that he was working as Naib Tahsildar at Parbhani and was assigned duty, being Executive Magistrate, of recording the dying declarations.His version purports to show that in the night between 19th and 20th February 2004, around 12.20 Hrs., he received a request letter from Nanalpeth Police Station for recording dying declaration of injured Muktabai.He visited Civil Hospital, Parbhani at about 12.30 a.m. and contacted the Medical Officer.He corroborates the dying declaration (Exh. 27).He took her thumb impression at bottom of the statement.The cross-examination of PW-Vaijnath shows that he had not received any training for appropriate recording of dying declaration.He did not endorse the dying declaration to show that it was read over to injured Sou.Muktabai and that she admitted the contents as correct one.He also did not affix any official seal on the dying declaration.His evidence reveals that some of the relatives of injured Sou.Muktabai were in her proximity but he further adds that they were asked to go outside.His version reveals that while recording the dying declaration (Exh. 27), except himself and injured patient (Sou.Muktabai), no other person was present at the place.He admits that he did not mention the time of completing the recording of dying declaration (Exh. 27) but says that he had forgotten to mention it.He further admits that the thumb impression on the dying declaration is not complete impression of the thumb of Sou.Her dying declaration reveals that at about 9.00 p.m., she had locked the house from inside and was sleeping.The appellants knocked the door but she did not open it.They removed the zinc sheets of the roof and thereafter appellant Nos.2 and 3 entered the house and opened the door.Thereafter, appellant No. 1 -Sarubai entered the house.She narrated to the Executive Magistrate that appellant No. 2 - Laxman doused her with kerosene stored in her house and appellant No. 3 - Dnyaneshwar set fire by means of a burning match stick.She raised hue and cry.She further narrated that her sons came there from outside and extinguished the fire by pouring water on her person.The dying declaration shows that since many days appellant No. 2 - Laxman used to pick up quarrels with herself and her husband.The dying declaration also shows that many a times, the appellant No. 2 - Laxman used to come to house in inebriated condition and used to quarrel with her.Coming to another written dying declaration of Sou.He recorded the statement of injured Sou.Muktabai as per her narration.He corroborates recitals of the dying declaration (Exh. 45).He obtained thumb mark of her right hand and endorsed the dying declaration.The recitals of the dying declaration (Exh. 45) would show that deceased Muktabai narrated to the Police Officer, the genesis of the ghastly incident.The endorsement on the dying declaration shows that Crime No. 17/2004 was registered for offences, punishable under Section 307 and 448 read with 34 of the I.P.C. in the same night at about 12.15 Hrs. by the Police.Obviously, that is the first dying declaration recorded after Sou.Muktabai was admitted in the Civil Hospital.She gave details of genesis of the incident.Her dying declaration shows that in the relevant evening, at about 9.00 p.m., the appellant No. 2 -Laxman came under inebriated condition and started giving abuses to her.He gave abuses saying that she was of loose character and had sexual relations with inhabitants of village Hatkarwadi.She further narrated that she got closed the door of her house.She further narrated that the appellants entered the house by pushing aside the corrugated zinc sheets of the roof.Her dying declaration shows that appellant No. 2 - Laxman poured kerosene on her person, appellant No. 1 -Sarubai instigated the other appellants to kill her, saying that her thorn shall be removed ( ).The appellant No. 3 - Dnyaneshwar thereafter lighted a match stick and set her ablaze.She narrated before the Police Officer that she raised cry and her sons came from outside and extinguished the fire.The dying declaration bears partial thumb mark of right hand of deceased Muktabai.It also bears the endorsements made by the Medical Officer (Exh. 34 and 35) at the beginning and at the bottom thereof.Credibility of the written dying declarations must be examined from the core of the recitals and the manner, in which the recording was done.The dying declaration recorded by PW-7 P.S.I. Pitale is at the first available opportunity.According to him, the Medical Officer examined the patient and opined that she would be able to give her statement.After taking such endorsement on top of the paper, he commenced recording of the statement of injured Muktabai.His version categorically shows that after the statement was written down, it was read over to injured Muktabai.Thereafter, thumb impression of her right hand was obtained at the bottom.The version of PW-P.S.I. Pitale reveals that on 24.2.2004, said Muktabai died.He prepared inquest panchnama in presence of two panchas.The inquest panchnama (Exh.24) is corroborated by him.True, there is inconsistency between the dying declaration (Exh. 45) and the dying declaration (Exh. 27) in so far as manner, in which the appellants entered the house.In the first dying declaration (Exh.45), Muktabai narrated that after pushing aside the corrugated zinc sheets of the roof, all the three appellants made entry to the house.She also narrated that the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai instigated the other two appellants to eliminate her.The second dying declaration shows that the appellant Nos.2 and 3 entered the house by pushing aside the corrugated zinc sheets of the roof and thereafter they opened the door.It was thereafter that appellant No. 1 - Sarubai entered the house.She narrated to PW-P.S.I. Pitale that the appellant No. 2 -Laxman poured kerosene on her person and appellant No. 3 - Dnyeshwar lighted a match stick and set her ablaze.Same is her version in the subsequent written dying declaration (Exh. 27).The Apex Court came across two dying declarations, which were inconsistent with each other.It may be true that the court while considering the credibility of such dying declarations may seek corroboration.PW-8 in her evidence categorically stated that the deceased had stated that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene.The deceased was seen in flames by her.Accused was seen running away from this place.Considering the tenor of the two written dying declarations available in the present case, I am of the opinion that the only inconsistency appearing in both these dying declarations is regarding role played by the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai.Otherwise, both the dying declarations are consistent and would reveal that the appellant No. 2 -Laxman poured kerosene on Muktabai and appellant No. 3 - Dnyandeo @ Dnyaneshwar lighted a match stick and set her ablaze.He saw the mother-Muktabai in burning condition.He extinguished the fire after pouring water on her person, covered her person with a gunny bag and called his father.His version purports to show that the appellants were standing outside the house.The injured told him that the appellant No. 2 - Laxman had poured kerosene on her person, appellant No. 1 Sarubai instigated and, therefore, the appellant No. 3 -Dnyaneshwar set fire to her person by a match stick.It is admitted by PW-Namdeo that when injured was rushed to hospital in an auto rickshaw, his father and Police Patil - Laxman Jorwar had also accompanied them.His evidence reveals that he did not disclose the incident to the Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital.Though PW-Namdeo is not eye witness to the incident, yet his version shows presence of the appellants outside house immediately after his mother was found in burning condition.His version shows that Muktabai was in serious condition at the relevant time.His version shows that Muktabai narrated to him that appellant No. 2 - Laxman poured kerosene and appellant No. 3 -Dnyaneshwar set fire to her person whereas, appellant No. 1 -Sarubai was saying that she be killed.The version of PW-9 A.P.I. Anwarkhan would show the steps taken during the course of investigation.He admits that the Police statement of DW-1 Laxman Jorwar, Police Patil, revealed that deceased Muktabai was not able to talk in the hospital.DW-1 Laxman Jorwar is the Police Patil of the village.His version reveals that he accompanied injured Muktabai and her husband during the journey to Civil Hospital.They went to Civil Hospital in an auto rickshaw.His version only shows that Muktabai had no talk with him.That does not, however, mean her inability to speak at the relevant time.It only shows that she did not confide in him and did not narrate to him as to how she received the burn injuries.Considering the material placed on record, it must be said that medical endorsements on both the dying declarations are duly corroborated by PW-Dr.Narendra Warma.The deceased was conscious and fit to give her statement when the dying declarations (Exh. 45 and Exh. 27) were recorded.Having regard to inconsistency about alleged instigation by the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai, the inconsistency about her entry in the house and also about her immediate presence outside the house with other two accused, she deserves benefit of doubt.Still, however, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 cannot get any benefit out of the minor inconsistency or discrepancy appearing in the two dying declarations.Both the dying declarations are quite truth bearing and acceptable.I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 304II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 457 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is, therefore, legal and proper.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence against the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai is set aside.The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to her.The appeal to the extent it relates to the appellant Nos.2 and 3, is dismissed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 is maintained.

['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri.The State of West Bengal Mr. Abir Ranjan Neogi ... for the petitioner.Mr. A.A.Siddiqui ... for the State.The court below has refused bail on September 13,2013 saying that the offence is under s.302 IPC.Advocate for the State not disputing the correctness of this submission has produced the case diary and submitted that a knife was recovered from the petitioner, the son of Tamuruddin.The case diary materials reveal the following facts.The deceased had an illicit relationship with the petitioner's mother.The petitioner and 2 his father (Tamuruddin) detected the deceased in Tamuruddin's bedroom with Tamuruddin's wife.Getting enraged they together started beating the deceased.The charge-sheet has been submitted.For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties ( one local) of Rs.10,000 each - all to the satisfaction of ACJM, Alipurduar.Certified xerox.(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sh ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri,J)

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

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

The only allegation against the applicant is that he caught hold of the victim.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 22/01/2019 17:53:54

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

TN-63-1066, plying between Mudukulathur and Sayalkudi.The duty time was between 5.00 hours to 13.00 hours.After completing the duty, he handed overthe cash and key to the successor.By that time, it was 14.00 hours.Due to the death of three members of Thevar community on 30.10.2012 in Paramakudi area, the vehicle movement were completed suspended including the Government Transport buses.The preventive measures were not effective and genuine.The youthbelonging to Thevar Community were allowed to run their show.The youth werewearing banians in yellow-mixed green colour with the figures of the casteleaders such as Thevar and Maruthupandiar and travelled in a vehicle with acaste flag tied on the vehicle.The villagers felt that the youth wererushing the vehicle only to attack them and their property.It is not knownas to how the driver of the said vehicle died leaving others to escapeunhurt.The petitioner was suggesting the people who were innocent and hisname has been included only to terrorise the members of the weaker section ofParamakudi.On behalf of them, the petitioner was assisting in Court asLawyer.The petitioner has no role in the alleged conspiracy.(1)The confessional statement of Shanmugam (A-5), Arumugasamy (A-6), Bala @ Parambai Bala (A-7) and (2)The statements of P.W.7 Pandidurai, P.W.8-Muthukrishnan, P.W.9- Sethuraman, P.W.20-Thangadurai and P.W.21 Thirumurugan.14.They have detailed the participation of petitioners 1 and 2 in thecommunity meeting held on 28.10.2012 at Pambuvilunthan Village, wherein they were alleged to have provoked Adi Dravida Community men to indulge incriminal acts against the Thevar Community.Fifteen Thevar Community men of Melaperunkarai, who were on their way to Pasumpon Village in a Mahindra Van, were waylaid, chased and attacked by Adi Dravida youth near Pambuvilunthan Tank on 30.10.2012 at 11.15 hours.The occupants escaped unhurt and the van driver Sivakumar was beaten to death on the spot and the van was damaged.This is the incident in respect of which acase in Emaneswaram Police Station in Cr.No.147 of 2012 was registered against 31 Adi Dravida Community men.16.Same day occurrence:On the same day, at 14.00 hours, two Thevar youth who came across Ponnaiahpuram in a motorcycle, were waylaid by Adi Dravida youth and were beaten to death on the spot besides causing damage to the motorcycle.17.Another case in Paramakudi Town Police Station in Crime No.449 of 2012 was registered against 65 Adi Dravida Community men.19.Completion of Investigation:He belonged to Scheduled Caste Community.At the time of Thevar Guru Pooja held on 28th, 29th and 30thOctober 2012, he was working as a Conductor in the bus, bearing RegistrationNo.Therefore, the petitioner along with othershave to stay back in the depot itself.On 05.11.2012, he was pickedup by the Police.When he was produced before the Magistrate, the Magistratedid not ask him anything and mechanically passed the order of remand.Afterfinal enquiry, the police have added the petitioner as Accused No.42 inCr.In the bail order, the observation runs as follows:?The petitioner is in custody for the past 46 days.The petitioner/accused is working at some other place at the time of occurrence and to provethe same, certificate from the competent authority is produced.Materialwitnesses have been examined.?The Investigating Agency had removed the names of fivemen at the time of filing of the charge sheet.Despite the production of thecertificate showing that the petitioner was on duty at the time of allegedoccurrence on 30.10.2012, the Investigating Agency has deliberately includedhim as accused.Therefore, the charges must be quashed.6.In the supporting affidavit of Chandra Bose, it is stated that inrespect of innocent murder that took place on 30.10.2012, the petitioner hasbeen added as accused unnecessarily.7.The Investigating Agency has preferred five persons belonging todominant community and made them as eye witnesses to the alleged conspiracy.They are the stock witnesses.The allegedconspiracy is stated to have taken place on 28.10.2012 at 6.30 p.m. Thisdelay will expose both the author of the statement as well as theInvestigating Agency.Then they participated in the marriage of Mr.Periyasamy, anAdvocate at Madurai.It was at about 7.00p.m.The petitioner had no occasion to go to Paramakudi in the evening at6.30 p.m. Therefore, the charges are vague and it must be quashed.Out of40,000 people in and around Paramakudi, about 30,000 people belonged to Thevar Community.This Taluk is known for the caste clashes which are mostlyinitiated by the dominant community due to its economic and social strength.The members of the Scheduled Caste are at the receiving end.9.As the ruling party is controlled by the dominant community, therewas a police firing on 11.09.2011 and seven persons belonging to ScheduledCaste died in that firing.The CBI is investigating the crime pertaining tofiring and it is almost over.10.On 30.10.2012, the State sponsored celebration of Thevar Jayanthiwas organised in Pasumpon Village in Kamuthi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District.Thepetitioner's name has been included on account of the statement recorded on01.02.2013 stated to have been given by Pandidurai, Muthukrishnan,Sethuraman, Thangadurai and Thirumurugan (list of witnesses 12 to 16) who allbelonged to Thevar community.11.The petitioner was assisting the officers of CBI who wereinvestigating the death of seven dalits due to police firing on 11.09.2011.The petitioner had given 18 documents to the said Agency.This co-operationto the CBI has been treated by the State Police as if he is working againstthe interest of the State Police.The petitioner's name has beenincluded as if he was a party to the alleged conspiracy.13.The sixth respondent has filed the counter affidavit alleging thedetails of the statement of witnesses who have implicated the accusedpersons, as follows:(1)2004 MLJ (Crl.) 360 (Ms.Arokia Mary Lucia v. The State of TamilNadu, wherein it has been held as follows:?29.In the above circumstances, there is no myth in examining thosewitnesses, who are all the accused in the petitioner's earlier complaint withwhom the police have joined hands with, in order to register a false caseagainst the petitioner, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate andthe witnesses also, like the parrots, have repeated distorted and inventedthe inconsistent facts of the case artificially recorded under Section 161Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in a mechanical and unbelievable manner andthis Court cannot be carried away by such artificially made up case failingto resort to the rescue of persons like the petitioner, which would onlyamount to encouraging such false cases deliberately foisted to cheat thesystem which, if not quashed, would only give the way for dishonest andunreasonable officers maligning and marring the authority of law and thejudicial convictions.30.Therefore, with the given opportunity, such falsely registered casesput down with the iron hand would serve the purpose not only to rescue thosevictims of such cases such as the petitioner from the clutches of those, whoregister the cases crossing the barriers and norms of law but also wouldserve as a deterrent measure for such authorities from taking advantage ofthe loopholes to foist the cases against innocent and service minded persons,who are wedded to the social and right causes, like the petitioner.No doubt, the employermight have given the certificate stating that the petitioner was elsewhere.Thesegrounds may be good grounds for the plea of acquittal, if the plea isestablished during trial and it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings,when there is no supporting material.28.The fact remains that already final report has been filed before theCourt.The very plea taken by the petitioners coupled with the counteraffidavit filed detailing the materials which implicate the petitionersherein would go to show that it is not a case for discharge.The plea takenby the accused persons herein no doubt requires careful scrutiny, detailedexamination and evaluation and if it is established by clinching evidencethat it is true, then they can place the plea for acquittal before the TrialCourt.30.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.4.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.6.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.7.The Inspector of Police, Emaneswaram Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Needles to mention, that these additional condition are imposed to cope up with the emergent condition:-Let the applicant- Salman Murgi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 140 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.Since the bail application has been decided under extra ordinary circumstance, thus in the interest of justice, following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith.

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

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

No.1/State.None for the complainant.It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, "Special Act") This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Special Act being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Shivpuri rejecting the bail application.The appellant has been arrested on 18.12.2017 in connection with Crime No.357/2017 registered by Police Station Khaniyadhana District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 436, 435, 427, 323, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506-B of IPC and Section 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)

['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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.

P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.3 is his wife.The deceased wasresiding at Thazhakudy Village in Kanyakumari District.Theyalso belong to the same village.Admittedly, there was ill feeling betweenthe two families, which culminated into a motive.It is alleged that on 03.12.2004, P.W.2 was proceeding towardsThazhakudy Amman Temple.At that time, it is alleged that the accused 1 and2 came there and scolded him in filthy language.In course of the saidquarrel, it is alleged that the first accused attacked P.W.2 with an iron rodon the right thumb of P.W.2, which resulted in an injury.The second accusedattacked him with iron rod on the left side of the ear and forehead, whichresulted in injuries.A3 also joined hands with them and he was physicallypresent sharing the common intention.When the accused 1 and 2 were mounting attack on P.W.2, the deceased, who was sitting inside his shop, questionedthe same.Immediately, the accused 1 and 2 armed with weapons, trespassed into the shop and started attacking the deceased also.The first accusedattacked the deceased with iron rod on the left side of the head resulting ina bleeding injury.The 2nd accused attacked him with knife on the left wristof the deceased.The deceased fell down sustaining the above injuries.Then,all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.ThereafterP.W.2 and the deceased were taken to the Government Medical College Hospital at Asaripallam.At 12.30 p.m., P.W.6 ? Dr.Lysander, examined the deceased.He was told that the deceased had sustained injuries at 8.30 a.m. at03.12.2004 due to the attack by a mob of persons.He admitted her also as inpatient.P6 is the Accident Register relatingto the deceased and Ex.On getting intimation from the hospital, P.W.9 the then HeadConstable attached to Aralvaimozhi Police Station, proceeded to the hospitalat 12.11 hours, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, since the deceased was inan unconscious state.He forwarded these documents to theCourt and handed over the case diary for investigation to the Inspector ofPolice.P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police attached to AralvaimozhiPolice Station took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place ofoccurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in thepresence of P.W.5 and another witness.He also prepared an observationmahazar showing the place, where the deceased was attacked inside his shop in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements.While so, on 04.12.2004, the deceased, who wasundergoing treatment in the hospital, succumbed to the injuries.On gettingintimation from the hospital regarding the death of the deceased, P.W.14altered the case into one under Sections 341, 324, 452, 427 and 302 IPC andprepared an alteration report.P17 is the alteration report.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) There are three appellants in this appeal, who are the accused 1 to 3in S.C.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,Kanyakumari atNagercoil.The trial Court framed as many as eight charges against theaccused as follows:Charge Accused Penal Provisions1A1, A2 and A3 341 IPC 2A1 & A2 324 IPC 3A3 324 r/w 34 IPC4A1 & A2 449 IPC 5A3 449 r/w 34 IPC6A1 & A2 302 IPC 7A3 302 r/w 34 IPC8A1, A2 & A3 427 IPCBy judgment dated 27.08.2010, the trial Court found the accusedguilty under all the charges and accordingly, punished them as detailedhereunder:Accused Conviction under SectionSentence imposed A1 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 324 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment A2 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 324 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment A3 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come upwith this appeal.It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of this appeal,the third appellant/third accused passed away.He was also told that oneof the assailants used a knife.When P.W.6 examined him, he found as many as two external injuries on the deceased.The first injury was a laceratedinjury with contusion measuring 5 x 5 cm.on the head.There was anoverlapping injury measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm.The 2ndinjury was a cut injury measuring 4 x 1 x + cm on the left elbow.P.W.6admitted the deceased as inpatient in his hospital.P.W.2 told him that on the same day, at 8.30 a.m., she was attacked with an iron rod.When P.W.6 examined her, he noticed three external injuries as follows:(1) A lacerated injury measuring 2 + x 1 x + cm on the right hand.(2) a lacerated injury measuring 1 + x , , cm on the left ear.(3) an abrasion extending 2 cm on the forehead.P.W.14proceeded to the hospital conducted inquest on the body of the deceased inthe presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P18 the inquest report.Then,he forwarded the body for postmortem.4.5. P.W.13 ? Dr.V.Paramasivam conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 04.12.2004 at 03.50 p.m. at the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli.During the postmortem, he noticed the followingexternal injuries:(1) a sutured injury measuring 6 x 1 cm x muscle depth and anotheroverlapping injury measuring 3 x 1 x muscle depth on the head.(2) an irregular abrasion measuring 5 x 3 c.m. on the right side of theback of chest.(3) a sutured cut injury measuring 6 x 2 cm on the left parietal regionof the head.Opening the body,he found the blood clot on all sides of brain.There was no fracture on theskull.On opening the thorax, he found fluid blood measuring 100 ml in theThorax cavity.Finally, he gave opinionthat the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effectof all the injuries.P14 is the Postmortem Certificate.Continuing the investigation, P.W.14 arrested the accused.Heforwarded the dress materials found on the dead body and the bloodstainedearth recovered from the place of occurrence for chemical examination.P22 is the chemical examination report and Ex.P23 is the Serology Report.According to the said report, human blood was noticed on the dhoti and banianworn by the deceased.P.W.14 examined the Doctors, collected the medical records and finally laid charge sheet against all the three accused.Basedon the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in thefirst paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, asmany as 14 witnesses were examined, 25 documents were exhibited and 9 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.2 is the injuredeye witness.He has vividly spoken about the attack made on him by theaccused 1 and 2 and he has also spoken about the presence of the accused No.3 at the time of occurrence.P.W.1 is the sister of P.W.2, who has stated thatshe followed P.W.2, when he proceeded to the Temple.At that time, accordingto her, she witnessed the entire occurrence.She has also vividly spokenabout the attack made by the accused 1 and 2 on P.W.2 as well as on the deceased.P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased.According to her, she was inher house at the time of occurrence along with the deceased.The house ofthe deceased and the shop are in the same hut.P.W.4, though not a resident of thatarea, claimed to have come to the place of occurrence to have tea in theshop.P.W.5 has spoken about the observationmahazar prepared by P.W.14 at the place of occurrence both outside thehouse and inside the house.P.W.6 ? Dr.Lysander has spoken about the treatment given by him to P.W.2 and the deceased and the admission made as inpatients.P.W.7 the Head Constable has spoken about the death intimationgiven by the hospital, which, he duly forwarded to the Aralvaimozhi PoliceStation.P.W.8 Mr.Chandran, the Police Constable attached to Aralvaimozhihas spoken about the fact that he carried the alteration report to the Courtand handed over the same to the Court on time.P.W.10 is theDoctor, who declared the deceased dead and who, in turn, intimated the sameto the police.P.W.11 is the Head Constable was the one, who carried thedead body to the hospital after the inquest was over for conductingpostmortem.P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police attached to the same policestation has spoken about the earlier case against the accused, which isstated to be the motive for the present occurrence.P.W.13 has spoken aboutthe postmortem conducted by him and his opinion that the death was due toshock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries foundon the deceased.P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, theymarked as many as five documents as defence documents.D1 is the carbon copy of the Accident Register of the deceased.D4 is theAccident Register copy of A1 and Ex.D5 is the treatment records of the firstaccused.The defence of the accused was that the deceased party were theaggressors.Armed with dangerous weapons, they attacked the accused 1 and 2, in which, the accused 1 and 2 sustained serious injuries, in which, one ofthe injury sustained by the first accused was a fracture.In respect of thesaid occurrence, there was a case registered in Crime No.674 of 2004 underSections 341 and 324 IPC as against the deceased party.It is the furthercase of the defence that the said counter case was not investigated properly.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accusedguilty and accordingly punished them as detailed in the first paragraph ofthis judgment.That is how, they are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perusedthe records carefully.The learned Senior counsel would mainly focus his arguments on theground that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of theoccurrence.According to the learned senior counsel, admittedly, there was acounter case in Crime No.674 of 2004 on the complaint of the first accused.But the same was not investigated properly.The learned seniorcounsel would next contend that though the accused 1 and 2 sustained seriousinjuries, more particularly, the first accused had suffered a fracture, theinjuries have not been explained away by any of the witnesses.The learnedsenior counsel would further point out that though it is the legal obligationof the prosecution to be fair to produce all the materials collected duringthe course of investigation of the counter case, more particularly, the woundcertificates and the treatment of records of the accused, the prosecution hasdeliberately suppressed the same.The learned senior counsel would furtherpoint out that these documents were, however, proved by way of defencedocument.The learned senior counsel would take us through the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 4, who are eye witnesses including P.W.2, who is the injured eyewitness.The learned counsel would point out that none of the witnesses haveexplained away anything about either the presence of the injuries or aboutthe cause for these injuries.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethese appeals stoutly.According to him, it is true that Crime No.674 of2004 and Crime No.675 of 2004 are cases in counter.But he would point outthat there was proper investigation done in respect of Crime No.674 of 2004and since it was found that the accused herein were the aggressors, the saidcase in Crime No.674 of 2004 was referred as 'Mistake of Fact'.Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,the prosecution has not suppressed any materials.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit thatthough it is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 have not spoken anything about the injurysustained by the accused 1 and 2, on that score, the accused are not entitledfor acquittal, because their evidences are otherwise cogent and convincing.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that from theevidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution thatthe accused party were the aggressors.The eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4 have not even spokenabout the injuries on the accused.Immediately, after the occurrence, theaccused 1 and 2 were also taken to the hospital.Itshows that there were as many as two injuries, which are as follows:(1) Abrasion 3 c.m x + cm left forearm.(2) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm left leg.These injuries were noticed by P.W.6 ? Dr.He was told that theywere attacked by four known persons.But absolutely, there is no explanationeither regarding the presence of these injuries and cause for these injuriesby any of the eye witnesses.Applying the above dictum laid down to the facts of the presentcase, if we look into the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, undoubtedly, they are allinterested witnesses and they are closely related to the deceased.There isalso enmity between these two families.It isalso the law that during the trial of the case, all the materials collectedin the counter case should be placed and proved in evidence.But in thiscase, unfortunately, except marking the xerox copy of the FIR and the finalreport, no other materials have been proved in evidence.But the prosecution has not chosen to examine anyindependent witness from that locality.Had any independent witness beenexamined from that locality, truth would have come out and in which case, itwould have been possible to find out whether the accused party were theaggressors or the deceased party were the aggressors.Thus, in our considered view, the fact that theaccused are the aggressors has not been duly established by the prosecution.In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecutionhas not come forward with the true version of the occurrence and thus, theprosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trialCourt is liable to the set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and the appellants areacquitted.2.The Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhy Police Station, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of first respondent police for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act as against these petitioners.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.339 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage.He would also submit that the respondent police has deleted the name of the first and second petitioner from the First Information Report and they are ready with the charge sheet and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17639 of 20194.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However the first respondent police is directed to file final report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as against the other accused persons.28.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Sub Inspector of Police Surandai Police Station Tirunelveli2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17639 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Respondent No.2 further stated that on 28 th January, 2016 the Applicant left the house on the pretext of attending marriage of his friend at Khajurao, Madhya Pradesh.He he did not return and started avoiding her phone calls.She later learnt that the Applicant had left the job at Kandivali, Mumbai.RESERVED ON : 17th MARCH, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th APRIL, 2017 JUDGMENT (PER ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.).1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent of parties taken for hearing.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 93 of 2016 registered with Mulund Police Station for offences punishable under Section 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The Respondent No.2 had lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging that the applicant had sexual relations with her from September, 2014 against her will and under the false promise of marriage.She had alleged that the she was compelled to terminate the pregnancy as the Applicant had avoided to take responsibility of the child.She had further claimed that the applicant had got married to her and subsequently left her alleging that he had performed the marriage ceremony only to avoid the prosecution.Mr. Dubash, the learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Respondent no.2 is a major.The relations between the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 were consensual.He has further submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report, even taken at its face value do not make out ingredients of the offence under Section 376 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code.He has submitted that the continuation of these proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::Mr. Bodke, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has opposed the application on the ground that the applicant had physical relationship with the Respondent No.2 against her will and without her consent.He has submitted that the applicant induced the Respondent No.2 to have physical relationship with her on false promise of marriage.He submits that the allegations leveled against the Applicant constitute offence under Section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.He has relied upon the following decisions:-Bharat Devdas Salvi & Ors.Mohammed Faizan Amir Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra, dated 5th July, 2016 in Cri.Writ Petition No.1721 of 2016Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr.2006 DGLS (SC) 646Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 DGLS (SC)Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors 2006(2) Bom.1 Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.2 Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.155(2) of the Code.3 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Respondent No.2 had lodged a report dated 7th March, 2016 wherein she had alleged that she had developed friendship with the Applicant.She had stated that she was not willing to have physical relationship with the applicant without entering into marital ties.However, the Applicant had physical relationship with her several times, by convincing her that their relationship was as good as husband-wife relationship.She has further stated that she had terminated the pregnancy as the Applicant was ready to take the responsibility of the child.She has stated that the Applicant maintained goods relationship with her for about one month after termination of the pregnancy, but latter started avoiding her.The Respondent No.2 further stated that the family of the pps 6 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 ::: cri apl 847-16.doc applicant, particularly his sister, were not supportive and they abused her and told her that the Applicant would not marry her.Hence she went to the Mulund Police Station to lodge a complaint.The police called the Applicant and his sister and thereafter the Applicant told her that he was ready to marry her.She resided at her parental house for about one week and thereafter started living with the Applicant in a rental premises.She has stated that the applicant behaved normally for a few days, but thereafter started demanding unnatural sex and also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.The applicant, subsequently claimed that the marriage was not valid and that he had married her only to prevent her from lodging complaint against him.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::He also sent an email to the pps 7 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 ::: cri apl 847-16.doc Respondent No.2 asking her to arrange a resident for herself.In these circumstances, she lodged FIR against the Applicant for having physical relations with her since July 2014 under the false promise of marriage.Based on the said FIR, C.R.No. 93/2016 was registered against the Applicant for the offences under Section 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The first informant is admittedly a major.The FIR does not indicate that the Respondent No.2 / First Informant had consented to have physical relationship with the Applicant under fear or misconception of facts.On the contrary, the contents of the FIR reveal that the relationship between the Applicant and the respondent No.2 was totally consensual.The Applicant and the Respondent No.2 thereafter got married and continued to maintain physical relationship as husband and wife.In the light of these facts the decision in State of UP vs. Naushad and Karthi @ Karthik (supra) are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The FIR reveals that the initial physical relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 was consensual.Subsequently they married each other and continued having physical relationship as husband and wife.The relationship between the husband and wife or the consensual relationship between the parties without any deceit or inducement would not constitute the offence of rape and cheating within the meaning of Sections 375 and 415 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the Respondent No.2 has made the imputations of rape and cheating only because the Applicant had walked out of the marriage.The allegations leveled in the FIR even if taken at its face value do not disclose essential ingredients of "rape" and "cheating" as defined under sections 375 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code and made punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Under the circumstances, and in view of the discussion above, the application is allowed.The FIR No. 93 of 2016 registered with Mulund Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 1 of 8"Police machinery was set into motion by DD No. 22A lodged at PS Vivek Vihar at 1816 hours dated 2.7.10 regarding presence of a dead body near Railway Line, Ambedkar Camp, Vivek Vihar, This DD was assigned to ASI Desh Raj who reached at the spot.Thereafter IO PW18 Inspector Sanjay Drall reached at the spot i.e. behind ITI, Vivek Vihar, near Railway Line.The dead body was of a female and her neck was found cut.Crime team and photographer were called by IO, who photographed the scene of crime.IO prepared rukka Ex. PW18/A and gave it to HC Sarfuddin for taking it to PS for registration of the FIR.IO prepared site plan and picked samples of blood and earth control from the spot.The dead body was sent to mortuary.The mobile phone make virgin of chocolate colour was recovered from the possession of dead body.The deceased was identified as Mukarrabi by the family of the deceased in the mortuary.IO conducted the inquest proceedings.After post-mortem dead body was handed over to her relatives.The brothers of the deceased showed their suspicion on accused Hasnain, who is husband of the deceased Call details of deceased and accused Hasnain were analyzed and it disclosed that on the day of incident they had talked with each other number of times.Accused Shah Nawaj, who is nephew of accused Hasnain had also talked with accused Hasnain eleven times on the day of incident.Location of both accused and deceased as per their mobile phones were found to be at Vivek Vihar, Jhilmil Industrial Area and Dilshad Garden.The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per prosecution, are that: CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 1 of 8On 27.7.10 accused Hasnain was arrested on the basis of secret information.During interrogation he made disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime.On 6.8.10 accused Shah Nawaj was also arrested.After investigation police filed chargesheet against both the accused under Section 302/120B IPC."CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 2 of 8Addressing arguments in support of the present criminal leave to appeal, Mr.K.S Singh, Counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the vital pieces of evidence, which emerged during the course of trial but were not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who are the daughter and the son of the deceased respectively and who had specifically stated in their testimonies that respondent No.1, their father used to beat the deceased and used to torture the deceased and they started living with their mother in the house of PW-15, their uncle.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 had called 11 times to respondent No.2 on his mobile number 9716758181, which belong to PW-9 Raj Kumar and after the incident both the mobile phones were CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 3 of 8 switched off.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court had also failed to appreciate the fact that from the testimonies of PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-5, the motive of respondent No. 1 to commit murder was very clear as he was suspicious about the character of the deceased.Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the said judgment on acquittal.CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 3 of 8We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.We have also gone through the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.

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

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

A case has been registered against the petitioner and three other persons in Cr.No.92 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A), 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 of I.P.C. by the respondent police.The first accused in the case was a contractor, who has taken contract for construction of a a ground level water tank in the Arunthathiyar Colony in Mittapatti Village in which the petitioner/second accused is an engineer, was assigned duty to supervise the day to day construction work.The third accused is the Extension Officer, fourth accused is the Block Development Officer.On 13.3.2004, the water tank busted causing death of two persons, grievous hurt to four persons besides simple injuries to 11 persons.It is also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that the Block Development Officer, who succeeded the second petitioner has categorically stated in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that only A-1 and A-2 are the persons solely responsible for the irregular construction and acting in a negligent manner while constructing the ground level water tank which resulted in the occurrence and the Block Development Officer has not whispered a word about these petitioners.The leanred Senior Counsel further pointed out that there is absolutely no materials available on record through the statements recorded from the witnesses implicating the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 I.P.C."As far as A3 and A4 are concerned they are not at all directly involved and only they were present to see the mixing of cement and sand of construction work.In the above circumstance, the petition is liable for dismissal.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It was alleged in the complaint that respondents are of criminal nature and they have terror in the locality.On 8/11/2012 when the complainant/applicant was on his tube-well, at that time the respondents came there alongwith stick, axe etc. and started abusing him and also called him by his caste's name and assaulted him.The non-applicant Jasrath had pulled his father from his hairs and threat to life was extended.offence under Sections 323, 294, 451, 506-B, 147, 148 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (in short "the Act").He has even not stated that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.Furthermore, even the caste certificate was not filed before the trial court and the applicant has not given any plausible explanation for not filing the copy of the caste certificate before the trial court, therefore, the trial court as well as the Revisional Court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.Heard learned counsel for the parties.So far as filing of the caste certificate before the Revisional Court or before this Court is concerned, the applicant has not given any explanation as to why the said document was not filed before the trial court.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Accordingly, the order dated 28/3/2017 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.1500171/2016 as well as the order dated 26/8/2016 passed by the JMFC, Bhind in Criminal Case No.2401080/2016 are affirmed.The M.Cr.G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Presently, the petitioners have no access to the records and documents of the hotel under reference.(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Md.Mumtaz Khan, J.)

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2) The prosecution story reveals that the deceased Amru along with the complainant Babu Adiwasi (PW-1), Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2) on 26.09.2007 while coming back from the village market met the appellants near the agricultural field where soyabeen was sown.That appellant Balveer was 2 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 carrying lathi whereas Harnam alias Harinarayan Sahu was carrying "sariya" (iron rod).That Amru asked for the wages on behalf of his wife, who had worked in Balveer's field, whereon Balveer got infuriated and inflicted blows with lathi.That when Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) interfered, they were also given beating with lathi and saria by both the appellants.As a result whereof, Amru succumbed to the injuries whereas Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) who sustained injuries.While running away from the place fell on their way.The complaint lodged by Babu (PW-1) was registered as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/24) on the basis whereof FIR (Ex. P/25) was registered.Police party was deployed.Investigation was set in motion.Spot maps and inquest were prepared (Ex. P/12, P- 13, P/14).(23.09.2017) Per Justice Sanjay Yadav:These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 passed in Special Case No. 14/2008, whereby the appellants having been found guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 326/34 of IPC were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing murder of Amru and five years sentence for causing grievous injuries to Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2).The body of Amru was sent for postmortem.The postmortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9), who gave the report Ex. P/11, wherein following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:-2 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08External Injury - Lacerated wound 4x2x1 cm left temporal region.Lacerated wound 2x2x1 cm above upper lib with and compound fracture of upper jaw with loose of incise and canine tooth.Lacerated wound above left eyebrow with compound fracture of left orbite and laceration of left eye wall.(2x2x1 cm size)."(3) As per doctor's opinion, the cause of death was coma due to head injury.(4) The injuries on Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9).As per Ex. P/8 following injuries were found on the body of Paatiram (PW-2):-"1. incise wound 4x2x1 cm right side chin.2. incise wound 2x1x1 cm right side 3 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 mouth3 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/083. incise wound 2x1x1 cm lateral to right eye.4. incise wound 3x2x1 cm right side vertexincise wound 2x1x1 cm let side chin6. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm lateral to left eye."And vide Ex. P/9, Ramesh (PW-3) was found having sustained following injuries:-"1. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm above right eyebrow.2. incise wound 2x1x1/2 cm above left eyebrow.3. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm upper lib.4. incise wound 2x1x1/2 cm back of head.swelling and contusion on doram of left hand."(5) The accused were arrested.After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed.The case was committed for trial.Appellants abjured their guilt and stated that they are falsely implicated.(6) Prosecution examined 12 witnesses, out of these Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined as the eyewitnesses, the doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the injured victims was examined as Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9).(7) The defence that as the incident is of night and the police has not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market, therefore, there was the possibility that victims were looted by unknown persons and the accused are falsely implicated was discarded by the trial Court on the findings that the assailants, i.e., accused persons and the victims were the residents of same village and were known to each other.And the eyewitness's count corroborated with the 4 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 medical evidence cannot be discarded merely because the police had not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market.4 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08(8) The trial Court also discarded the contention of sudden fight and that the incident could be brought within exception four of Section 300 of IPC by taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.The trial Court found that both the accused were sharing common object, therefore, the accused Harinarayan does not get any benefit of having not inflicted any injury to the deceased Amru.(10) Consequently, the trial Court held both the accused persons guilty of causing murder of Amru and grievous and simple injuries to Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) and convicted and sentenced them for life and 5 years' and one year's respectively with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- each.(11) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.(12) It is first contended on behalf of the appellants that non-seizure of any article of food or vegetable said to be purchased by the victims by the police from the spot from where they collected the blood stained earth creates a doubt to the entire story by the police.Babu (PW-1) who is the complainant in his cross-examination in paragraph 5 stated that the "Potli" in which they were carrying the vegetable and grocery fell at the place of occurrence of crime.He stated that:-^^5- ------eSa vkSj ve: nksuksa gh viuk [kjhnk x;k lkeku vius&vius lkFk iksVyh esa cka/kdj yk jgs FksA ve:5 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08But with the demand raised, the appellants got infuriated and inflicted multiple blows on the deceased and the persons accompanying him, viz Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3).

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He along with other accused is standing trial in the court of the Fifth Additional Special Judge, Madras City on four charges namely:1. 328thly, that you Accused 78 between November 1971 and November 1973 at Madras, in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction accepted or obtained from Approver Kannappan gratification to the tune of Rs. 26,000/- as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means the public servants, to wit, the officials of the Electrical Department, Central Accounts Department Cash Section, Revenue Department of the Corporation of Madras to do or forbear from doing official acts, to wit, prepare, process, negotiate and encash for disbursements bogus muster rolls relating to the employment of temporary labourers in the Electrical Department of the Corporation of Madras and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 162 of the Indian Penal Code.2. 329thly that you Accused-78 between August 1972 and November 1973, at Madras in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction abetted Accused 1 to 74 by corrupt or illegal means or other wise abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for yourselves and others to the tune of Rs. 6,35,855-25 as set out in the Annexure to Charge No. 326 supra and that you thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act-II) 1947, read with Section 109, I.P.C., and within my cognizance.3. 330thly, that you Accused-78 between November 1971 and November 1973, at the said place, in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction abetted Accused 1 to 74 by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for yourselves and others to the tune of Rs. 6,35,855-25 as set out in the annexure to charge No. 326 supra and that you thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II) 1947 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.Hence this appeal.It requires evidence for its determination.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant was employed in the Cooper Alien Mills at Kanpur and he was occupying one of the quarters in a settlement meant for the labouring classes known as the Allenganj Settlement.On 25-4-1957 when most of the menfolk residing there had gone away to the Mills to attend to their duties the appellant, it is said, came out of his quarters at about 7 A.M. armed with a Gandasa.It is said that Sarju Prasad P.W. 2 who was living with his brother in the Allenganj Settlement was sitting on his bed in front of his house when Rustam Ali came and struck him from behind with the Gandasa.Sarju Prasad tried to struggle for his safety but he was given several blows with the Gandasa in the meantime.Rustam Ali then ran away towards the north leaving Sarju Prasad there.It is further said that Om Prakash the son of Dhani Ram who was sitting on a cot in front of quarter No. 40/15 of his father was given Gandasa blow by Rustam Ali who thereafter ran away further north.During the process of arrest, and subsequently as well, injuries had been inflicted on Rustam Ali by the persons who had assembled there out of natural revolt engendered by the enormity of the crime committed by him.The emergency squad of the police was in the meantime informed by some one.Rustam Ali was handed over to the police and was taken to the hospital where he was attended to for his injuries.JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J.This is an appeal by Rustam Ali who has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Om Prakash, son of Dhani Ram, aged about" four years, and sentenced to death; and who has also been convicted under Section 307 for a brutal attack onSarju Prasad with the intention of killing him and has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.The report of the occurrence was made at the police station by Mustaq Ali at 7-35 A.M. Mus-taq Ali is also employed in the Cooper Alien Mills and he had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm of the people who had taken part in overpowering the accused.After the report was made the investigation of the case was taken up by Sub-Inspector Mohammad Sultan, the Second Officer of police station Nawabganj at the instance of Sub-Inspector Chandrapal Singh the Station Officer of that place.Sarju Prasad and Om Prakash were both hurried to the hospital soon after their receiving the injuries, Sarju Prasad's injuries were examined by Dr. D. S. Kapoor, P.W. 19, and the following injuries were found on his person :Incised would 4 1/2" by 1 3/4" muscle deep, On the posterior lateral aspect of the middle 1/3 of the left thigh, directed obliquely and internally and posteriorly.Incised wound, 1" by 1/2", muscle deep, on the left calf, posterior aspect, 5" below the knee.Incised wound 1/4" by 1/3", skin deep, over the knuckle of right index finger.Incised wound 3" by 1", bone deep, over the posterior aspect of head, transversely placed, slightly curved, lower flap sliced down.Incised wound, 2 1/4" by 1", muscle deep, and muscle cut on the left side of the neck 3" below the car of left side passing backwards.The injuries of Om Prakash son of Dhani Ram were examined by Dr. Sharda Prasad (P.W. 18).An incised wound 3 1/2" x 1/2" x 1 1/2" deep, below the occiput, on the back portion of the neck2" to the right and 1 1/2" to the left of the mid-line of the neck, was found.In spite of medical aid Om Prakash did not survive and he died at the hospital on the same date at 12-30 P.M. His body was sent for post mortem examination, which was conducted on that very day at the mortuary at 5-30 p.m. The post mortem examination revealed an incised wound 3 1/2" x 1" bone deep on the back of the neck, middle third, cutting the fourth cervical vertebra and injuring the spinal cord partially.Dr. D. P. Gupta was of opinion that death was' caused by shock due to the injury to the spinal cord in the cervical region.When the first information report was lodged by Mustaq Ali P.W. 1 at the police station, the gandasa recovered from the accused, namely, Ex. 1, was handed over there.At the police station it was sealed up by the Head Constable after the recovery memo, had been prepared.This gandasa was sent to the Chemical Examiner and to the Serologist to Government, and it was found to contain human blood.The accused denied the allegations made against him.He denied that he attacked Sarju Prasad and Om Prakash, son of Dhani Ram.He denied that the gandasa Ex. I belonged to him, or that it was taken away from him when he was overpowered.He did not state anything as to how he was arrested and by whom.It may be stated here that on an earlier occasion when the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge for trial, it was contended on behalf of the accused that he was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence.An inquiry was therefore conducted in respect of that allegation.The Superintendent of that Hospital later on certified in December 1958 that Rustam Ali was then in a fit condition to stand his trial.He was thereafter transferred to Kanpur Jail and the trial was held.The defence that was taken by the accused in the Court of Sessions was that by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of the alleged commission of the offence he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he was doing was contrary to law and, therefore, his act was protected under Section 84, I.P.C. To support that plea it was contended on behalf of Rustam Ali that he used to beat his wife and also used to lock her up inside the quarters when he used to go out for works; that he was of an eccentric type; that off and on he raised objections in the factory where he was employed about the quantity of work that was given to him; and that the very fact that he attacked a number of persons just about the timewhen Sarju Prasad and Om Prakash had been assaulted, affords proof of the circumstance that his mind was unhinged.The fact that Sarju Prasad P.W. 2 and Om Prakash son of Dhani Ham had been attacked by the appellant with the gandasa Ext. 1 on the morning of 25-4-1957 at the respective places stated above and that Om Prakash son of Dhani Ram died as a result of the injury received by him on the same date at the hospital at 12-50 p.m. admits of no doubt whatsoever.That was conclusively proved by the medical evidence referred to above and by the eye-witnesses.The first incident relating to Sarju Prasad was testified to not only be Sarju Prasad who was the victim of the assault, but by two other witnesses, Smt. Sunder P.W. 4 and Smt. Rabia P.W. 7, Smt. Sunder is the wife of Sarju Prasad's brother, who had gone out to work.Sunder was inside the house and she came out when she heard Sarju Prasad and Rabia shouting for help.She deposed that she saw Rustam All striking Sarju Prasad with the gandasa.Smt. Rabia resides in one of the neighbouring quarters.She stated that she saw Rustam Ali passing by her quarters.She inquired from him as to why he had not gone to his work, and Rustam Ali told her that he had taken leave for the day.Rustam Ali then took an onward course and Smt. Rabia applied herself to her own work.She then heard the cries of Sarju and, when she raised her head, she found Rustam.She also raised cries.Sarju fell down and became unconscious.The two ladies lifted up Sarju who was sent to the hospital.The statements of these three witnesses fully established the fact that it was Rustam Ali who attacked Sarju Prasad.There was nothing on the record to suggest or to show that these three witnesses had any motive to implicate the accused falsely.With respect to the second incident we have the statement of three witnesses, Lakshmi (P.W. 10), Ram Pyari (P.W. 11) and Dhani Ram (P.W. 16).Ram Pyari and Dhani Ram are the parents of Om Prakash; and Smt. Lakshmi is the wife of one Hem Nath who was residing in the adjoining quarters.All the three witnesses were inside their respective quarters.Smt. Lakshmi heard some noise outside and she came out to see what the matter was and she saw that Rustam Ali was running with a Gandasa in his hand from the side of Sarju Prasad's quarters.At that time Om Prakash the son of Dhani Ram was sitting over the cot in front of his quarter.Om Prakash was getting into the house when he was alerted and asked by his parents to do so, but before he could get inside the house, Rustam Ali struck him with the Gandasa.Om Prakash was rushed to the hospital and in spite of medical aid he expired at the hospital on the same day at about 12-50 P.M. There was nothing on the record to raise any semblance of doubt about the truth of the matter deposed to by these two witnesses.We have already said that in the process of apprehension, and immediately afterwards, those who apprehended him and those who had gathered at the spot made an attack at Rustam Ali obviously on account of the enormity of the offence and the reckless way in which the accused had attacked innocent persons.Mushtaq Ali (P.W. 1) who was one of the persons who had arrested the accused was quite an independent witness.He showed great couragein apprehending the accused.Rustam Ali had no explanation to give as to how he was arrested and when.From what we have said above there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence relating to the two incidents.That evidence fully established that it was Rustam Ali who made a murderous attack on Om Prakash with the Gandasa' Ex. 1 which resulted in the death of Om Prakash and he also made a murderous attack on Sarju Prasad witness but Sarju Prasad luckily escaped death.The plea raised by the accused, that he is entitled to the protection under Section 84, I.P.C., was, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.There was no doubt the evidence of Smt. Sunder (P.W. 4) that Rustam Ali used to lock up his wife and children inside his house when housed to go out for work.There was the further evidence of Smt. Ram Pyari (P. W. 11) who stated that Rustam Ali used to quarrel with his wife and to beat her.The attack on Om Prakash son of Dhani Ram was unprovoked; so was the attack on Sarju Prasad.

['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 172/93 convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 10.5.1993 Kalibai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who was living in the house of her parents, ablazed herself.She was sent to the Hospital where a dying declaration of her was recorded.The investigating agency investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.The learned Trial Judge on going through the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.Needless to emphasis the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.His defence is of maladroit implication.In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed certain documents on record.The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.9.2018 in connection with Asansol (North) P.S case no. 153 of 2018 dated 2.6.2018 under sections 498A/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act added secton 406 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Nikhit @ Nikhat Perween @ Rani ...... petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya Mr. Kunal Ganguly ...... for the petitioner Mr. Partha Pratim Das ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the State.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned 2 CJM, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event she fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel her bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 7845 of 2018 is disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He further undertakes that in case he is given bail he be abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.3 Cr.A. No.3201/2020In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant, his preliminary Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the appellant to his house, and if he is found positive then the appellant shall be immediately sent to concerned hospital for his treatment as per medical norms.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 21/5/2020 passed by trial Court; whereby, application of appellant preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.He further undertakes to to cooperate in trial and not to be a source of harassment or embarrassment to the complainant party in any manner.Further looking to the situation of pandemic, he intends to serve the Nation by contributing his part by installing Arogya Setu App and contributing in Army Central Welfare Fund.2 Cr.A. No.3201/2020Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the criminal appeal.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.State of M.P. ) Thousands only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.If the appellant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the appellant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants :-THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 Cr.A. No.3201/2020 (Gajendra Vs.State of M.P. )4 Cr.A. No.3201/20201.The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The appellant shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- in favour of Army Central Welfare Fund having A/C No.520101236373338 of Corporation Bank, Chandani Chowk Delhi within one month..The appellant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 Cr.A. No.3201/2020 (Gajendra Vs.State of M.P. ) the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.5 Cr.A. No.3201/2020Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA JAI PRAKASH PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya SOLANKI Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179c ec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2020.07.24 10:51:38 +05'30'

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In view of the nature of allegations made by the two victim girls in the two cases, the case of the prosecution in its entirety mentioned in both these cases need to be mentioned for better appreciation of the facts and also to understand the plight of the two victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::4) The two victim girls PW-1 and PW-2 were friends.They were residents of Partur, District Jalna.At the relevant time they had not crossed age of 16 years.Mother of PW-1 was working as maid servant to earn livelihood and she was required to maintain not only the prosecutrix but also other issues as her husband is dead.The parents of PW-2, other prosecutrix, hail from Hiwarkheda.The parents of PW-2 are very poor and as they could not afford to maintain PW-2, they had kept PW-::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::8 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 2 in the house of sister of mother of PW-2 in Partur.PW-2 was not happy due to poverty and also due to bad treatment which she was receiving in the house of her aunt on maternal side.5) On 3-7-1994, PW-2 had some dispute with her maternal aunt.As she was being starved she met PW-1 and expressed that she wanted to work to earn for her livelihood.PW-1 has a relative by name Sham Agrawal and he was running a shop in Parbhani city, District Parbhani.PW-1 expressed that Sham Agrawal can help them in giving job in Parbhani.Due to these circumstances on 3-7- 1994 PW-1 and PW-2 left Partur for Parbhani without informing anything to anybody from Partur.On 4-7-1994 early in the morning they went to Osmanpur railway::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 9 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 station on foot and there they boarded a train proceeding to Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::These boys were also proceeding to Parbhani as they were doing some diploma course in Parbhani.During talk, PW-1 and PW-2 disclosed to these boys that they were going to Parbhani in search of job.These boys advised the victim girls not to go to Parbhani and return to home.They informed that it was not safe for them to go to Parbhani.PW-1 and PW-2 and the two boys alighted at Parbhani from train.As the boys were advising the girls to return home but as there was no train up to 3 p.m. the boys gave tea and food to these girls in a hotel.As there was time upto 3 p.m., the boys took these two girls to Talreja Talkies to see a movie.It was a matinée show and after seeing the movie the girls were expected to return by train to home.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::(accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994) occupied the seats by the side of the two girls.They opened talk with the two girls and during talk the three accused realised that these two girls wanted to go to Sham Agrawal.Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 falsely represented to these girls that they knew Sham Agrawal and Sham Agrawal was their friend.They gave false promise to the victim girls that they would take them to Sham Agrawal.After arrival of accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 in the theatre, the aforesaid two boys viz Raju and Abhay left the theatre.9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No. 121 of 1994 took the two girls in an auto-rickshaw first to the house of a friend where they provided meals to the girls.From this house accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 took the girls to a banana garden situated at the outskirts of Parbhani city.In the banana garden, accused No.1 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 11 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 one side and then he committed rape on her.After that accused No.1 to 3 from that case took PW-1 and PW-2 towards side of a brook known as Pingad-Gad-Nala.There was water in the brook.PW-1 and PW-2 could not resist as threats were given to them.From there, accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 to a lodge of Parbhani by name Visawa Lodge.They reached there at about 10.00 p.m. There accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 informed to PW-1 and PW-2 that two Sahibs, accused Nos.6 and 7 of Sessions Case No.121/1994, were to come to the lodge and they would::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 12 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 help PW-1 and PW-2 for getting work.After some time accused Nos.6 and 7 of that case namely Nitin Dudhgaonkar and Kalyan Renge came to the lodge.They gave threats not to disclose the incident to anybody.Accused Nos.8 and 9 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 were managing the lodge and they kept watch to see that there was no interference or there was no help to the victim girls.When accused Nos.6 and 7 left the lodge, accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 to campus of Shanti Niketan school.There accused Nos.1 to 4 consumed liquor.Accused Nos.2,3 and 4 then left the campus of the school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::11) From the campus of the school, accused No.1 took the two victim girls to other place which is called as Wada, big house, where accused No.5 Tukaram Kharat of Sessions Case No.121/1994 was present.Tukaram gave::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 13 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 threats to PW-1 and PW-2 to facilitate rape which accused No.1 wanted to commit.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::12) From the last place accused No.1 took the two victim girls to Parbhani Railway Station and there he left them.While leaving, he again gave threats to them not to disclose the incident to anybody.Under the pretext that he would help PW-1 and PW-2 he took these two girls to retiring room situated at railway platform.Abbas Baig then called accused No.2 Ashok, who was working as Police Head Constable and accused No.3 Tabuka, who was working as Railway ticket booking clerk to the room.One more person also came with them.The retiring place had many rooms.Accused No.3 Tabuka and the other person took PW-1 to one room and there they raped her.After committing the rape these persons allowed the victim girls to leave the retiring room.The victim girls were very::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 15 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 much frightened and in that condition they went to the bridge of the railway and from there in search of water they went towards railway quarters situated by the side of the railway station.It was day time.There, accused No.4 Bhansing Bundele, who was occupying a railway quarters as he was employee of railway, promised them to help and took them to his residential quarters.In his quarters, accused No.5 Raju was already present and one young boy aged about 12 years was also present.accused No.4 supplied water to the victim girls and then he left the railway quarters by informing to accused No.5 that he would return after some time (after attending the duty).::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::15) At about 2.30 p.m. of 5-7-1994 accused No.4 of the present matter returned to the railway quarters.He had brought with him a bottle of liquor and some food items.He gave the food items to the victim girls and asked the aforesaid young boy to leave the quarters.When the young boy left the quarters, accused No.5 took PW-1::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 16 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 to one room and there he raped her.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::16) Accused Nos.4 and 5 of the present matter virtually used PW-1 and PW-2 upto 4.00 p.m. of 5-7-1994 and then they called accused No.6 Munna @ Ravindra Singh and accused No.7 Mahesh to the railway quarters.From the railway quarters PW-1 and PW-2 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 in an auto-rickshaw to other place by name Shakti Bungalow from Parbhani.Accused No.6 and 7 had come on their motor cycle and they followed auto rickshaw to that place on their motor cycle.This incident was going on upto early hours of 6-7-1994 (upto 3 A.M.).PW-1 somehow saved her by giving information regarding her menstruation period.On::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 17 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 the night between 5-7-1994 and 6-7-1994 the two victim girls were present in Shakti Bungalow.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::17) On 6-7-1994, in the morning when PW-2 woke up from sleep, she noticed that PW-1 was not there.Accused No.5 Rameshwar from the present matter was present in Shakti Bungalow and he informed that PW-1 had already left the building.PW-2 searched for some time to find PW-1 and then she went to Parbhani Railway Station as she intended to return to home by railway.In the meantime PW-1 had gone to other station viz. Purna and from there a lady police constable took her in railway to Parbhani Railway Station.At Parbhani Railway Station PW-1 pointed PW-2 to the lady constable and due to that the lady constable took PW-2 to Railway Police Chowki and PW-2 was asked to stay there.18) The lady police constable Giribai reached PW-1 to Partur by train.After returning from Partur, Giribai took PW-2 to Purna Railway Police Station.There, the FIR of PW-2 came to be recorded and the crime came to be::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 18 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 registered.PW-2 was taken to Parbhani for medical examination on 7-4-1994 and she was medically examined.During course of investigation her clothes were taken over.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::19) On 9-7-1994 PW-2 was taken to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani where another FIR came to be recorded and another crime came to be registered.Sessions Case No.121/1994 is filed in the crime registered at New Mondha Police Station Parbhani in respect of the incidents which took place in banana garden, near Pingad- Gad-Nala, Visawa Lodge, Shanti Niketan school and one Wada.She has deposed that first, accused No.6 raped her against her will by removing her clothes.Bleeding through cervical os seen.The vaginal mucosa is contested.57) On 20-8-1994 Jadhav (PW-17) held T.I. parade in which opportunity was given to PW-1 and PW-2 to identify accused Nos.6 and 7 of the present matter.On this occasion he used six dummy persons.accused No.6 also gave statement to him and he prepared memorandum of his statement.73) Sahebrao Vyavahare (PW-23) was working as Police Inspector in CID and he made remaining investigation of the case.He has deposed that, he took over the investigation of CR No.29/1994 registered in Purna Railway Police Station by PSI Khan and he also took over the investigation of CR No.82/1994 registered with New Mondha Police Station which was with Chalak.1) All the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.139/1994 which was pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge,::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 6 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Parbhani.The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced accused Nos.4 to 7 for offence punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos.4 and 5 are convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under section 342 read with section 34 of IPC also.The convicted accused persons have filed the first four appeals.The State has filed Criminal Appeal No.306/1999 as the trial Court has given jail sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment to accused Nos.4 to 7 and the State wants to see that they get imprisonment for life.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals can be stated as follows :--3) Two minor village girls were ravished in Parbhani city and at the outskirts of Parbhani city by different persons.In respect of these incidents two separate charge-sheets were filed and two cases were tried separately against those persons in respect of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 7 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 different incidents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No. 121::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::committed rape on PW-2 and accused Nos.2 and 310) From the side of the brook accused No.1 to 3 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 towards the side of road.There they met accused No.4 of that case namely Rameshwar.In respect of the aforesaid five incidents of rape separate charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No.121/1994 was tried against the aforesaid 9 accused persons.In that case accused Nos.1 to 4 and accused Nos.6 and 7 are convicted and sentenced for offence of gang rape.Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 366 read with 34 of IPC.These accused are convicted for different incidents mentioned above.13) The second part of the prosecution case starts from the incident which took place at Parbhani Railway Station.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::On 7-7-1994 police from Kotwali Police Station Parbhani went to Partur and they brought PW-1 to Kotwali Police Station.PW-1 was then sent to New Mondha Police Station and in the crime registered there, her statement came to be recorded.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::place in retiring room of the railways station, railway quarters and Shakti Bungalow came to be recorded as per the narration made by PW-2 and Sessions Case No. 139 of 1994, present matter, was filed after making investigation of that crime.During course of investigation statements of PW-1 and PW-2 came to be recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.PW-2 took police to various places where the offence was committed against them.Accused persons came to be arrested.Some incriminating articles like clothes, carpets came to be recovered on the basis of statements given by accused persons.Blood samples of the accused persons came to be sent to CA office along with blood samples of the two victim girls along with vaginal swabs collected by medical officer.Charge sheet came to be filed in the present matter in Crime No.29/1994 registered in Purna Railway Police Station and Crime No.82/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::22) Charge was framed against accused separately in accordance with the allegations made against him by the two victim girls and the material collected against accused.All the accused pleaded not guilty.Prosecution examined 23 witnesses who include the two victim girls.All the accused took the defence of total denial.No defence evidence is given.23) The prosecution relied on both, direct and the circumstantial evidence.The trial Court has believed both the victim girls so far as the evidence given by them as against accused Nos.4 to 7 is concerned.The evidence given as against accused Nos.1 to 3 is not believed by the trial Court.The trial Court has held that there is circumstantial check to the evidence given as against::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 21 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 accused Nos.4 to 7 and the evidence as against these accused given by the two victim girls is consistent with each other.In view of these circumstances the evidence of prosecution given as against accused Nos.4 to 7 only and with regard to the incidents in which they were involved need to be considered and appreciated.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::24) Both the victim girls have given evidence in respect of the incidents which took place between 4-7- 1994 till early hours of 5-7-1994 and that evidence shows that prior to the incidents in which accused Nos.4 to 7 were involved both the victim girls were ravished by other persons at various places like banana garden, near brook, in a lodge, in the campus of a school, in Wada and also in the retiring room of Parbhani Railway Station.It needs to be mentioned here that the Court has not believed the victim girls in respect of the incidents of rape took place in the retiring room in which accused Nos.1 to 3 and one unknown person were involved.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::No.1") has given evidence that when the incident which took place in retiring room was over, she and PW-2 (victim girl No.2) came out of the retiring room, went to the stairs of the bridge and stayed there for some time.She has deposed that they wanted to have drinking water and so they started to proceed towards railway quarters of the railway employees situated by the side of the railway station.She has given evidence that on the way one man who was known, accused No.4, Bhansing, met them.This accused is identified by both the victim girls in the Court.She has given evidence that accused No.4 took them to his railway quarters by promising to give them drinking water.She has given evidence that one boy aged about 12 to 13 years was also present in this residential quarters.She has given evidence that accused No.4 gave water to them and then said that there was train for Partur at 3.00 p.m. and he would arrange to send them by train to Partur.She has given evidence that by saying so::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 23 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 he left the quarters but while leaving, he closed the entrance door of the quarters and put a lock on it from outside.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::She has deposed that accused No.4 had brought liquor bottle with him.She has given evidence that accused No.4 supplied food to both of them and then accused Nos.4 and 5 consumed liquor.food to both of them and then accused Nos.4 and 527) PW-1 has given evidence that accused No.4 then took PW-2 to a room of the quarters and closed the door of the room from inside.She has given evidence that accused No.5 then raped her by removing her clothes.She::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 24 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 has described the incident of rape in her evidence.She has given evidence that after some time PW-2 came out of the aforesaid room and she informed that accused No.4 had raped her.She has given evidence that accused No.5 gave threats to finish them by braking glass and so they could not resist and they stayed inside of the quarters.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::She has given specific evidence as against accused No.4 that in the noon time, when accused No.4 returned to the railway quarters, accused No.4 raped her.She has given evidence that the act was against her will.She has given particulars of the incident of rape.She has given evidence that during the incident the lace of her Salwar got broken and so accused No.4 gave lace of his shoe for using it as lace of her Salwar and she used that lace for her Salwar.She has identified accused Nos.4 and 5 in the Court and she has also identified her Salwar having lace of the shoe which was produced by her during course of investigation before police.She has given evidence that when accused No.4::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 25 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 was committing the offence, accused No.5 had done the same thing against PW-1 and that incident was disclosed by PW-1 to her.The evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 as against accused No.4 and 5 on the incident of rape which took place in the railway quarters of accused No.4 is consistent with each other.There is also circumstantial check and those circumstances are being discussed at other place.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::PW-2 has given similar evidence as against accused Nos.6 and 7 and their evidence leads to inference that it is accused No.4 who had called accused No.6 and 7 to his railway quarters.PW-2 has identified::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 26 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 accused Nos.6 and 7 in the Court and she gave their description also.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::30) PW-1 has given evidence that from the railway quarters of accused No.4 she and PW-2 were taken in an auto-rickshaw by accused Nos.4 and 5 to one bungalow viz. Shakti Bungalow.She has given evidence that accused Nos.4 and 5 were sitting on the two sides of PW-1 and PW-PW-1 has given description of this bungalow and the substantive evidence which is being discussed shows that only due to information given by PW-2, police could trace both, the railway quarters of accused No.4 and Shakti bungalow.Some articles were also recovered in connection with the crime by police at the instance of one accused and on the basis of statement given under section 27 of the Evidence Act.She has given evidence that she was not raped because she was in menses.She has deposed that after coming from the room where rape was committed, PW-2 narrated the incident to her by saying that all the four accused (accused Nos.4,5,6 and 7) had raped her.She has deposed that PW-2 was weeping, she was feeling tired and she was having pains.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::She has specifically pointed accused No.6 in that regard.She has given evidence against accused No.4 that he had raped her in Shakti bungalow against her will.She has given evidence that accused No.7 then committed rape on her and at the end accused No.5 committed rape on her.She has identified these four accused persons in the Court as the persons who had raped her in Shakti::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 28 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 bungalow.She has given evidence that she was ravished for long time by these four persons, till early hours of the next day.She has given evidence that she was having pains, she could not walk and she was frightened and as she was not able understand what to do, she slept in Shakti bungalow on that night for the remaining period.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::33) The remaining evidence given by PW-1 and PW- 2 is with regard to their subsequent conduct.The evidence shows that after the incident of rape which took place in Shakti bungalow they were allowed to leave Shakti bungalow.Their evidence shows that first PW-1 left the Shakti bungalow, she went to Purna station where a lady constable made inquiry with her and by way of precaution the lady constable took PW-1 with her.Evidence of PW-2 shows that after searching for PW-1 for some time, she went to Parbhani Railway Station as she wanted to return to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 29 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Partur and there the aforesaid lady constable came to her and then she was taken to railway police Chowki by the said lady constable.The evidence of PW-1 shows that from Purna Railway Station she was taken to Partur to her residential place by the lady constable and she was reached to her house.The evidence of PW-1 shows that when train reached Parbhani, she showed PW-2 to the lady constable and so the lady constable took aforesaid step.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::The evidence of PW-2 shows that in the Parbhani Railway Police Station one PSI Khan made inquiry with her and he recorded her statement.PW-2 has tried to say that her entire version was not recorded by Khan and only the portion which he felt necessary was recorded by him.On that statement her signature was obtained by Khan.She has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 she was taken to Parbhani from Purna::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 30 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 for her medical examination and there she was medically examined.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::35) PW-2 has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 her clothes were taken over by police which were Salwar and Kurta and they were the clothes which were on her person when she was raped in railway residential quarters of accused No.4 and in Shakti Bungalow.She has identified articles 9,10 and 11 as her clothes which were produced before police by her.She has deposed that her signature was obtained on the seizure panchanama (Exhibit 28) when the clothes were taken over by police.She has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 P.S.I. Yeshwant took over inner wear, nicker, which is article 6 and separate panchanama in that regard was prepared.36) PW-2 has given evidence that on 10-7-1994 she showed the places where the incidents narrated by her had taken place.The places were the railway quarters of accused No.4 and the Shakti Building.The evidence as regards the other place viz. retiring room of railway::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 31 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 station need not be considered as that matter is not before this Court.PW-2 has deposed that panchanama of the incidents in which she showed the places was prepared in her presence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::37) PW-2 has given evidence that during investigation, she was given opportunity to identify the accused persons.She has deposed that in the test identification parade dated 2-8-1994 she identified accused No.4 Bhansing and accused No.5 Raju.This witness has identified accused Nos.4 and 5 during the deposition in the Court also.PW-2 has given evidence on test identification parade dated 20-8-1994 in which she identified accused No.6 Ravindra @ Munna and accused No.7 Mahesh.PW-2 identified accused Nos.6 and 7 during deposition in the Court also.38) PW-2 has given evidence that the Judicial Magistrate recorded her statement (under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) during the course of investigation.It is brought on the record in her evidence that the term used::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 32 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 in Marathi by her viz. "Angawar Haat Takla" (v ax koj gkr Vkdyk ) means the commission of rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::39) PW-1 has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 PSI Yeshwant took her from her residential place from Partur to Parbhani Police Station and then her report was recorded.PW-1 has given evidence that PSI Khan recorded her statement in Parbhani on 8-7-1994 but that statement was not recorded as per the version given by her.PW-1 has deposed that her clothes viz. article Nos.4 and 5 (shown to be seized in Sessions Case No.121/1994) were taken over during investigation and she was wearing these clothes viz. Salwar and Kurta at the time of the incidents in question.40) PW-1 has given evidence that opportunity was given to her to identify accused persons in test identification parades.She has deposed that in the test identification parade dated 2-8-1994 she identified accused No.4 Bhansing and on that occasion she was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 33 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 asked to identify associate of the accused who raped her.PW-1 has deposed that on 20-8-1994 in other test identification parade she identified accused No.6 Munna and accused No.7 Mahesh.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::41) PW-1 has given evidence that her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) but she could not give the narration of the incidents correctly when the statement was recorded as she was still in shock.She has given evidence that she was referred for medical examination and she was medically examined.42) The prosecution has given other circumstantial evidence.His evidence shows that PW-1 produced Salwar and Kurta and they came to be seized.Panchanama of seizure of the clothes of PW-2 is also proved in his evidence as Exhibit 37and there were blood stains on the underwear of PW 2.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::dated 17-7-1994 in which he stated that he would show the places of the incidents like residential quarters of the railway and Shakti bungalow.No recovery or seizure of articles took place on the basis of the statement.However, there is circumstance that only after showing the places of the incidents by PW-2 and after arrest of accused No.4, accused Nos.6 and 7 were traced and arrested.They were not known to PW-2 prior to the date of incident.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::35 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999Panchanama of seizure of underwear and 'T' shirt of accused No.6 is proved at Exhibit 48 and the clothes were recovered on the basis of statement mentioned in Exhibit47.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::The evidence on record shows that this motor cycle is not identified by the two victim girls.44) Vaijnath (PW-12) is another panch who has given evidence on the seizure of clothes of accused No.4 Bhansing and on his arrest panchanama.His evidence shows that PW-2 was with police and panchas when they visited the quarters.One underwear having stains of blood was also taken over.A pair of shoes was taken over and to one shoe there was no lace.Here only it needs to be again mentioned that it is the case of PW-2 that she was given lace of this shoe by Bhansing as the lace of her Salwar got broken during the incident.Another document at Exhibit 77 is proved in the evidence this witness.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::46) Dr. Jaishri Deshpande (PW-14) is examined by prosecution to give medical evidence.She examined PW-2 on 7-7-1994 at about 4.p.m.On local examination she noted following things in respect of PW-2 :-Matting of pubic hair was seen.Blood stains on clothes and genitals.No evidence of external injuries over genitals.Hymen - torn, congested+ oozing through tear present.P.S. : Speculum could be passed with difficulty tenderness i.e. severe tenderness.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::38 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 On PV examination she found following things :Vagina admits one finger with pains i.e. severe tenderness.Bleeding through cervical was present.This document is consistent with the oral evidence of the witness.47) Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) examined PW-1 on 8-7-1994 at 9.00 p.m. She has deposed that on local examination she found following things :-Matting of pubic hair not seenBlood stains on the clothes and genitals were seenPosterior fourchette congested and redness.Lebia minora was slightly congested.Hymen torn (old tear), no oozing bleeding through vagina was present.No evidence of injury over the external genitals.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::"Medium size speculum passed with a minimum tenderness means pains.Vagina admits two fingers with tenderness.Uterus - normal size, retroverted bleeding through cervical seen.No living or dead spermatozoa. "48) The evidence of Dr. Jaishri Deshpande shows that on microscopic examination no living or dead spermatozoa were revealed.Her evidence, however, shows that living spermatozoa can be seen within 2 to 3 hours after sexual intercourse and dead spermatozoa can be seen within 24 hours of sexual intercourse.The evidence on the record shows that both the victim girls were examined after 24 hours of the last incident of rape.49) Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) has given evidence on the examination done by her of both the victim girls to ascertain their age.Her evidence shows that she had taken X-rays and she had done clinical examination also.In respect of PW-2 she has deposed that iliac crest had appeared but not fused.The process of fusion of lower end was not yet started but the head of radius was found::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 40 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 fused.The X-ray plates are produced in the Court.On the basis of the clinical and radiological examination she gave opinion about the age of PW-2 as age between 14 and 16 years which include margin of error which is 1 to 2 years.She has given specific opinion that the age of PW-2 was less than 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::She has given evidence that the age of PW-1 was between 14 and 16 years which include margin of error.She has given specific evidence that the age of PW-1 was not more than 16 years on the date of examination.X-ray plate of this victim girl was also produced.This record is consistent with the oral evidence of Dr. Jaishri.Specific opinion was obtained by police from this doctor by putting some queries and that opinion is given at Exhibit 81 which is proved in her evidence.At Exhibit 82 there is the record with regard to radiological examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::birth also in respect of two victim girls.Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-15) is working as Clerk in Dhapibai Maternity Home Amarawati.He has given evidence that as per the record one Kirandevi Mor was admitted in this hospital for delivery on 12-3-1979 and on the same day she delivered a female child at 1.30 p.m. According to him, as per the record, it was second female child to Kirandevi.He has given evidence that after the delivery, information was given to local body, Municipal Corporation by this hospital.Challenge with regard to the surname of the mother mentioned in the register is being discussed at later place.Original record was brought to the Court and Exhibit 84 is consistent with the original record.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::medical officer in the Department of Registration of Births and death of Municipal Corporation Amarawati is examined by the prosecution to prove the registration of birth of PW-1 on the basis of information give by Dhapibai Maternity Home, mentioned above.Entry was made at Sr.No.2131 in the register in respect of PW-1 and he has given evidence that it is in respect of female child name of whose father was Rameshwar Gangabhishan Mor and the name of the mother of the child was Kiran.The date of birth is recorded as 12-3-1979 and the girl was born in Dhapibai Maternity Home Amarawati.It was the second female child to this couple.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::Bahadur Shastri High School Partur is examined by the prosecution to prove the date of birth of PW-2 on the basis of her school record.The transfer certificate issued by C.P.S. is proved in Sessions Case No.121/1994 as Exhibit 229 and its copy is produced in the present matter.He has given evidence that as per original transfer certificate which was received by his school, the PW-2 was admitted on 10-7-1981 and accordingly the date of birth was recorded by his school.Copy of the transfer certificate is taken on the record at Exhibit 175 in the present matter.In the school register entry of the admission was taken and the original school record was also brought to the Court.Thus, there is medical evidence and also the evidence given on the basis of school record by the prosecution to show that the age of PW-2 was not more than 16 years at the relevant time.The dates of birth of both the victim girls show that their age was less than 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::54) Namdeo Jadhav (PW-17), Executive Magistrate, has given evidence on test identification parades (hereinafter referred to as "T.I. Parade") held by him in the campus of Parbhani Jail.He has given evidence that after receipt of letter of police, he collected information about the case and then he arranged for conducting T.I. parade.The evidence of T.I. parade was seriously challenged before the trial Court.Though the learned Senior Counsel for the present appellants-accused submitted that the trial Court has discarded the evidence of T.I. parade, the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 45 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 judgment does not show that there is such specific finding.The trial Court has held that two victim girls were in the position to identify the accused, who were identified by them in the Court and identification in Court is sufficient.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::55) Namdeo Jadhav (PW-17) has given evidence that in the T.I. parade held on 2-8-1994 PW-2 identified accused Nos.4 and 5 of the present matter.The evidence of Jadhav shows that he used 7 dummy persons for T.I. parade dated 2-8-1994 and they were resembling to the accused persons in appearance, in age and in height.He has given evidence that opportunity was given separately to PW-1 and PW-2 to identify accused Nos.4 and 5 though accused Nos.4 and 5 were standing in the same group of aforesaid 7 dummy persons.He has given evidence that PW-1 and PW-2 were asked to identify the accused persons who had raped them and also the persons who had acted as associates in the incidents.He has given evidence that PW-1 identified accused No.4 Bhansing as an associate.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::This record is consistent with the evidence of Jadhav and also the substantive evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 on T.I. parade.Evidence of Jadhav shows that in the T.I. parade dated 20-8-1994 the position of accused Nos.6 and 7 was changed and second opportunity was given to both PW-1 and PW-2 to identify these two persons.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::investigating officers also.Khan (PW-18) is the first investigating officer and he was attached to Purna Railway Police Station as Police Sub Inspector.He was in charge of Parbhani Railway Police Station also.According to him, the railway quarters of the employees of the railway like accused No.4 is not within his local jurisdiction.This circumstance needs to be kept in mind as some incidents are omitted in the report recorded by Khan (PW-18).He took over the clothes of PW- 2 which were on her person like Salwar, Odhani and Kurta (articles Nos.9,10 and 11) under Exhibit 28 in CR No.29/1994 registered by him in Purna Railway Police Station.According to him, during investigation he::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 48 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 collected record of Lal Bahadur Shastri High School in respect of PW-2 to ascertain the date of her birth.He has given evidence that he had sent PW-1 and PW-2 to the Judicial Magistrate First class for recording their statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He has given evidence that he had sent articles which were seized by him to C.A. office on 14-7-1994 with covering letter.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::60) Khan (PW-18) was cross-examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor.The evidence of both the victim girls shows that they had the grievance against PW-18 that their versions were not completely and correctly recorded by PW-18 Khan.It is suggested to him that he did not record the incidents which took place near brook, the incident of rape which took place in Visawa Lodge and the incident of rape which took place in the campus of a::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 49 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 school even when they were disclosed.These incidents are not involved in the present matter but due to these circumstances, Khan was cross-examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::61) In the examination-in-chief itself Khan (PW-18) has deposed that PW-2 was appearing weak and she was not able to speak and so he had obtained the information by putting some questions to her.This evidence also needs to be kept in mind as some incidents were not recorded by him.62) Here only it needs to be observed that the mental condition of these two girls needs to be kept in mind at the time of the appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and at the time of consideration of absence of some incidents in the first disclosures made by them to police.They had left the shelter of their parents/::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 50 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 guardians, they were minor and were afraid of some action against them.It also needs to be kept in mind that their evidence shows that their guardians/parents preferred to stay away from them and they did not opt for the custody of these two minors and the minors were required to be kept in Remand Home.These victims girls must have felt that they were responsible for everything including the incidents that had taken place against them.The circumstance that PW-1 had given her age as 18 years at the relevant time also needs to be kept in mind.However, PW-2 had given her age as 14 years.It can be said on the basis of evidence of PW-1 that she was little more mature than PW-2 at the relevant time.Even when their evidence was being recorded, they were kept in Female Reformatory school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::63) Chandrabhan (PW-19) was attached to Kotwali Police Station Parbhani as Police Sub Inspector.He has deposed that he recorded statement of PW-1 and then sent her to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.He registered crime at CR No.73/1994 in Kotwali Police::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 51 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Station on the basis of report recorded by him.His evidence shows that this record was used in Sessions Case No.121/1994 which was in respect of the incidents which took place in Banana garden, near brook, in the lodge, in the campus of the school and then in one Wada.On the basis of the evidence of Chandrabhan it can be said that only after recording of the statement by Chandrabhan of PW-1, he realised that some more incidents had taken place and then PW-1 was referred to other Police Station, New Mondha Police Station as other incidents had taken place within local jurisdiction of New Mondha Police Station.Police realised that in the disclosure recorded on 7-7-1994 of PW-2 by Khan (PW-18) many incidents were not recorded.He recorded the age of PW-1 as::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 52 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 16 years and the age of PW-2 as 14 years when he recorded their statements.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::64) Shaikh Mujib (PW-20) is other investigating officer who was working as Assistant Police Inspector in New Mondha Police Station.He has deposed that on 9-7- 1994 he recorded statement of PW-2 and in that statement she narrated all the incidents including the incidents of retiring room of Railway Station Parbhani.This statement of PW-2 is given Exhibit 29 and on that basis crime at CR No.82/1994 was registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.Shakti bungalow where one incident took place is within local jurisdiction of New Mondha Police Station.According to PW-20 he recorded two separate F.I.Rs (after realising the aforesaid things).PW-20 has given evidence that the first F.I.R. was recorded by him in respect of the incidents of Banana garden, brook, Visawa Lodge, school campus and one Wada (Munde Wada) and these places were situated within the local jurisdiction of Kotwali Police Station.He has deposed that Circle Police Inspector Chalak was having jurisdiction over both New Mondha::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 53 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Police Station and Kotwali Police Station.Thus, Chalak could have made investigation of all the incidents of rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::65) Chalak (PW-21), Circle Police Inspector, has given evidence that aforesaid two police stations were under his jurisdiction he had power to make investigation of all the incidents.However, he has given evidence that he took over the investigation of CR No.82/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station from Shaikh Mujib (PW-20).He has given evidence that he arrested accused No.4 Bhansing on 9-7-1994 and during his arrest he took over the clothes of Bhansing (articles, 9,10 and66) Chalak (PW-21) has given evidence that on 10- 7-1994 PW-2 showed to him the places where the incidents of rape had taken place.He has deposed that the railway quarters of Bhansing, accused No.4 was also shown by PW-2 and during that incident he took over the articles like a pair of shoes in which one shoe was not having lace under panchanama at Exhibit 77.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has given evidence that he had requested the learned Executive Magistrate to hold T.I. parade.He has given evidence that he collected blood samples of these persons and sent them to CA office along with covering letter which is at Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 55 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has given evidence that he had sent PW-1 and PW-2 to the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has deposed that he took over investigation of CR Nos. 73/1994 and 81/1994 which were registered in Kotwali Police Station from P.S.I. Yeshwant and P.S.I. Jagadale.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has given evidence that he had sent a lace of the shoe which was recovered from the house of accused No.4 in the present case along with lace of PW-2 to CA office for comparison purpose along with covering letter at Exhibit75) The record of investigation and the aforesaid evidence show that blood samples of all the accused were collected and the samples of blood of the two victim girls were collected.Similarly, vaginal swab collected by the medical officer along with pubic hair so also the clothes of the accused mentioned above and the mattresses used at the time of rape in the lodge, in railway quarters of accused No.4 and in the Shakti bungalow were sent to C.A. office.The CA reports in respect of these articles are produced before the Court.The trial Court has considered all the aforesaid evidence for giving conviction against the appellants in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::PW-2 is at Exhibit 189, the articles like clothes Salwar, Odhani, Kurta.Covering letter dated 12-7-1994 is there.On the article Salwar, blood mixed with semen stains was found.Group of the blood of PW-2 is "A" and the stains gave reaction for both "A" and "B" groups.C.A. report at Exhibit 194 is in respect of carpet shown to be recovered on the basis of statement given by accused No.6 and blood group "B" was found on it.Similarly, on the clothes of PW-1 like Salwar, Kurta, jangiya human blood was found.Though it is true that she was observing menses, as per CA report, on other article like Kurta blood was found and this fact needs to be kept in mind.The blood group of PW-2 is "B".::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::it transpired that accused Nos.6 and 7 were involved in the incident of rape which took place in Shakti bungalow, they were not available and they came to be arrested after about one month.78) Challenges of the accused to the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution and other contentions of the accused made during arguments of these matters are as under :(i) Both the victim girls did not disclose the incidents immediately even when they had opportunity to disclose the incidents to the persons in the vicinity and even to the parents.They disclosed the incidents only when police specifically made inquiry with them.(ii) Both the victim girls gave different versions when different police officers recorded the reports.Both the victim girls did not narrate some of the incidents of rape::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 60 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 when they made first disclosure and then did not disclose some incidents even when their statements were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::(iii) The victim girls had left the shelter of their guardians/parents on their own and so no offence of kidnapping or abduction was committed by any of the accused.(iv) The evidence given by the prosecution on age is not that convincing and the victim girls had probably crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.(vii) The evidence of T.I. parade cannot be relied upon as the procedure laid down in Criminal Manual of this High Court was not followed.The Executive Magistrate did not::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 61 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 act fairly and he arranged even second T.I. parade for giving one more opportunity to the victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::(viii) The evidence of the investigating officers shows that the State was required to change the officers many times.Their evidence creates probability that they were not fair during conducting the investigation.79) This Court is considering the aforesaid challenges one by one.The first challenge regarding the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first.AGE OF THE VICTIM GIRLS.80) The evidence of the prosecution on the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first.The finding on the age of the victim girls will help in deciding the other points like the possibility of consideration of defence of consent.Finding on the age of the victim girls will also help in appreciating the evidence of the two girls in entirety as the conduct and reaction of minor is ordinarily different than the conduct and approach of an adult.The evidence on the record shows that these two girls were in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 62 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 distress as the financial condition of their parents/ guardians was not that good and they were feeling that they had no prospects with their guardians/parents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::81) For proving the age of PW-1 the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of entry in the birth register, the entry in the hospital where PW-1 was born, the evidence of opinion of doctor about age which is on the basis of clinical and radiological examination.82) Learned Single Judge of this Court (one of us) had occasion to consider the evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth, the age of a person and the importance of various kinds of evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth or the age.In the case reported as 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 353 (Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra) this Court has made following observations on the basis of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case reported as AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others).::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::63 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 "13. 'Age' as ingredient of both the aforesaid offences is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.This 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act need to be proved like any other fact in criminal case.Oral evidence as to the age may always be available in such a case.Corroboration need not be only of expert evidence.Corroboration may be of circumstances which may differ for each case.The opinion of doctor on clinical or radiological examination cannot be accepted straight way as a legal proof.The margin of error is of two years on either side even when the age is ascertained on the basis of radiological examination.(Reliance placed on AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.].It is only medical opinion and other evidence including oral evidence cannot be discarded only because the medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence.Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated.Entry made in birth register has presumptive value in view of section 17(2) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and this position of law needs to be kept in mind, when there is conflict between medical evidence and the other evidence.In view of section 35 of Evidence Act, the entry made in school register about the date of birth also needs to be treated as relevant.Such register is kept in regular discharge of duty by school and it is required to be kept as per the Rules made by the State Government.When such entry was made before starting of dispute, many years prior to the commission of offence and when entry is proved by giving oral evidence of the concerned, due weight needs to be given to such entry.Such entries need to be treated as relevant and admissible in evidence, though such entry cannot form sole clinching factor for determining the age.It has no presumptive value like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 64 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 in the case of entry made in birth register as already observed."::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::83) PW-1 has given evidence that she was born at Amarawati on 12-3-1979 but she received education in Partur upto 5th standard.She has given evidence that one Gangabhishan Mor was her grand father of parental side.She has given name of her father as Rameshwar.She has given evidence that her mother had informed to her the date of birth.In the cross-examination of PW-1 it is brought on record that Rekha is her elder sister and Rekha was given in marriage about 1 and half years prior to the date of incident.Her evidence shows that she was daughter No.2 to her parents.84) It is brought on record in the cross-examination of PW-1 that she received eduction upto 4th standard in Ganj school Partur and then she was admitted to other school.It is brought on the record that when her::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 65 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 statement was recorded by police, she had not informed the date of birth to police.It is already observed that the mind set of such girls needs to be kept in mind at the time of considering the discrepancies which can be there in the disclosures made by them and the record which is available.Further the record in respect of date of birth in such cases has the precedence.It appears that PW-2 had given age more than 16 years on different occasions to police.Her evidence shows that she was frightened and she did not want to inform the incident even to her mother.The evidence on the record also shows that when she was reached to Partur by a lady constable she did not disclose the incident to her mother and she disclosed the incident only when the report of PW-2 was recorded and she was brought to Parbhani from Partur for the purpose of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::85) In the cross-examination, PW-1 has specifically deposed that at the time of the incident her age was 15 years.In the cross-examination some questions were to put to her in respect of her two sisters.Even if the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 66 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 answers given by PW-1 to those questions are accepted as they are, those answers have not created probability that she had crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::86) In the record of birth register initially the surname of her parents was recorded as "Mor" and the surname "Agrawal" was shown as other surname.PW-1 is cross-examined at length to test as to whether she was knowing the particulars of the family of her grandfather from paternal side, Gangabhishan Mor @ Agrawal.She successfully faced the test of cross-examination and she gave the particulars of the family of Gangabhishan.Father of PW-1 is dead though mother is alive.The record shows that evidence of PW-1 is on the basis of information supplied by mother and it can be said that it is also on the basis of the record of her birth.She has received eduction::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 67 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 at least for some time and so it can be said that she can give evidence about the birth date also.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::87) Evidence of Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-15), one employee of the hospital where PW-1 was born, is on the basis of record of the hospital.If the evidence of PW-1 is compared with the description of the parents given in the register of the hospital, the description tallies.In view of this check and the manner in which the record was maintained, this Court has no hesitation to observe that there was no possibility of interpolation.There is only suggestion from defence that surname Agrawal was added subsequently in the register.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::This register was also regularly maintained.Names of father and mother mentioned in the register of the issue tally with the names given in the present matter.The entry was made on the basis of information supplied by Dhapibai Maternity Home.In the cross-examination of this witness it is brought on record that in the original register there is one correction and name of the hospital which was initially mentioned as "Ji.Ru." was changed to make it as Dhapibai Maternity Home.This change was not only for the present entry but it was for many entries.The present entry is shown at Sr.Thus, the correction was made in respect of many entries viz. 2125 to 2131 and it does not look probable that for the present matter any manipulation was done by the local body.Thus, at the relevant time, in July 1994, the age of PW-1 was below 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::She has given evidence that she received education in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur till 6th Standard.Her evidence shows that she was kept in Partur by her parents who are residents of Hiwarkheda and so she was admitted in this school by her uncle living there.Her evidence shows that prior to her admission in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School she was receiving education in Ganj school Partur.Even before police she had given her age as 14 years.Her cross-examination shows that when she was a kid, she was shifted to Partur.She does not know even the particulars about her brother and sister, what they are doing.Her evidence shows that her parents visited Partur only twice after sending her to Partur from Hiwarkheda.These circumstances show that whatever happened to her was due to her poverty and absence of care and protection of the parents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur shows that it is on the basis of the original admission form in respect of PW-His evidence shows that Ganj school had given transfer certificate and on that basis PW-2 was admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School.Original register was brought to the Court and it was found to be regularly maintained.Though Kukde (PW22) could not say as to who had admitted PW-2 in the school on the basis of the signature, there is evidence of PW-2 that her uncle/guardian at Partur had admitted her in the school.In view of nature of evidence and the record there was no possibility of interpolation or manipulation.This record is very old and it is relevant in view of provision of section 35 of the Evidence91) In the evidence, Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) has given approximate age of PW-2 as already quoted.There is no reason for not accepting the opinion given by Dr. Jaishri in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 71 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 view of the aforesaid record and the substantive evidence.No other probability is created during cross-examination of this witness.It is not even suggested to PW-2 that she was studying in any other institution.At the cost of repetition this Court feels it necessary to mention here that due to the incidents in question, the parents and guardians of PW-1 and PW-2 disowned them, they did not even turn up to give evidence for the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::92) The provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 quoted already, and the provision of section 35 of the Evidence Act show that even without examining the official, certified copy of entry made in the birth register is admissible in evidence.Further, when there is such record giving specific date of birth, such record needs to be given precedence over the school record if there is inconsistency between the two records.Similarly, the opinion given by doctor on age if it is inconsistent, ordinarily precedence needs to be given to the record of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 72 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 birth date prepared under the aforesaid Act. In the present matter, the medical evidence is also consistent with this record and no probability is created in this matter that age of PW-1 was more than 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::It was also argued that Dr. Jaishri used a chart given by civil hospital for ascertaining the age in which tests/data were given.There is no force in both the challenges.Evidence of Dr. Jaishri shows that under her instructions and supervision the X-rays were taken by the technician.She has completed post graduate course after completing MBBS.This Court holds that the age of both the victims was below 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::94) Both the sides placed reliance on some reported cases.There was no record of birth register.Mother's evidence on factual aspect was not found convincing and the Court held that the opinion of the Radiologist was necessary, which was not available.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::95) In the case reported as (2010)1 SCC 742 (Sunil v. State of Haryana) on which reliance was placed by the counsel for the accused, the facts were different.The prosecutrix was not certain about her age and there was no record on the basis of which she had given age.In that case the doctor had clinically examined the prosecutrix and had sent the prosecutrix to Dental Surgeon/ Radiologist for verification but such verification was not done.Thus, the doctor who had done clinical examination was also not sure about the opinion which was possible on::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 75 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 the basis of clinical examination.In view of these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the age of the prosecutrix was not below 16 years.However, the Apex Court made it clear that there is no rule as such that such examination needs to be done in every case.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::96) In the case reported as 2010 Cri.There cannot be dispute over this proposition.Evidence on wrongful confinement and abduction:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::residential quarters under pretext that he will supply drinking water is consistent with each other.It can be said that there could have been charge against accused No.4 for this incident also.There was intention of accused No.4 right from the beginning to commit the offence of rape by exploiting the situation in which PW-1 and PW-2 were found.The evidence shows that accused No.5 did not allow them to leave from the quarters when the key was with him.In the noon time, accused No.4 returned to the quarters and even after that they did not allow the two victim girls to leave the railway quarters.Both the victim girls were kept in the railway quarters and from there they were taken to Shakti Bungalow by accused Nos.4 to 7 in the evening time.This evidence is sufficient to prove that there was wrongful confinement from accused Nos.4 and 5 of PW-1 and PW-2 and they committed offence punishable under section 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::PW-1 has given evidence that accused No.5 committed rape on her.PW-2 has given evidence that accused No.4 committed rape on her.The trial Court has considered some omissions in the first disclosure made by the girls in respect of this incident and that point is being discussed at later place.It can be said that accused Nos.4 and 5 both wanted to commit offence as both the victim girls were available.Considering the intention of accused Nos.4 and 5 and the fact that both girls were kept in the railway quarters with that intention, this Court holds that the act amounts to gang rape.99) The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 given on rape committed on PW-2 in Shakti Bungalow is consistent with each other.The evidence of these two girls shows that after every incident they used to disclose about the incident to each other as they had no other option.The::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 78 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 evidence shows that to Shakti Bungalow PW-1 and PW-2 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 in a vehicle and accused Nos.6 and 7 had followed that vehicle up to Shakti Bungalow.The evidence on the record shows that accused Nos.6 and 7 were using that premises, Shakti Bungalow.The very nature of the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 shows that it is accused Nos.4 and 5 who had contacted accused No.6 and 7 and it was informed to accused No.6 and 7 that these two victim girls were available for commission of rape.The evidence of PW-2 shows that accused Nos.4 to 7 raped her one by one by many hours on that night, till 3.00 a.m. Thus there is specific evidence from PW-2 that in Shakti Bungalow accused Nos.4 to 7 raped her one after other and they committed offence of gang rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::100) The record which is referred during cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2 by the defence counsels for proving the inconsistencies in the versions of the PW-1 and PW-2, the omissions and the contradictions show that the relevant portions were confronted to the witnesses::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 79 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 and on proof, the relevant portions are exhibited.Much was argued on this circumstance by the learned Senior Counsel and other counsels for the appellants.At the time of considering these inconsistencies or omissions, it is necessary to keep in mind in a case like the present one that many police officers have recorded the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and many supplementary statements were recorded by them.Even statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded many times.PW-1 and PW-2 have made allegations against investigating officer Khan (PW-18) that their versions were not correctly and completely recorded by him.It needs to be kept in mind that two girls are from very poor families and there was no support of anybody to them at the relevant time.Some accused persons from the two cases were employees in Railway and some were involved in politics.It can be said that only the officer of C.I.D., who ultimately took over the investigation, made an attempt to record the statements in detail and those statements cover all the incidents.Police officers acted as per their notions.Even, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not record the statements in respect of all the incidents and it can be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate had not gone through the record of the investigation already made by police before recording the statements.When statement is being recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate to ascertain the nature of allegations, disclosures already made by the witnesses and then elicit the information from the witness by putting questions if they are missing something while disclosing the incidents before him.It can be said that most casual approach was used by the Judicial Magistrates while recording statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. What is important in a criminal case like the present one is the substantive evidence given by the victim girls.Due to the existence of the circumstances like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 81 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 above, the Court can look for corroboration but the Court cannot discard the substantive evidence only due to the existence of such circumstances.The circumstance that the two victim girls did not know the accused and only on the basis of disclosures made by them the accused were traced and police went to the various places where the incidents took place need to be kept in mind while considering the defence of the aforesaid nature of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::There was contention that due to something which was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 82 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 done against her (when she was under intoxication) she had suffered pains in the private part.While ascertaining the exact omissions in the evidence of the victim girl, narrations of the victim girl before police in entirety need to be considered and then the nature and extent of the omission needs to be ascertained by the Courts.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::102) PW-2 has given evidence on the rape committed on her by accused Nos.4 to 7 in Shakti Bungalow.In that regard also some omission is brought on record in the previous statement about the actual act.In the previous statement, PW-2 had stated before police that she was feeling drowsy due to liquor but she was feeling that these persons were doing something against her and she could see that.What is said above, needs to be applied in respect of this omission also.In the subsequent disclosure made to police they had specifically contended that accused No.4 had raped PW-2 and accused No.5 had raped PW-1 in the railway quarters.PW-2 had disclosed that she and PW-1 both were raped in Shakti bungalow one by one by accused Nos.4 to 7 and it can be said that::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 83 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 to some extent there is inconsistency and even contradiction in the evidence of PW-2 in relation to such previous statement.PW-1 has deposed that as she was observing menstruation period and that disclosed by her to the accused, she was not raped in Shakti Bungalow.While considering such inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions the evidence as a whole needs to be considered and the evidence as a whole shows that they had named accused Nos.4 to 7 as the persons who had exploited the situation, who had raped them at two places.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::103) In the statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. of PW-2 there are some omissions and also inconsistencies.If the evidence of PW-2 is compared with the disclosures made to Judicial Magistrate on 29-7-1994 it can be said that in the statement dated 29-7-1994 these witnesses did not disclose the incidents of Shakti Bungalow.Necessary observations in respect of this omissions are already made by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::PW-2 had recent tear of hymen.There were other signs showing that there was sexual intercourse with these two minor girls.Dr. Jaishri was extensively cross- examined by the defence counsel on the opinion given by her on the basis of her observations but she stood to the test of the cross-examination.Such things were there as from the railway quarters itself on 7-7-1994 PW-2 was picked up and she was referred by police for medical examination.PW-14 Jaishri noticed bleeding through cervical OS.On PV examination, speculum tenderness and vagina admitted one finger with pains.The record of the examination of PW-2 is at Exhibit 79 and it is consistent with the oral evidence of the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::noticed posterior fourchette congested and redness and she noticed that hymen was congested.She found that vagina was admitting one finger with minimum pains, bleeding through cervical was present.The record of the examination is at Exhibit 79 and it is consistent with the oral evidence.107) Many persons had raped these two victim girls.Though it is possible for the accused from the present case to say that these two victim girls were raped already in other incidents which had already taken place and so the medical evidence cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration in the present matter, that proposition could not have been accepted by the trial Court.These persons exploited the situation in which PW-1 and PW-2 had found themselves and there are specific allegations against the accused from the present matter.As the acts against PW- 2 were continued till 3.0 a.m. of 7-7-1994, there were aforesaid signs of rape.Only due to the period expired, living spermatozoa could not be noticed by the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::108) While considering the challenge to the prosecution evidence on the ground of delay caused in giving F.I.R. and on that ground it is very difficult to ascertain as to which was the first statement given in respect of the incident by PW 2, this Court holds that whatever is said in respect of approach and conduct of PW-1 and PW-2 already is applicable as explanation to the delay caused in making the disclosure.To add few more circumstances it can be said that these girls were new in the city and they must have been shocked due to the behavior of the accused persons with them and the things which were done to them by many persons who included some influential persons and some persons holding posts in Government departments.Further, PW-1 has given specific evidence that she did not want to disclose the incident out of fear to anybody including to her mother.They had left the shelter of their guardians without::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 87 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 informing anything to anybody and they must have guilty feeling that they were responsible for whatever had happened to them.If police had not intervened, the girls would not have even approached police on their own.Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that not much can be made out due to delay caused in disclosing the incidents to police.In such cases due to delay caused in making disclosures, the Court can scrutinize the evidence minutely but only on that ground the Court cannot discard the substantive evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::109) In respect of the challenge to the evidence given on T.I. parade it can be said that there is substance in the contentions that there was no strict compliance of the guidelines given in Criminal Manual in paragraph 16 of Chapter I by this Court.Number of dummies used by Jadhav at the time of conducting T.I. parade were less than the number expected in the guidelines.There is no record to support the evidence of Jadhav that the dummy::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 88 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 persons had appearance which was similar to the accused persons.However, the evidence of Jadhav shows that he was satisfied about the identification of the accused persons made by the two victim girls during T.I. parade.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::110) Accused No.4 was identified by PW-1 though as associate.PW-2 identified all the remaining accused in T.I. parade.These two girls were together.Evidence of PW-1 shows that accused No.4 had not raped her.Thus, the evidence of PW-2 on identification given as against accused No.5 can be used in the present matter.111) The trial Court has considered the CA reports in respect of incriminating articles recovered during investigation by police.Different police officers had taken::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 89 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 over different articles.Some stains of blood were found on those articles as per the CA reports.Similarly, some stains of blood were found on the clothes of some accused persons.Accused Nos.6 and 7 came to be arrested after many days though accused Nos.4 and 5 were arrested immediately.Due to the circumstances of the present matter even if this circumstantial evidence is ignored, there is more than sufficient evidence against accused Nos.4 to 7 to hold them guilty for the offences for which they were charged and tried.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::112) The prosecution has proved that both the victim girls had not crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.Thus the defence of consent is not available to any of the accused from the present appeals.The tenor of the cross-examination made by learned counsels of the accused show that indirectly it was suggested that the prosecutrix was the consenting party.It was also suggested that the prosecutrix did not resist or did not raise hue an cry when the offence was taking place.It is already observed that the accused persons were not known to both PW-1 and PW-2 though by referring to previous statement of PW-2 the defence tried to show that::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 91 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 probably PW-1 had initial talk with accused No.4 before going to his railway quarters.The circumstance that PW-1 had disclosed that she had girl friend at that place or probability that she knew accused No.4 cannot make difference in the present matter.Admittedly PW-2 was not acquainted with any of the accused and it is due to the information supplied by her the police traced accused persons.Further, the evidence of the investigating officer does not show that at any time they treated PW-1 as an accused person.The evidence given by her is already discussed and it shows that she was also raped.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::113) Some argument was advanced by the counsels for the accused on the circumstance that Sham Agrawal, a person from Parbhani who is relative of PW-1 was not::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 92 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 traced.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding.There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration.The identification parades belong to the investigation stage.They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them.This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in court.Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this: that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerned in the crime.They do not constitute substantive evidence.These parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code."::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::It was case filed for offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 120-B, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::The provision of section 376(2)(g) which was applicable at the relevant time is as under:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed.The appellants-accused to surrender to bail bonds for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Even since the marriage, the petitioner C and his family members had been harassing and persecuting h the victim in connection with their demand for a Mahindra ig car, Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and gold and silver ornaments in H dowry.The petitioner started to harass the victim sexually.He would have oral and anal intercourse with her.He would insert wooden pieces in her private part and anus.He had relations with other women and he has been keeping one girl namely Kavita Pal as his concubine.hy Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under ad section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf M of petitioner Premlal Dhurve in Crime No. No.524/2016 registered by P.S.- Pandurna, District-Chhindwara under of Sections 498-A read with section 34, 377 and 506 of the rt Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a constable in police department.Originally only offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner.The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.However, later the victim moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara.sh On his direction, offence under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.The petitioner did not hy misuse the liberty granted to him under section 438 of the ad Code of Criminal Procedure earlier.Now, he is apprehending arrest due to addition of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code M in the case after lapse of about one year.If he is arrested, he of stands to lose his Government job.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of rt anticipatory bail.ou Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on C the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the victim had made allegations regarding h ig unnatural sexual conduct in the written report given by her.H However, since, the petitioner was a constable, the police did not register offence under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner at the first instance.The allegations made against the petitioner are grave in nature.Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that : (1) though there is a mention of unnatural sexual conduct in elaborate written report lodged by the victim, she had failed to support those allegations in her statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;sh (2) no corroborating medical evidence is available; (3) the petitioner was earlier released on anticipatory bail and e ad has not misused his liberty; (4) the offence under section 377 has been added after filing of charge sheet in the case, Pr a-in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves the hy benefit of anticipatory bail.ad Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf M of petitioner Premlal Dhurve, is allowed.of It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the rt sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same ou amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his C appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the h case and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub ig section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.H Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE BIJU b BABY 2017.11.07 21:36:59

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

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

Respondent Nandlal is the brother of respondent Dnyaneshwar.Respondent Chudman is the father of Dnyaneshwar.The accused areresidents of Khamkheda.The parents of deceased hail fromPungaon, Tahsil Chopda.3) The deceased was given in marriage to accusedDnyaneshwar two years prior to the date of incident.There wassome dispute in family and due to that, accused persons hadreached the deceased to the house of mediator Baburao Koli,resident of Jalod.She stayed there for about one and half months.4) The accused persons were not happy with her due to herreturn to matrimonial house, they became angry.They started givingbeating to her every day.Ultimately, on 22.7.1999, the day ofincident, at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. all the accused started givingbeating to her and then in the incident, mother in law of deceasedSumanbai poured kerosene which on her person and kerosene waspresent in one bottle and lantern was used.The brother of thehusband held the deceased.The wife of brother of husband Kalpanastarted giving instigations to others to finish the deceased.Similarinstigation was given by father in law.Then husband of the deceasedused match stick and set fire to the deceased.When she was set onfire, she ran out of the house and she extinguished the fire herselfby lying on the ground.The persons like Shravan and Omkar fromthat locality rushed to the spot and they shifted her to ShirpurGovernment Hospital and accused like husband, mother in law alsowent with them to the hospital.5) On the same day, at about 6.05 p.m. the statement ofthe deceased was recorded by police in presence of Medical Officerand on that basis, the crime at C.R. No. 163/1999 came to beregistered for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 34etc.of IPC in Shirpur Police Station.Police gave requisition to theExecutive Magistrate for recording dying declaration and on the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 4same day, at about 5.40 p.m., dying declaration of the deceasedcame to be recorded.She gave similar account in the dyingdeclaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate.Post mortom wasconducted on the dead body and doctor gave opinion that the deathhad taken place due to cardiorespiratory failure due to hypothalamicand septicemic shock and that was due to 75% burns.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::6) Statements of neighbours of the accused came to berecorded.Statements of parent and relatives of deceased fromparents side also came to be recorded.This document shows that it was prepared in presence ofpanch witnesses on 22.7.1999 between 19.40 hours and 20.45hours.The spot panchanama shows that the incident in questiontook place in the house of accused.The house consist of three roomsand there is separate bathroom.The ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 2respondents are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections302, 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as'IPC' for short).Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appealcan be stated as follows :-Deceased Ratnabai was the wife of respondentDnyaneshwar.Respondent Sumanbai is the mother of Dnyaneshwar.As the accused persons did not show interest to take her back tomatrimonial house, on her own she returned to the matrimonialhouse and that was happened prior to five days from the date ofincident.She has left behind daughter.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 3The chargesheet came to befiled for aforesaid offences and the charge was also framed foraforesaid offences.There was charge for offence under section 109of IPC also as against the father in law and wife of brother in law.Prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses.Accused took the defenceof total denial.Dnyaneshwar gave written submission when hisstatement was recorded under section 313 of Criminal ProcedureCode (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short).He contendedthat the deceased did not want to cohabit with him and so, she hadleft the matrimonial house.He contended that they had fear in themind that she would do something with her life, if she wascompelled to cohabit with him.He contended that even after suchbehaviour of the deceased, the deceased was left forcibly against her ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 5will to the matrimonial house by the husband of her sister and dueto that, she probably set fire to herself.He contended that on thatday, he was not present in the house at the relevant time and hehad gone to bank for withdrawing the cash amount of cheque givento him by his society.He contended that when he learnt in the bankat about 3.00 p.m. about the incident, he rushed to the house andthen he went to hospital.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::7) It is not disputed that the death took place due to 75%burn injuries.Inquest panchanama at Exh. 16 is also not disputed bythe accused persons.It needs to be ascertained as to whether theaccused set fire to the deceased.8) The spot panchanama at Exh. 19 is also admitted by thedefence.Kitchen was situated in theseparate room.In the kitchen, the articles like kerosene lantern andglass bottle in which kerosene was kept were noticed.The spotpanchanama was shown by Pandharinath and he had also shown onequilt which was used for extinguishing the fire.It was found in the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 6front room of the house.Pieces of partly burnt clothes of thedeceased were found inside of the house.Pandharinath then showedanother spot to the police which was at the distance of 40 feet fromthe house of accused.His house is adjacent to the house of accused.In the courtyard of the house of Pandharinath, the pieces of burntclothes of the deceased were lying.The houses of Pralhad Koli andChudaman Koli were adjacent to this house.Similarly, in the vicinityof the said house, there were houses of Tukaram Koli andChandrabhaga.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::9) C.A report at Exh. 21 shows that in the empty lanternand kerosene bottle, which were taken over from the aforesaid spot,kerosene residues were detected.Similarly, on partially burnt clothesof the deceased and on the quilt, which were taken over from thespot, kerosene was detected.No kerosene was detected on matchbox.10) The aforesaid circumstances show that the deceasedcaught fire inside of the house, but she ran outside and probably thefire was extinguished outside of the house.In the dying declarations,she had mentioned the names of two persons like Shravan andOmkar, who had taken her to the hospital, but she had notmentioned the name of the person who had extinguished the fire.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 7She had disclosed to police and Executive Magistrate that she herselfhad extinguished the fire.The dying declaration given beforeExecutive Magistrate is proved by examining the ExecutiveMagistrate Arun (PW 1).His evidence shows that after obtaining theopinion of doctor regarding condition of the patient, the dyingdeclaration was recorded.There is endorsement which is also provedas patient was conscious to give the statement.He had also obtained opinion ofthe Medical Officer regarding fitness of the deceased beforerecording the dying declaration.The contents of this dyingdeclaration are almost similar to the contents of other dyingdeclaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate.11) Dr. Purushottam (PW 11) has given evidence that atabout 4.55 p.m. Executive Magistrate had requested him to giveopinion regarding fitness of the deceased to make the declarationand accordingly, he gave opinion that she was physically fit andmentally conscious to make the statement.He has deposed that thisopinion was given in writing after examining the patient.In the crossexamination, he has given evidence that he remained present by theside of deceased when Executive Magistrate was recording the dying ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 8declaration.He could not say as to whether the contents recorded inthe dying declaration were read over to the deceased beforeobtaining her thumb impression on it.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::12) There is record of two dying declarations made by thedeceased.But there are also other circumstances showing that shewas not ready to disclose as to who had extinguished the fire.Onone hand, she disclosed that the relatives of the husband had shiftedher to hospital, but on the other hand, she also disclosed that somepersons whose names were not known to her were also there fortaking her to Government Hospital.Her disclosure that she had livedin the house of Baburao Koli for about one and half month prior tothe date of incident and she had returned to matrimonial house onher own needs to be checked to ascertain as to whether the standtaken by the husband is true or the disclosure made was true.TheTrial Court has disbelieved the dying declarations on other counts.But, in view of the allegations made against many persons and thecircumstances that the deceased could run out of the house whenshe caught fire and people learnt about the incident as she wasshouting, the evidence of neighbours needs to be considered toascertain the truth.If there was the intention to finish her by settingfire to her, persons setting fire would not have kept the door open toallow her to run out of the house.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 913) Shravan (PW 3), whose name is mentioned in dyingdeclaration is examined by the prosecution.His house is situated atthe distance of around 50 ft.from the house of accused.He hasdeposed that he was sleeping in the house, he heard the shoutingand due to that he came out and he noticed that the deceased hadcome out of the house of accused and there was fire on her clothes.He has given evidence that he himself tried to extinguish the fireand then he took her back to the house of accused.He has givenevidence that she was shifted to hospital in tractor.In the TrialCourt, he was declared as hostile witness as on so called allegeddisclosures made by the deceased to him, he had not givenevidence.The fact remains that his name was taken by the deceasedin dying declaration and due to that, entire evidence of Shravancannot be thrown away only because learned APP preferred to crossexamine him.In dying declaration itself, she had not disclosed thatshe had narrated the incident to two persons whose names arementioned in the dying declaration.14) Pandharinath (PW 4), whose name appears in the spotpanchanama, has given evidence that after hearing shouting of thedeceased, he came out and then by using quilt, he extinguished thefire.His evidence is similar to the evidence of Shravan (PW 3).::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 10Pandharinath was also declared as hostile witness by the prosecutionas he has not given expected evidence on the so called disclosuresmade by the deceased to him.It needs to be mentioned here thatname of Pandharinath is not there in both the dying declarations andso, not much weight could have been given to his evidence even ifhe had given evidence on oral dying declarations.As police believethat he was involved in extinguishing fire to some extent, hisevidence needs to be believed and inference can be drawn that heand others were involved in extinguishing the fire.The evidence ofthese witnesses further shows that they had not seen the husbandand his relatives in the house at the relevant time.Similar evidenceis given by Omkar (PW 5), but he is not declared as hostile.Hisevidence shows that mother in law of deceased was available in thehouse and she had come to the hospital when they had shifted thedeceased to the hospital.There is the evidence of other neighbourTirinabai (PW 6), but that is of no help to the prosecution and she isalso declared as hostile.15) Prosecution has examined Vaijayantabai (PW 7), motherof the deceased.Her evidence shows that during the visits of thedeceased to the parents' house, she was disclosing that there wasilltreatment to her.Accused No. 1 - Dnyaneshwar was alreadymarried.Her evidence shows that after the death of father, the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 11deceased had expressed desire to return to the matrimonial house.Thus, she admits that she was living with her parents for the periodwhich was not normal.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::16) Vaijayantabai (PW 7) has given evidence that she learntabout the incident after three days and then she went to the cottagehospital after three days of the incident and there oral disclosurewas made by the deceased to her against the accused of theaforesaid incident.It needs to be mentioned that there is no medicalevidence like bed head ticket of the deceased to ascertain as towhether on that day, she was conscious or not conscious.Further,the evidence of so called disclosure given by this lady is notconsistent with particulars mentioned in the recorded dyingdeclaration.17) Vaijayantabai (PW 7) has given evidence that the fact ofprevious marriage of accused No. 1 - Dnyaneshwar was not knownto the deceased.She admits that even when it was the first deliveryof the deceased, the delivery had taken place in the house ofaccused.She has given evidence that there was suspicion about hercharacter to accused No. 1 and due to that there was illtreatment.In recorded dying declaration deceased had not ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 12disclosed that accused had suspicion about her character.Thus, theevidence of mother of the deceased shows that deceased had nointention to resume cohabitation and this circumstance is notconsistent with the contents of the recorded dying declaration.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::18) Apparently, there was no reason for which accused couldhave given illtreatment to the deceased.Such reason is also notmentioned in the recorded dying declaration.Evidence is also givenby Dinkar (PW 8), brother of the deceased.His evidence is vague onthe illtreatment and also on disclosure was made by the deceased tohim.His evidence is similar to the evidence of mother of deceasedabout the so called disclosures made by the deceased three daysafter the incident.His evidence is also not that convincing.19) Bhaskar (PW 9) is the mediator, whose name ismentioned in dying declaration, has given evidence that about onemonth prior to the date of incident, accused had reached thedeceased to his house.He has given evidence that accused used tosuspect about her character and they used to give beating to her.Hisevidence shows that they were questioning about the first marriageof the deceased.Thus, it appears that it was also second marriage ofthe deceased.He has given more evidence by saying that accusedwere asking divorce from the deceased and they were ready to give ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 13Rs.60,000/- to the deceased.He has given evidence that deceasedhad refused to do so.In the statement given to police, he had statedthat he had reached the deceased to the matrimonial houseimmediately on the next day when she was reached to his house byaccused.This circumstance is admitted by him.He admitted that hehad not stated before police that accused were asking the deceasedas to why her first marriage was broken.The mother of thedeceased has not supported the version of this witness as she hasnot given evidence that accused were asking divorce from thedeceased and there was such talk.His evidence is not consistentwith the evidence of mother of deceased as mother has admittedthat the deceased had no desire to return to matrimonial house.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::20) Prosecution has examined one Joharlal (PW 10) to showthat the husband was asking for divorce from deceased and he wasready to pay Rs.60,000/-.He has deposed that he was taken by thehusband of deceased with him when he had gone to the deceased togive such proposal.His evidence does not show as to whether heknew that the deceased had stayed in the house of Bhaskar Koli formore than one month.He is not relative of the accused or thedeceased.21) The aforesaid evidence shows that the evidence of third ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 14persons is not consistent with the evidence of close relatives of thedeceased.It was second marriage for both accused No. 1 and thedeceased.There was apparently some dispute between accused No.1 and the deceased.But, on the basis of aforesaid evidence, itcannot be inferred that there was illtreatment to the deceased fromthe accused as mentioned in section 498-A of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::22) There was some dispute and the evidence shows thatthird persons, not the husband and father of the husband, shiftedthe deceased to the hospital.It was noon time.Though accused No.1 has tried to take the defence of alibi, the initial burden was on theprosecution to prove that all the accused were present in the houseat the relevant time.There can be many reasons fora lady to set fire to herself.There is no circumstance to show thatthe accused had the intention to finish her and with that intention,they had used force against her and then set fire to her.Due tothese circumstances, this Court holds that it is difficult to believethat the accused persons had set fired to the deceased and theincident had taken place as narrated in the recorded dyingdeclarations.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 1523) The learned counsel for accused placed reliance on theobservations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR1987 SC 1083 [Tota Singh Vs.State of Punjab] and submittedthat the probability which is accepted by the Trial Court was thereand so, it is not possible to interfere in the decision given by the TrialCourt.The learned counsel submitted that the evidence is properlyappreciated by the Trial Court and there are reasons for not relyingupon the recorded dying declarations.The learned counsel placedreliance on other case reported as 1999 (Supp.1) Bom.C.R. 215(Bombay High Court) [Manohar Dadarao Landge Vs.Therecannot be dispute over this proposition.This Court holds that in viewof the reasons given by the Trial Court and the material discussed bythis Court, it is not possible to interfere in the decision of acquittalgiven by the Trial Court.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Sh/40 C.R.M. 5113 of 2013 In Re: Mahidur Rahaman ...Petitioner.Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8 th April, 2013 in connection with Ratua Police Station Case No.734/2012 dated 03-11-2012 under Sections 498A/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Kazi Mokhlasur Rahaman....For the petitioner.Within a year of marriage the victim was constrained to leave her matrimonial home.According to her, she was tortured for dowry of Rs.10,000/- physically and mentally.The petitioner and/or his family members allegedly caused her to miscarry.The de facto complainant has been rendered destitute.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Indira Banerjee, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Prior to marriage the complainant and her family members were told by Shyamji Mehrotra and his elder brother Ramji Mehrotra who is appellant No.2 herein and their mother Smt. Kamla Mehrotra and her sister Geeta Mehrotra who is appellant No.1 herein that Shyamji is employed as a Team Leader in a top I.T. Company in Chennai and is getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month.After negotiation between the parents of the complainant and the accused parties, the marriage of the complainant Shipra Seth (later Shipra Mehrotra) and Shyamji Mehrotra was performed after which the respondent-complainant left for the house of her in- laws.It was stated that the atmosphere in the house was peaceful for sometime but soon after the wedding, when all the relatives left, the maid who cooked meals was first of all paid-off by the aforesaid four persons who then told the complainant that from now onwards, the complainant will have to prepare food for the family.In addition, the above mentioned people started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues.The complainant also came to know that Shyamji was not employed anywhere and always stayed in the house.Shyamji gradually took away all the money which the complainant had with her and then told her that her father had not given dowry properly, therefore, she should get Rupees five lakhs from her father in order to enable him to start business, because he was not getting any job.When the complainant clearly declined and stated that she will not ask her parents for money, Shyamji, on instigation of other accused-family members, started beating her occasionally.Ramji Mehrotra often provoked the other three family members to torture and often used to make the complainant feel sad by making inappropriate statements about the complainant and her parents.Her husband Shyamji also took away the salary from the complainant.But, it is alleged that there was no change in his behaviour even after going to Chennai.The complainant often called him on phone to talk to him but he always did irrelevant conversation.At last, when the complainant realized that even her life was in danger, she was compelled to tell everything to her father on phone who was very upset on hearing her woes.On 15.7.2003 complainant heard some conversation of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law from which it appeared to her that they want to kill the complainant in the night only.Thereupon the complainant apprised her father of the situation on phone to which her father replied that he will call back her father-in-law and she should go with him immediately and he will come in the morning.The father-in-law Satish Dhawan and his wife who were living in NOIDA thereafter came in the night and somehow took the complainant to their home who also came to know of everything.On seeing her father and brother, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra started speaking loudly and started saying that Shyamji would be coming by the evening and so he should come in the evening for talking to them.GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.This appeal by special leave in which we granted leave has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl.Miscellaneous Application No.22714/2007 whereby the High Court had been pleased to dispose of the application moved by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against the appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts.It was, therefore, left open to the appellants to move the trial court for dropping the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.The High Court however granted interim protection to the appellants by directing the authorities not to issue coercive process against the appellants until disposal of the application filed by the appellants with a further direction to the trial court to dispose of the application if moved by the appellants, within a period of two months from the date of moving the application.The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was thus disposed of by the High Court.The appellants in spite of the liberty granted to them to move the trial court, have filed this appeal for quashing the proceedings which had been initiated on the basis of a case lodged by the respondent No.2 Smt. Shipra Mehrotra (earlier known as Shipra Seth) against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law.The case emerges out of the first information report lodged by respondent No.2 Smt. Shipra Mehrotra under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act bearing F.I.R.No.The F.I.R. was registered at Mahila Thana Daraganj, Allahabad wherein the complainant alleged that she was married to Shyamji Mehrotra s/o Balbir Saran who was living at Eros Garden, Charmswood Village, Faridabad, Suraj Kund Road at Faridabad Haryana as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs.To escape every day torture and financial status of the family, the complainant took up a job in a Call Centre at Convergys on 17.2.2003 where the complainant had to do night shifts due to which she used to come back home at around 3 a.m. in the morning.Just on her return from work, the household people started playing bhajan cassettes after which she had to getup at 7’o clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all the members in the family.Often on falling asleep in the morning, Shyamji, Kamla Devi and Geeta Mehrotra tortured the complainant every day mentally and physically.He never spoke properly with the complainant whenever he visited home and often used to hurl filthy abuses.The complainant states that she often wept and tolerated the tortures of the accused persons for a long time but did not complain to her family members, as that would have made them feel sad.Her father and brother then went away from there.That very day, her husband Shyamji and brother-in-law Ramji also reached home.On reaching there, Shyamji abused her on phone and told her to send her father.When father and brother of the complainant went home in the evening, they were also insulted by all the four and video camera and tape were played and in the end they were told that they should leave from here.Insulted, they came back from there and then came back to Allahabad with the complainant.For many days the complainant and her family members hoped that the situation would improve if the matter was resolved.Many times other people tried to persuade the in – laws but to no avail.Her brother went to their house to talk to her in – laws but it came to his knowledge that the in – laws had changed their house.After much effort, they came to know that the father-in- law and mother-in-law started living at B-39, Brahma cooperative group housing society, block 7, sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi.On 19.09.04 evening, her father talked to Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra regarding the complainant using bad words and it was said that if her daughter came there she will be kicked out.After some time Shyamji rang up at complainant’s home but on hearing the complainant’s voice, he told her abusively that now she should not come his way and she should tell her father not to phone him in future.At approximately 10:30 pm in the night Ramji’s phone came to the complainant’s home.He used bad words while talking to her father and in the end said that he had got papers prepared in his defence and he may do whatever he could but if he could afford to give Rs.10 lakhs then it should be conveyed after which he will reconsider the matter.If the girl was sent to his place without money, then even her dead body will not be found.On hearing these talks of the accused, the complainant believed that her in-laws will not let the complainant enter their home without taking ten lakhs and if the complainant went there on her own, she will not be safe.Hence, she lodged the report wherein she prayed that the SHO Daraganj should be ordered to do the needful after registering the case against the accused Shyam Mehrotra, Ramji Mehrotra, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra.Thus, in substance, the complainant related the bickering at her matrimonial home which made her life miserable in several ways and compelled her to leave her in- law’s place in order to live with her father where she lodged a police case as stated hereinbefore.On the basis of the complaint, the investigating authorities at P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad started investigation of the case and thereafter the police submitted chargesheet against the appellants and other family members of the complainant’s husband.Hence, the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet and the entire proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.IV, Allahabad, inter- alia, on the ground that FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions to harass the appellants and that no case was made out against the appellants as well as other family members.But the principal ground of challenge to the FIR was that the incident although was alleged to have taken place at Faridabad and the investigation should have been done there only, the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with the father of the complainant, got the investigating officer to record the statements by visiting Ghaziabad which was beyond his territorial jurisdiction and cannot be construed as legal and proper investigation.It was also alleged that the father of the complainant got the arrest warrant issued through George Town Police Station, Allahabad, in spite of the cause of action having arisen at Allahabad.This appeal has been preferred by Kumari Geeta Mehrotra i.e. the sister of the complainant’s husband and Ramji Mehrotra i.e. the elder brother of the complainant’s husband assailing the order of the High Court and it was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant who had already obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, is pursuing the present case through her father with the sole purpose to unnecessarily harass the appellants to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation had failed.The relevant documents/parcha diary for deciding the territorial jurisdiction had been overlooked as the FIR has been lodged at Allahabad although the cause of action of the entire incident is alleged to have taken place at Faridabad (Haryana).It was, therefore, submitted that the investigating authorities of the Allahabad have traversed beyond the territorial limits which is clearly an abuse of the process of law and the High Court has failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case and allowed the proceedings to go on before the trial court although it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.The prosecution allegations are that on 27.09.2005, ASI Satish Chand (PW-13) and Constable Komal, (posted at police post IGNOU, P.S. Mehrauli) reached Khasra No. 174/2, Village Neb Sarai on receipt of information (DD No. 24) that blood was coming out from the room occupied by the tenant of Baljit Singh (PW-1).On reaching the spot, it was discovered CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 1 that blood was actually coming out from under the door of a room which seemed to be locked but in fact the lock (of which) was simply hanging.Upon opening the door, a dead body was found lying on the floor.It bore injury marks on the head and there was bleeding from the right ear.PW-13 informed SI Suresh Chand, (PW-5) about recovery of the body.SHO C.K. Sharma (PW-19) reached the spot, inspected the scene of occurrence and collected exhibits from the spot.He seized a piece of blood stained floor in a plastic box, earth control, one blood stained blue coloured slippers, two empty glasses and half a bottle of liquor, a mosquito net with 4 bamboos, a blood stained pajama, a blood stained blanket, a jute bag, a dori and pillow lying on the cot and a blood stained kurta from the rehri outside the room.The dead body was identified by the sons of the deceased, Satbir i.e (PW-11), and Udaivir (PW-12).The dead body of Raghubir was sent for post mortem to AIIMS Hospital.The post mortem was conducted on 28.09.2005 by Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-6); the report is at Ex. PW-12/A. On 29.09.2005, PW-11 went to P.S. Mehrauli and recorded a statement to the effect that he suspected accused Rahisa (a resident of the room adjoining Raghubir's room), for the murder of his father.On 29.09.2005, PW-19 along with other police officials went to accused's residence and arrested him; the arrest memo is at Ex.PW-15/A. The accused made a disclosure statement, pointed out the spot of occurrence, and got an iron rod allegedly used for the commission of the offence recovered (Ex.PW-15/C, Ex.The prosecution further urged that Blood group "A" was present on the blood stained pajamas, woolen blanket, pillow, dari and kurta.A. 90/2011, Crl.PW-5 reached the spot and made inquires which revealed that the dead body was of Raghubir, PW- 1's tenant.PW-5 sent a Rukka with Constable Anil, on the basis of which FIR No. 573/05 was registered with P.S. Mehrauli.PW-15/D & Ex.PW-15/E).After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The Trial Court after hearing the matter and going through the evidence held the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC.The Trial Court in convicting the appellant relied on:The Trial Court considered the last seen evidence given by PW-11 along with the evidence about the time of death of deceased.PW-11 had last seen the appellant and the deceased on 25.09.2005 at about 8:00 PM and then again saw appellant near the room of the deceased with an iron rod at about 12:00 AM.As per the post mortem report, time since death was about 3-4 days.The Trial Court held that if the post mortem report is read along with the statement of PW-11, then it can be safely inferred that the deceased had died sometime on 25.09.2005, the day on which PW-11 had seen the accused and deceased together at 8:00 PM and later had found accused present near the room of the deceased at about 12:00 AM.The Trial Court observed that the conduct of a person is an important piece of evidence as the guilt of the person and the state of his mind is often reflected by his conduct.PW-11 had deposed that when he saw the accused near the room of the deceased, the accused was nervous and on seeing him (PW-11) he jumped over the boundary wall on the left side into another plot.Therefore it was observed that the conduct of accused was a reflection of his state of mind and hence is a supporting evidence in favour of the prosecution.The Trial Court has also relied on the recovery of the iron rod (weapon of offence) for the purpose of conviction of appellant.It was observed that by way of accused's disclosure statement Ex.PW-15/C, an iron pipe/rod was recovered with blood stains on it Ex.PW-1/E. The blood stains on the iron rod were of blood group "A" same as that of deceased and hence it connected the iron rod to the commission of offence.It was further observed that recovery of iron rod cannot be doubted simply because there was no public witness engaged during the recovery.Ms. Charu Verma, learned amicus appointed by the court to appear in the case, since the accused expressed his inability, due to financial constraints, to engage a lawyer, urged that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.It was submitted that the Trial Court committed several errors in appreciating the prosecution, which if seen in their proper perspective, cannot lead to the appellant's conviction.It was urged that the mainstay of the prosecution story was the testimony of PW-11, who claimed to have "last seen" the deceased in the company of the appellant.It was submitted that the entire case being premised on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was under a duty to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, with the further obligation to ensure that all the links in the chain were CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 3 likewise proved, and also show to the court that the conclusion could point only to the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, ruling out every possibility of his innocence.It was submitted that PW-11 is an untrustworthy witness, who in his earlier statement on 28.09.2005, while identifying his father, clearly stated that he did not suspect anyone for the murder.Yet, he stated a full day later that on 25.09.2005, at about 8:00 PM while on a visit to his father (with whom he and other members of the family were not in good terms, and who used to stay away from his family) he saw a quarrel between the deceased and appellant, when they were abusing each other.He claims to have intervened and calmed his father and thereafter gone home.He informed his mother about the quarrel; she asked him to return to the deceased's premises.He reached the deceased's room at about 12:00 AM (midnight) and saw that the door was locked.He says that while entering the plot (where his father's room was located), he saw accused Rahisa coming from the side of his father's room with a rod in his hand.He says that after seeing him (PW-11), the appellant jumped over a boundary wall and left.PW-11 observed that, the appellant was looking nervous.As the door of the deceased's room was locked, PW-11 returned home.He says that he inquired about his father on the next day and was told that the deceased had gone to attend some marriage.He says that on 27.09.2005, he came to know about the murder of his father from the police officials.It was submitted that this entire story was unbelievable, as it is plainly against normal human conduct.Had in fact PW-11's statement been true regarding 25.09.2005 then the first thing he would have done, on learning about his father's murder, or at least, on identifying his body, would have been to inform the police about the identity of the suspect, since there was hardly any time lag between the so called quarrel, and the discovery of death.PW-11's utter silence in that regard, and his disclosing these facts on 29.09.2005, falsifies the entire story, as it was the result of fabrication and afterthought.In that case, there was an irreconcilable conflict between the medical and ocular version, because the time of death indicated by the doctor was 3 days before the postmortem.However, PW-11's version showed the "last seen" part to be less than 3 days before the time indicated in the postmortem report.This, says the counsel, points to the improbability of the prosecution version.CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL. M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.The prosecution had urged that the accused had rented a cycle rickshaw from the deceased and as he (accused) was unable to pay the rent, the deceased had scolded and abused him.As the accused felt insulted, he killed the deceased.The prosecution failed to prove this motive as the IO was unable to obtain sufficient evidence as to there being strained relations between accused and deceased for non-payment of rent.It was submitted that the IO did not record the statement of any witness in support of the allegation that the accused had in fact rented a cycle rickshaw from deceased and was having trouble paying the rent.On the contrary, submitted the learned counsel, the deposition of PW- 11 falsified the entire story, since he testified that besides the rehri used by the deceased, he did not have any other side business.It was argued by the amicus that the finger prints on the two glasses and bottles, recovered from the deceased's house, were not taken.Similarly, the prosecution made no attempt to connect the blood stained kurta allegedly recovered from near the premises, with the crime.It was submitted that such recovery was highly suspect, because the location of such a kurta, in a public place, and its remaining there for more than 3 days, would have aroused suspicion.It was submitted that there are several other discrepancies and lacunae in the prosecution story, which should have led the Trial Court to acquit the appellant.Further, no attempt was made to record the testimony of any witness, since the room rented from PW- 1 by the deceased was adjacent to several other tenements.By the prosecution accounts, they were inhabited.Nothing prevented the prosecution from recording the statements of other tenants or occupants.Their depositions would have fortified the prosecution version, if true.It was next pointed out that the improbability of the appellant's arrest pursuant to PW- 11's statement is writ large on the record, because the said witness, according to the IO, is supposed to have disclosed at 7:00 AM on 29th September, 2005 about the involvement of the appellant.It was urged that no reason for such urgency, or the unusual manner in which the statement was recorded, has been indicated.Contrary to this fact, the appellant was in fact picked up from his house, and formally arrested later.The second aspect to this, it was urged, was the prosecution's failure to have the article tested for finger prints.CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL. M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 5The iron rod too was stained with "A" group blood.It was urged by the prosecution that since the blood on the seized articles matched that of the deceased, it connected the iron rod with the commission of the offence.Unless the appellant had special knowledge about the presence of the iron rod, he could not have, assisted in their discovery and being brought on record, as Ex.PW-15/E. It was also submitted that since the prosecution had established its initial burden, and proved the CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 6 involvement of the appellant, the onus of proving that he did not commit the crime, was upon the appellant; he did not do so.For these reasons, the Trial Court's judgment needs to be affirmed.The case of the prosecution is mostly based on the testimony of PW-11 Satbir, son of deceased.He deposed that his father (deceased) had rented a room and was staying on his own at Neb Sarai as he and his mother did not get along.He stated that on 25.09.2005, at about 8:00 PM he had gone to visit his father and on reaching there he saw a quarrel between the deceased and accused.They were abusing each other.He says that he intervened and calmed his father and took him inside the room and thereafter he (PW-11) went home.On reaching home he informed his mother about the quarrel that had taken place between the deceased and the accused.His mother asked him to go back to the deceased's premises.He reached the room of the deceased at about 12:00 AM (midnight) and saw that the door was locked.He says that when he was entering the plot where his father's room was located, he saw accused Rahisa coming from the side of his father's room and he was having a rod in his hand.He says that after seeing him (PW-11), accused jumped over a boundary wall and left.PW-11 observed that, accused was looking nervous.As the door of the deceased's room was locked, PW-11 returned home.He says that he inquired about his father on the next day and was told that the deceased had gone to attend some marriage.He says that on 27.09.2005, he came to know about the murder of his father from the police officials.He says that he later recollected the incident of 25.09.2005 and made a statement to IO.While it is true that this witness did identify the deceased's body, at the same time, he mentioned that the name of the murderer or suspected murderer was unknown.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.The post mortem was conducted on 28.09.2005 at about 2:55 PM.The iron rod was also having blood stains of "A" group.The prosecution failed to prove the motive as the IO was not able to obtain sufficient evidence as to there being strained relations between accused and deceased for nonpayment of rent.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner made a complaint to the police alleging that, on the day of the incident, his son Mandeep had gone to his school at about 6:45 am but he did not come back CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8 home.Thereafter, the petitioner made inquiries from the friends of the deceased Mandeep regarding his whereabouts and one of the friends informed the petitioner, that he had seen Mandeep going on foot along with two other boys towards a nala.Subsequently, the petitioner reached the school of the deceased, wherein he found the police staff of PS: Chhawla, Delhi.The police showed the photograph of the deceased to the petitioner whom he identified as his son Mandeep, and he was further informed by the police about Mandeeps murder.The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board- II (JJB- II) and impugned judgment dated 23.1.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (Appellate Court) in Crl.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 01.05.2017 an FIR No. 153/2017 was registered at Police Station: Chhawala, South West Delhi under Sections 363, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as a consequence of a statement made by the complainant, Pradeep Kumar (petitioner, herein) who is the father of the deceased, Mandeep in this case.Thereafter, statement of the petitioner was recorded in the police station and the afore-said FIR was registered.Subsequently, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and investigation was conducted and on 14.5.2018, after going through the material on record including the preliminary assessment reports as prepared by the experts, the charge-sheet and the annexed documents, the learned JJB- II passed an order, to treat the CCLs R and N as children and further held that the CCLs be tried before the JJB-II itself, as children.CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8The relevant para of the said impugned order dated 14.5.2018 is reproduced hereunder:Therefore, we decide the question of preliminary assessment in favour of CCLs R and N and against the prosecution.Let the CCLs be tried as children before this Board.However, we make it clear CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 2 of 8 that nothing expressed therein, shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case."P.C and the findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court on the basis of material on record, which are further upheld by the Appellate Court, I do not find any merit in the present petition.The pending applications are also dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In such order, it has been observed that the petitioners have been able to show their prima facie title and possession over the suit tank.However, learned advocate representing the private respondents submits that without obtaining conversion of the status of the tank, the petitioners are attempting to raise construction thereon.-: 2 : -Ms. Nandy, learned advocate representing the official respondents submits that the second petitioner had previously submitted a written complaint against the private respondents on 30th June, 2013, whereupon Basirhat P. S. Case No. 909 dated 30th June, 2013 under Sections 447/323/379/354/427/504/506/34, Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation thereof has culminated in filing of charge-sheet on 4th January, 2014 against the private respondents under the aforesaid provisions of law.It has further been submitted by her that on 21st November, 2013, the second petitioner lodged a further complaint and in course of a probe into the allegations that were levelled, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Basirhat P.S. found that there was possibility of serious breach of peace in the locality and accordingly, prosecution vide Basirhat P. S. NCR No. 12069 dated 24th December, 2013 under Section 107, Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the respondents.A recent complaint of the first petitioner received on 2nd January, 2014, she submits, revealed a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, a prayer has been submitted before the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Basirhat for necessary permission to investigate under Section 145 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.According to her, the allegation of police inaction is without any basis.Having regard to the aforesaid factual narrative, I do not see reason to hold that the police has been remiss in discharging its-: 3 : -However, since possibility of breach of peace has been found and the civil court at the interlocutory stage has ruled against the private respondents in respect of their prima facie title and possession over the suit tank, the police authorities shall ensure that so long the civil suit is not disposed of and the order of injunction subsists, the private respondents do not interfere with the petitioners' possession of the suit tank.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall, however, be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(Dipankar Datta, J.)

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Delivered on 17.5.2018) As per S.K. Gangele, J:Appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.Prosecution story in brief is that the deceased had given his T. V. and V. C. D. Player to the appellant fifteen days before from the date of the incident.Appellant did not return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player.On the date of the incident the deceased and P. W. 1 both had gone to the house of the appellant on a motorbike, they 2 entered in the house.The deceased told the appellant to return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because family members were demanding the same.Appellant told the deceased that he had no money, hence, he had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player in the marriage of sister-in-law, on that account the deceased abused the appellant.The deceased told him that T. V. and V. C. D. Player were given for watching and not for giving the same in dowry.Appellant and deceased both were abusing each other.Appellant told the deceased that he would return T. V. and V. C. D. Player after purchasing the same on receiving salary.On this count appellant had taken out an Axe and inflicted blow on the head of the deceased.P. W. 1 tried to save the deceased, on which the appellant had inflicted blow of Axe on P. W.1 also.P. W.1 went to his house and narrated the incident to his family members.They reached at the house of appellant Vaman, he did not open the door.He deposed that the deceased was my friend.Appellant was working as Peon in Government School.He was living in a Government Quarter.The deceased had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player to the appellant.The deceased told me that we would go to the house of the appellant to take back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because appellant did not return back the same since last four months.We went on a motorbike at the residence of the appellant, we entered in the house.Thereafter, the deceased told the appellant to return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because his family members were 4 demanding the same.Appellant did not return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player, he told the deceased that I had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player in dowry in the marriage of my sister-in-law because I had no money, on that account the deceased was shouting and abusing.He told the deceased that he would return T. V. and V. C. D. Player after purchasing the same on receiving salary in the next month.The deceased and the appellant both were abusing to each other.Thereafter, appellant went in side of the house and taken out an Axe and inflicted blow of Axe on the deceased.He fell down, I cried on which the appellant also inflicted a blow on my head and told me to keep mum.Thereafter, he also inflicted some blows at the deceased.I ran away and went to my house.I told the incident to my family members.They went at the house of the appellant.I was referred to Government hospital.Toga P. W.2 admitted that he signed Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7, and Ex.P.8, sezures of plain & red earth and sleepers.Jhamlo Bai P. W.3 deposed that I went to the house of the appellant, which was locked from in side, house was not opened.Subsequently, house was opened.9. D. S. Kanwar P. W.4 is Naib Tahsildar, who prepared dead body Panchnama Ex.Matan P. W.5 is the father of the deceased.He went to the 5 spot after the incident.Prabhakar Rao P. W.6 is Patwari, who prepared the spot map Ex.Phundulal P. W.8 is the witness of seizure.He deposed that an Axe and T. V. were seized.Thereafter, appellant came and opened the door, the deceased was found dead.P. W.1 was admitted at the hospital and appellant was arrested.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.During trial appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.However, trial court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of P. W.1, who lodged FIR.According to FIR, there was a quarrel and scuffle between the appellant and the deceased.Both had beaten 3 to each other by fists and kicks, in that event the appellant had inflicted injuries.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appellant had given repeated blows of Axe.He had also given one blow of Axe to P. W.1, which was serious in nature.He had used deadly weapon.Hence, trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence of murder.I was admitted in the hospital for ten days.Villagers lodged the report at the police station.I signed Ex.P.1, which is merg intimation, Ex.P.2, which is FIR and my T-shirt was seized by Ex.Axe was seized by seizure memo Ex.I signed both the documents.Other witnesses had narrated the incidents.Manish Balde P. W.17 is the Doctor, who performed postmortem of the deceased.He deposed that on 19.5.2007, I was posted as Assistant Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Athner District Betul and performed postmortem of the deceased.I noticed following injuries on the body of the person of the deceased:(1) Sharp cut incised wound situated on right laterally on parietal region on head.Size 3 x 3 x 1 cm.(2) Sharp cut incised wound situated on leftt laterally on parietal region on head.Size 2 x 3 x 1 cm.(3) Sharp cut incised wound situated on central occipital region on head.Size 3 x 2 x 1 cm.(4) Sharp cut incised wound situated on right laterally on occipital region on head.Size 3 x 1 x 1 cm.(5) Sharp cut incised wound situated on left laterally on occipital region on head.Size 2 x 1 x 1 cm.On internal examination, I noticed sharp cut incised wound on the head.Injuries were antemortem in nature.The deceased was died due to injuries suffered by him.I replied quarry of the 6 police that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by Axe, which was seized from the appellant.I also examined injured witnesses P. W.1 and noticed one incised injury on his head.16. D. K. Sakalle P. W. 15 is Investigation Officer.He deposed that I prepared spot map and signed the same.I seized plain and red earth from the spot vide Ex.P.8 and I signed the same.I also recorded statements of Balakram, Mamta, Sabulal, Munna, Malan, Amlobai, Mathura, Birjobai, Chintu @ Rajkumar, Panchhibai and Madhukar.On his memorandum an Axe and clothes were seized.Axe was seized by Ex.T-shirt which wearing the appellant was seized by seizure memo Ex.Seized articles were sent to FSL for examination.In the present case, P. W.1 is the injured eyewitness.He was present on the spot.He lodged named FIR.The Apex Court in the matter of Abdul Sayeed Vs.State of M. P. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 has held as under in regard to testimony of injured eyewitness :"The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court.Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".(Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors.State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr.Axe was seized on memorandum of the appellant.Clothes which appellant was wearing at the time of incident were also seized and as per FSL report Ex.P.28 on both articles blood stains were found.FIR was lodged immediately after the incident.Hence, trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty for murder of the deceased.Learned counsel for the State has strongly argued that the appellant had given repeated blows of Axe on the deceased.He had given one blow of Axe to P. W.1 also.Hence, trial Court has 8 rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence of murder and awarded proper sentence.In support of his contentions learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court; (1) Ghanshya Vs.State of U. P. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 611, and (2) Munfait Vs.Contrary to this, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is difference in the version of FIR, which was lodged by the P. W.1 immediately after the incident and his court statement.As per FIR the deceased went to the house of the appellant, he was abusing to him.Thereafter, there was a scuffle between the deceased and the appellant.Both had beaten by fists and kicks to each other and in that event the appellant had taken out Axe from the house and inflicted blow at the deceased.Hence, the act of the appellant would fall under Section 304-I of IPC.Appellant examined his wife asD.W.1 in his defence.She deposed that the deceased was trying to outrage her modesty.He entered in the house, at that time the appellant came there and when I prevented the appellant from aforesaid act, both had beaten to each other.There is slight difference in the evidence of P. W. 1 deposed by him before the court and the incident narrated by him in FIR.In the Merg Ex.P.1 and FIR Ex.P.2, it is mentioned that the deceased and P. W.1 went to the house of the appellant to take back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because the deceased had given 9 aforesaid T. V. and V. C. D. Player to the appellant.Thereafter, the deceased called the appellant and told him to return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player, the deceased told him that he had no money, hence, he had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player in dowry to his sister-in-law and he would return back after receipt of salary and there was vad-vivad "eknj pksn Vh-oh- ns eSaus rsjs dks ns[kus ds fy, fn;k Fkk] ngst nsus ds fy, ugha fn;k Fkk" Both the appellant and the deceased abused filthy language and told that he would take T. V. and V. C. D. Player and in that event both were beating to each other by fists and kicks, in the event of beating both had entered in side of the room and the appellant had taken out Axe and inflicted blow on the head of the deceased.Thereafter, the deceased fell down.It is mentioned by P. W.1 in FIR that I had tried to save the deceased then appellant had inflicted a blow of Axe on my head.Thereafter, I ran away from the spot.In court statement P. W. 1 did not mention the fact that there was scuffle between the appellant and the deceased and both were beating to each other by fists and kicks in that event the appellant had taken out Axe, which was kept in the room and inflicted blow of Axe on the head of the deceased.She further admitted that 10 before incident the deceased and the appellant used to visit houses of each other.We order accordingly."Hon'ble the Apex court in the matter of Arjun Vs.P. W.1 received head injury, which was caused by hard and sharp object.He was admitted in the hospital 15 for seven days.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.This first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.56/2019 registered at P.S. Rehli District Sagar (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 286, 338 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Act.As per the case of the prosecution, on 30/12/2018 at about 2.00 pm, in the field of applicant Badan, situated at village Baleh under the jurisdiction of Police Station Rehli, Deepu aged about 10 years has found an object looking like sweet item (laddu) which he has taken in his hand which was exploded, by which Deepu was injured badly, his four fingers have been detached from the palm of the hand.On receiving such information, complainant, father of injured Deepu, reached on the spot and lodged the report.During the course of investigation, statements of injured Deepu and other villagers have been recorded.Injured Deepu has remained admitted in the hospital at Sagar and Bhopal.He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04/02/2019 and trial will take long time for its decision.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that incidence alleged to be happened in the filed of applicant Badan.It is alleged that round shaped article i.e. laddu was a bomb, which is usually made for the purpose of killing wild boar, was explode in the hand of injured Deepu, as to how inured Deepu has reached there is not clear from the evidence available on record.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant and the period of custody of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 20/02/2019 21:59:13

['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop leading to the filing of the present petition, is that in the year 1967 the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Border Security Force and earned promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspector in course of time.In the year 1981 the petitioner was attached to the BSF Subsidiary Training Centre, Ranidanga, Silliguri (hereinafter referred to as the 'STC Ranidanga').On June 29, 1987 a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner in which four charges were laid against him as under:At the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses; viz. HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, HC Basudev Bhat PW-2, HC B.B.Chhetri PW-3, W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 2 of 34 Assistant Commandant S.D.Chaudhuri PW-4, Subedar Amrik Singh PW- 5, SI Ajit Kumar PW-6, SI Harbans Singh PW-7, HC Tanu Babu Singh PW-8, Dr.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 2 of 34HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, deposed that since August 25, 1980 he was attached to STC Ranidanga.During month of December, 1981 the petitioner was undergoing Junior Leader Course at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 at about 08.00 P.M. he learnt that the petitioner was sitting near a washerman's shop with a revolver and was having a few rounds of ammunitions and thus he left for said shop.On reaching the shop he saw the petitioner sitting on a bench in a room adjacent to the shop.He saw a few rounds lying on a table in front of the bench where the petitioner was sitting.The petitioner told him that the rounds belonged to him.The room where the petitioner was sitting was out of bounds for BSF personnel for the reason liquor used to be sold illegally from there.During his conversation with the petitioner it appeared to him that the petitioner had consumed liquor.He persuaded the petitioner to accompany him to STC Ranidanga since it was getting late.At about 08.30 P.M. when they reached the gate of STC Ranidanga he requested the petitioner to deposit his revolver in the Kote but the petitioner refused in spite of being told of the standing orders, stating that the revolver was his personal property.At that the petitioner pushed him due to which he fell on the ground.The petitioner hurled abuses at him and proceeded towards the tent where the students/personnel undergoing Junior Leaders Course were staying.As he stood up, he saw the petitioner approach him.The petitioner was hurling abuses at him and branding him a thief.He again requested the petitioner to deposit the revolver in the Kote W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 3 of 34 whereupon the petitioner gave a blow on his right shoulder as a result whereof he again fell on the ground.Thereafter the petitioner took out the pistol from his jacket and pointed the same towards him and said that he would shoot him.On sensing danger he immediately stood up from the ground and ran towards the parade ground.While running he heard the sound of a bullet wiz passed his head.On reaching the office he rang up Adjutant STC Anil Kamboj and informed him about the incident.After sometime along with Adjutant Anil Kamboj and some other officers he went to STC Ranidanga where he saw the petitioner and Subedar Amrik Singh, in-charge of Junior Leaders Course, present there.The witness explains that it was correct that he had made a statement before the Recording Officer on 22nd December, 1981 and had also signed the same in token of its correctness.On being shown he also points out and identifies his signature, at the end of his statement.He further explains that it is correct that he had made the aforesaid statement before the Recording Officer, on the date indicated above, since he was not sure at that time whether the sound could be that of a shot of Sten or Pistol.I had seen the accused, while turning my neck towards him.However, I did feel some pain over my shoulder where I was hit...I did not make any hue and cry when I was being fired upon by the accused.Since I apprehended that the accused may not fire upon me, after taking cue, from sound.When the accused abused me on the night of 6th December, 1981, his pitch was high.I did not notice any sentry close-by, rushing to the place of incident, after having heard the abuses as well as the sound of the fire shot." (Emphasis Supplied)HC Basudev Bhat PW-2, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was performing the duties of a Kote under officer in the Bn HQ Kote at Kadamtala.On December 21, 1981 he was instructed by his superior officers to deposit one revolver belonging to one SI Gurbachan Singh (petitioner) in the Bn HQ Kote at Kadamtala.When he had received said revolver the same was not sealed.HC B.B.Chhetri PW-3, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was attached to STC Ranidanga as an Instructor was residing in a barrack inside the premises of STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 at about 10.00 A.M. there was a weapon cleaning parade in which weapons were taken out from the Kote for cleaning.On said day the petitioner came to him and asked for his personal revolver which he had deposited in the Kote stating that he wanted to clean the same.He handed over the revolver to the petitioner.On December 06, 1981 at about 08.30 P.M. he W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 5 of 34 was standing near the verandah of his barrack when he saw the petitioner, accompanied by HC Rahmat Subba, coming towards the barrack.He could hear the petitioner talking, at times in low pitch and at times in high pitch.The gait of the petitioner was not normal.When the petitioner and HC Rahmat Subba passed in front of him he immediately went to SI Ram Lal Dogra who was sitting near SO's Mess and informed him that the petitioner had come inside the premises of STC Ranidanga and was behaving in an abnormal fashion.When he left from SO's Mess he heard the sound of firing of a shot.After sometime HC Tanu Babu and Subedar Amrik Singh who were senior students of Junior Leaders Course came to him and handed over a revolver to him and told him that the same belonged to the petitioner.On receiving the said revolver he checked the same and found it to be empty.Thereafter he deposited said revolver in Kote as per the instructions of his superior officers.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 5 of 34I could hear the accused talking to HC Ramat Subba but I did not know, as to, about what they were talking.As a matter of fact what I am stating to-day is correct and there is no falsehood in the same.QUESTIONED BY THE COURT W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 6 of 34 I did not ask the accused on the night of 6 th December, 1981, when I saw him for the first time in the STC, about the revolver Exhibit-N, not been deposited by him, since the accused appeared to me to be behaving an abnormal fashion."W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 6 of 34Assistant Commandant S.D.Chaudhuri PW-4, deposed that on December 30, 1981 he was handed over a box containing two empty fired cartridges of .38 caliber, twenty live cartridges of 12 bore, eighteen live ammunition of .38 caliber, one live ammunition of .45 caliber and one empty fired care of .38 caliber belonging to the petitioner.Subedar Amrik Singh PW-5, deposed that in the month of December, 1981, the petitioner, eighteen other officers and he were undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC Ranidanga and staying in a tent pitched in STC premises.On December 06, 1981 at about 05.30 P.M. the petitioner was absent in the roll call of the students attending Junior Leader's Course.Being senior student of said course, he informed HC Tanu Babu, Senior Course Instructor, about the absence of petitioner in the roll call.At about 08.45 P.M. while he was present in the tent he heard the sound of firing of a shot whereupon he came out of the tent and saw the petitioner entering the tent.The petitioner was carrying a revolver in his hand at that time.He asked the petitioner as to why he fired a shot but he did not give any reply to him.Thereafter he went out of the tent for a while.When he returned to the tent he saw the petitioner cleaning his revolver with a cleaning rod.He asked the petitioner that either he should deposit his revolver himself or give the same to him at which the petitioner handed over his revolver to him.He went to HC Tanu Babu and handed over the revolver to him who in turn handed over the same to HC B.B. Chetri.After sometime he along with HC Tanu Babu returned to the tent.The petitioner who was standing outside the tent shouted at him W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 7 of 34 and enquired about his revolver.He informed him that his revolver has been deposited in Kote whereupon the petitioner started hurling abuses at him.When he admonished him for abusing him the petitioner rushed towards him and held him by his throat.The petitioner had assaulted him in the presence of HC Tanu Banu and SI Ajit Kumar.Thereafter the petitioner insisted for seeing his revolver whereupon the petitioner, HC Tanu Babu and he proceeded towards Kote.When they reached near the staff barrack he saw Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and some other officers getting down from a vehicle.He heard Anil Kamboj chiding the petitioner for some wrong committed by him.After sometime he and the petitioner returned to the tent where the petitioner again assaulted him for having complained against him.Thereafter he left the tent and informed Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj that the petitioner has again assaulted him.Accompanied by Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and Subedar U.P.Rai he came to the tent and saw that the petitioner was lying on a tent.Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj repeatedly ordered the petitioner to get up and come outside the tent but he refused to obey his orders.After sometime Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and Subedar U.P. Rai left from there.Soon thereafter he saw the belongings of petitioner being shifted from the tent to the canteen.When the belongings of petitioner were being shifted he saw the petitioner going out of the tent.After sometime he heard that the petitioner has been apprehended.At about 11.30 P.M. he accompanied the petitioner to BSF Base Hospital, Kadamtala for his medical examination.On the next day i.e. December 7, 1981 he was instructed by superior officers to prepare a seizure list of belongings of the petitioner.Live and empty cartridges were recovered from the belongings of the petitioner and the same were seized.Being W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 8 of 34 relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 7 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 8 of 34The accused had picked up a quarrel with a constable of STC, during the training for the Junior Leader's Course.It is wrong to suggest that I took away the revolver from the accused by force and had also caused injuries on his person, since he had refused to part with the same.It is wrong to say that I had beaten the accused and that was why I did not ask for any help.As a matter of fact the accused had beaten me and I had tried to separate myself from him. ...QUESTIONED BY THE COURT ....When the accused had come to the tent, on 6 th December, 1981 at 1930 hrs alongwith other three BSF personnel, from his talk, it appeared as if he had taken liquor."SI Ajit Kumar PW-6, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC Ranidanga and was staying along with the petitioner and Subedar Amrik Singh in a tent at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 at about 07.30 P.M. a heavy vehicle halted near the tent where he was staying.Three BSF personnel and the petitioner got down from the said vehicle and came inside the tent.He heard the petitioner telling the three personnel that he would shoot Subedar Amrik Singh.After sometime the three BSF personnel left the tent.At about 08.45 P.M. he heard the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 9 of 34 petitioner saying that today the people would come to know whether he possessed a revolver or not.After sometime the petitioner went out of the tent.After few seconds he heard the sound of firing of a shot.He saw Subedar Amrik Singh going out of the tent.Immediately thereafter he saw the petitioner entering the tent with a revolver in his hand.After sometime he saw the petitioner cleaning his revolver.Few seconds thereafter he saw Subedar Amrik Singh coming inside the tent and petitioner handing over his revolver to him.Few minutes thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh left the tent carrying revolver of petitioner in his hand.At about 09.30 P.M. he saw the petitioner, Subedar Amrik Singh and HC Tanu Babu standing outside the tent.The petitioner was repeatedly asking Subedar Amrik Singh to return his revolver to him.After sometime he saw the petitioner assaulting Subedar Amrik Singh whereupon he with the help of HC Tanu Babu rescued Subedar Amrik Singh from the clutches of petitioner.At about 10.00 P.M. the petitioner returned to the tent.Ten minutes thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh also returned to the tent.Sometime thereafter he heard the petitioner abusing Subedar Amrik Singh for having deposited his revolver.He then saw the petitioner again assaulting Subedar Amrik Singh.Thereafter he shouted for help whereupon SI Harbans Singh came there and helped him in rescuing Subedar Amrik Singh.Thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh left the tent and the petitioner rested on his cot.At about 10.15 P.M. Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj came in the tent and repeatedly ordered the petitioner to get up and come outside the tent but he refused to obey his orders.After sometime Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj left.I have stated the said fact since I had heard the same on the night of 6th December, 1981." (Emphasis Supplied)SI Harbans Singh PW-7, deposed that in the month of December 1981, he was undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC, Ranidanga and staying along with the petitioner and Subedar Amrik Singh, Senior Course Student, in a tent pitched in STC.On December 06, 1981 at about 05.30 P.M. a roll call of students undergoing Junior Leader's Course was held and the petitioner was absent from said roll call.At about 07.30 P.M. the petitioner along with three BSF personnel came to the tent in a heavy vehicle.After sometime the three BSF personnel left from there.After few minutes of departure of three BSF personnel from the tent the petitioner also left from tent.At about 08.45 P.M. the petitioner returned W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 12 of 34 to the tent and came near his cot.Immediately thereafter he again left the tent.At that time the petitioner was saying that today the people would come to know that he possessed a revolver.After a couple of minutes he heard the sound of firing of a shot.It appeared that the shot was fired from a pistol or revolver or sten.Thereafter he saw Subedar Amrik Singh going out of the tent.After a few minutes he saw the petitioner entering the tent with a revolver in his hand.He saw the petitioner cleaning his revolver with a cleaning rod which he had taken out from his pillow.When the petitioner was cleaning the revolver he went out of the tent for urinating.After sometime the petitioner also went out of the tent.I had not mentioned his fact, earlier, in my statement before the Recording Officer and have mentioned to- day before this Court, since I forgot to mention about the same, on the date when my statement was recorded....." (Emphasis Supplied)HC Tanu Babu PW-8, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was attached to STC Ranidanga for performing instructional duties in Junior Leader's Course.On December 06, 1981 he was informed by Subedar Amrik Singh, Senior Course Student, that the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 14 of 34 petitioner was absent from the roll call of the students held at about 05.30 P.M. At about 07.00 P.M. he went to the tent where the students undergoing Junior Leader's Course were staying to see whether the petitioner is present in the tent.On seeing that the petitioner is not present in the tent he returned to his barrack.At about 09.00 P.M. Subedar Amrik Singh came to the staff barrack where he was staying and handed him a revolver and informed him that said revolver belongs to the petitioner and a shot has been recently fired from said revolver.He inspected the barrel of said revolver and smell of gun powder was coming from the barrel.Thereafter he handed over said revolver to HC B.B.Chhetri who in turn deposited the same in Kote.He asked HC B.B.Chetri to check whether the said revolver belongs to the petitioner.After checking the registration number and other details of the revolver HC B.B.Chhetri informed him that said revolver belongs to the petitioner.At about 09.15 P.M. along with Subedar Amrik Singh he came to the tent and the petitioner was present inside the tent at that time.He heard the petitioner shouting at Subedar Amrik Singh and making enquiries about his revolver.Subedar Amrik and he informed the petitioner that his revolver has been safely deposited in Kote and that he should not worry about the same.Thereafter the petitioner started hurling abuses at Subedar Amrik Singh and beating him.With the help of SI Ajit Kumar he rescued Subedar Amrik Singh from the clutches of the petitioner.Thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh, petitioner and he started proceeding towards Kote to satisfy the petitioner that his revolver has been safely deposited in the Kote.On their way to Kote they met by Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and Subedar U.P.Rai.Thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh and petitioner went back to their tent while he went to his barrack.It is not correct to say that only based on chemical test one can give opinion that a person is intoxicated or otherwise.Even by clinical test, one can give opinion.The witness after having refreshed his memory from the records says that on the night of 6/7 December, 1981, the accused had multiple bruises over his face and one bruise over his left thigh.Since these were very superficial injuries (bruises), I did not think it appropriate to record the description of the same.There might have been about 5/6 bruises on the face of the accused.Such bruises could have been given by blows (fists).The multiple bruises on the face of the accused would be due to fall on any hard object.Such bruises would also be due to W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 17 of 34 friction against some hard object.The fall, could also cause bruises.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 17 of 34RE-EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTOR The bruises, which I have described above, can also be due to a fall or friction on any hard object like tree, bamboo or stone." (Emphasis Supplied)Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj PW-10, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was performing the duties of Adjutant and Quarter Master at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 he received a telephone call from HC Ramat Subba that the petitioner has been roaming in the STC premises with a loaded revolver in his hands.He i.e. HC Ramat Subba further informed him that the petitioner had fired a shot at him and beaten him.He gave a report about the incident to Commandant, STC Ranidanga.After sometime accompanied by Subedar U.P.Rai, HC Ramat Subba he left for STC Ranidanga.When they reached near STC they met the petitioner.He enquired from the petitioner about the complaint against him by HC Ramat Subba whereupon the petitioner rudely replied that nothing happened.When he told the petitioner that he had learnt that he has fired a shot from his revolver, the petitioner again rudely replied that he can do whatever he wants from his revolver.Smell of liquor was coming from the mouth of the petitioner when he was talking to him.Thereafter he inspected the revolver of the petitioner and noted that smell of gun powder coming from its barrel.At about 10.05 P.M. he met Subedar Amrik Singh who informed him that today i.e. December 06, 1981 he was beaten by the petitioner on two occasions.Thereafter he went to the tent where the petitioner was lying on a cot and repeatedly ordered him to come out of the tent but the petitioner flatly refused to obey his orders.Thereafter he along with Subedar U.P. Rai left W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 18 of 34 the tent and came to Kadamtala and reported the matter to the Commandant.Thereafter he returned to tent and shifted the belongings of the petitioner from the tent to a nearby canteen.After sometime he learnt that the petitioner has run away whereupon he instructed Subedar U.P.Rai to apprehend the petitioner.Subedar U.P.Rai managed to apprehend the petitioner.Even after being apprehended the petitioner was creating ruckus by shouting at the top of his voice.When he admonished him for creating a nuisance the petitioner rudely asked him to shut up and made aggressive gestures towards him.Being relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 18 of 34On reaching STC, after having got the information from HC Ramat Subba, I did not ask about the incident from the students in the tent, where the accused used to stay. ....As far as I remember I had submitted a detailed report about the incident of 6th December, 1981 to Commandant STC.I do not remember as to whether the accused was produced before the Commandant, following the said incident.I did not ask about the said incident on the night of 6th December, 1981 from the other inmates of the tent, where the accused used to stay.I had only enquired about this incident from Subedar Amrik Singh, HC B B Chhetri and the accused....." (Emphasis Suppplied)Subedar U.P.Rai PW-14, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was attached to STC Ranidanga for performing instructional duties.On December 06, 1981 at about 09.15 P.M. HC Ramat Subba came to his residence and informed him that the petitioner had fired a shot at him and that Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj was calling him W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 19 of 34 to his residence.On reaching the residence of Anil Kamboj, he along with Anil Kamboj and HC Ramat Subba left for STC Ranidanga.When they reached near STC they met the petitioner.Anil Kamboj made enquiry from the petitioner about the complaint against him by HC Ramat Subba whereupon the petitioner rudely replied that nothing happened.When Anil Kamboj told the petitioner that he had learnt that he has fired a shot from his revolver the petitioner again rudely replied that he can do whatever he wants from his revolver.Thereafter Anil Kamboj inspected the revolver of the petitioner.At about 10.00 P.M. he and Anil Kamboj met Subedar Amrik Singh who informed them that today i.e. December 06, 1981 he was beaten by the petitioner on two occasions.Thereafter he and Anil Kamboj went to the tent where the petitioner was lying on a cot and Anil Kamboj repeatedly ordered him to come out of the tent but the petitioner flatly refused to obey his orders.Thereafter they left the tent for Kadamtala.After sometime he returned to tent and shifted the belongings of the petitioner from the tent to a nearby canteen as per the instructions of Anil Kamboj.After sometime it was learnt that the petitioner has run away.He started to look for the petitioner and managed to apprehend him with the help of Subedar U.P.Rai.Even after being apprehended the petitioner was creating ruckus by shouting at the top of his voice.When Anil Kamboj admonished him for creating a nuisance the petitioner rudely asked him to shut up and made aggressive gestures towards him.On the next day i.e. December 07, 1981 he participated in the seizure of the personal belongings of the petitioner.Amongst other articles the personal articles of the petitioner included live/fired ammunitions.The petitioner submitted an application under Rule 92 of the BSF Rules, 1969 to the GFSC stating that prosecution has failed to establish a prima-facie case for him to answer anything and thus he should not be called upon to make his defence for the charges framed against him.In response to the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner the prosecution submitted a reply, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-The allegation of the Defence Counsel that Shri Anil Kamboj, PW-10 did not investigated about the incident nor did he enquired from the accused after 6 DEC 81 is baseless and unfounded.In fact he had investigated about the incident on 7 DEC 81 from concerned persons including the accused and had submitted the report to the Commandant, STC regarding the happenings.The investigation into the incident of the night of 6 DEC 81 revealed that the accused had indulged in indiscipline and therefore, the matter was referred to the higher Hqrs by the Commandant, STC.Since the accused was in the processes of attachment to 87 Bn BSF no action could be initiated as per Rule 44 of BSF Rules nor was he tried/punished for the aforesaid offences.Briefly noted, the petitioner stated that in the month of December, 1981 he was undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 he took out his revolver .38 calibre from Kote to clean the same.On said day i.e. December 06 some officers from his Battalion i.e. 84 Battalion had come to Kadamtala.Thereafter he went to Kadamtala and met the officers from his Battalion who allowed him to accompany them to 84 Battalion.He sat down with said officers and shared three-four bottles of rum with them.Sometime thereafter he and the officers of his Battalion went to the tent where he was staying at STC Ranidanga.At that time Inspector Amrik Singh was present in the tent but he did not tell him anything about his absence from roll call.In the instant case, the petitioner was not handed over the copy of Abstract of Evidence W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 26 of 34 before he was called upon to make his statement at the time of preparation of Record of Evidence, which greatly prejudiced the petitioner while making his statement in the Record of Evidence.V Rule 60(iii) of the BSF Rules, 1969 disqualifies a person who had taken part in the investigation of the case from serving on the Court.On December 06, 1981, the petitioner was absent from the roll call of persons attending Junior Leader's Course held at 05.30 P.M. Being Senior Course Student, Subedar Amrik Singh reported the absence of the petitioner from roll call to HC Tanu Babu, Senior Course Instructor.At about 08.00 P.M. HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, learnt that petitioner is sitting in a washer man's shop and carrying a revolver in his hand whereupon HC Rahmat Subba went to the said shop.On reaching there, he saw that the petitioner was sitting in a room adjacent to said shop with a revolver in his hand.The petitioner was under the influence of liquor at that time.Thereafter the petitioner and HC Rahmat Subba started proceeding towards the tent at STC premises.On their way, the petitioner got angry with HC Rahmat Subba for his asking him to hand over his revolver to him.The petitioner assaulted HC Rahmat Subba and few seconds thereafter fired a shot at HC Rahmat Subba.At that stage Subedar Amrik Singh, SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Lal, who have deposed to have heard the sound of firing of a shot intervened in the incident.They all saw the petitioner enter the tent W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 31 of 34 with a revolver in his hand.The petitioner gives his revolver to Subedar Amrik Singh who deposits the same in Kote.On learning that Subedar Amrik Singh has deposited his revolver in Kote the petitioner got angry and assaulted Subedar Amrik Singh, which assault was witnessed by SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Lal.After sometime the petitioner again assaulted Subedar Amrik Singh in the presence of SI Harbans Lal and SI Ajit Lal.Subedar Amrik Singh then complained to Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj.The petitioner misbehaved with Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj.The belongings of the petitioner were removed from the tent.The petitioner tried to flee from STC premises but was apprehended.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 1 of 34On July 08, 1982 Inspector General, BSF, West Bengal directed that a General Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'GFSC') be convened to conduct a trial in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner.He remained in STC Ranidanga for few minutes and thereafter left for his house.Being relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 3 of 34"I did not ask or shout for any help, at the time when I was pushed as well as abused by the accused...The Defence Counsel confronts the witness with the portion of his statements at page 8 of the manuscript copy of the Record of Evidence.The same is side lined with red ink."after about 20 second or so I heard the sound of a fire behind me as though from a Sten or a pistol"Whereas the witness to-day before the Court, has said that he heard the sound of a shot having been fired from a revolver.He further adds that whatever he had stated on 22nd W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 4 of 34 December, 1981 before the Recording Officer as well as now before this Court, are absolutely correct.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 4 of 34To-day I used the word revolver since I had seen the accused in possession of the same, on the night of 6th December, 1981... Questioned by the Court I did see the accused firing at me, while I was running.Being relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-Soon thereafter he saw the belongings of petitioner being removed from the tent.After sometime he saw the petitioner going out of the tent.Being W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 10 of 34 relevant, it would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross- examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 9 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 10 of 34I had seen the accused beating Subedar Amrik Singh outside the tent from a distance of 10 yds or so.I did not hear Subedar Amrik Singh raising any hue and cry, at the time when he was being beaten, by the accused outside the tent.Subedar Amrik Singh was under such a pressure by the accused that he was not in a position to make any hue and cry.Excepting one bruise on the forehead, over the left eye, I cannot say as to whether Subedar Amrik Singh sustained any other injuries, due to the beating, given by the accused.I did not see the accused giving blows to the Subedar.I only saw him pulling him down with force.I had seen the accused mounting on Subedar Singh inside the tent for about ten minutes.It is wrong to say that Subedar Amrik Singh had taken the revolver from the accused without his permission.As a matter of fact the accused had handed over the said revolver to the said subedar.It is incorrect to suggest that since the accused did not hand over the revolver to Subedar, Subedar Amrik Singh got annoyed over him and being a senior course student he beat the accused, thereby causing injuries on his person. ....The Defence Counsel confronts the witness with the portion of his statement at page 20 of the manuscript copy which reads as under:-"Inspector Amrik Singh came to the tent and took the revolver from SI Gurbachan Singh on the pretext that he would be cleaning.SI Gurbachan Singh got busied in his other works and Inspector Amrik Singh took the opportunity to go out of the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 11 of 34 tent with the revolver which I later learnt he had given to deposit."W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 11 of 34The said portion has been side lined in red ink in the manuscript copy of R.O.E.Whereas to-day before this Court, the witness has stated that the accused had handed over the revolver to Subedar Amrik Singh.The witness explains that whatever he has stated to-day is correct.He does not know as to how the aforesaid portion, conveys the meaning other than what he has stated today.When he was lying on his cot he heard the petitioner hurling abuses at Subedar Amrik Singh.The petitioner was accusing Subedar Amrik Singh of having deposited his revolver in Kote with a view to falsely implicate him in a case.Subedar Amrik Singh was denying aforesaid accusation and informing the petitioner that it was HC Ramat Subba who had lodged a complaint against him for having fired a shot at him and beating him.Thereafter he saw the petitioner push Subedar Amrik Singh to the ground and was mounting on him.With the help of SI Ajit Singh he rescued Subedar Amrik Singh from the clutches of the petitioner.He advised Subedar Amrik Singh to go from the tent to avoid any further altercations whereupon Subedar Amrik Singh went out of the tent.The petitioner went to his cot and he could hear him i.e. the petitioner abusing Subedar Amrik Singh.At about 10.00 P.M. Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj accompanied by Subedar U.P. Rai and some other officers came in the tent and repeatedly ordered the petitioner to get up and come outside the tent but he refused to obey his orders.After sometime Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj left from there.Soon thereafter he saw the belongings of petitioner being removed from the tent.After sometime he W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 13 of 34 saw the petitioner going out of the tent.At about 11.15 P.M. he saw the petitioner returning to the tent.After sometime the petitioner again left the tent.The petitioner was abusing at that time.He does not know what happened thereafter.Being relevant, it would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 12 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 13 of 34At about 1815 hrs I had gone to take my meals.I am not aware whether he took permission from Subedar Amrik Singh that since he (accused) was not well, he would not be able to attend roll call.As a matter of fact I did not see the accused, in the evening roll call.I had seen the accused holding Subedar Amrik Singh by his hair.Subedar Amrik Singh was also struggling to extricate himself from the accused.At about 11.30 P.M. he took the petitioner to Base Hospital, Kadamtala for medical examination.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 14 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 15 of 34On the next day i.e. December 7, 1981 he participated in the seizure of the personal belongings of the petitioner.Amongst other articles the personal articles of the petitioner included live/fired ammunitions.....At the time when I had shouted for help I found SI Ajit Kumar.I did not see anybody else around there.....I did not see any injury whatsoever on the person of the accused on the night of 6th December, 1981. ....It is absolutely wrong to say that I alongwith Subedar Amrik Singh, HC Ramat Subba, HC B B Chhetri fabricated a false case against the accused, with a view to involve him...."(Emphasis Supplied)Doctor Md.Azimuddin PW-9, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was posted at BSF Base Hospital, Kadamtala.In the intervening night of December 06/07, 1981 he received a telephonic call informing that one patient from STC Ranidanga is to be medically examined whereupon he reached Base Hospital.On reaching there the petitioner, Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and some other officers were present there.Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj requested him to conduct the medical examination of the petitioner.At the first instance he examined the gait of the petitioner and noticed that petitioner was trembling while walking.Smell of liquor was coming from the mouth of the deceased.The speech of petitioner was slurring.The petitioner was not able to walk straight and his co-ordination was disoriented.On carrying out finger to nose test on the petitioner he found that the finger of the petitioner was not correctly touching his nose.The pupils of the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 16 of 34 petitioner were dilated and reacting to light.After medically examining the petitioner he concluded that the petitioner was moderately intoxicated.Although the petitioner was under the influence of liquor he was conscious of his actions as he was responding to his instructions.As per his opinion, the petitioner was in a position to use physical force against any other person.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 16 of 34It is wrong to say that Shri Anil Kamboj, AC at the outset told me that the accused was under a state of intoxication.As a matter of fact he had said that the accused had consumed liquor.It is wrong to say that I had been influenced by others to issue a certificate as well as to give a opinion that the accused was under the influence of liquor.Deputy Commandant S.S. Chahar PW-12, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was detailed to prepare Record of Evidence in respect of the petitioner.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 20 of 34However, the provisions of BSF Rules 44 and 45 were complied with when the accused was attached with 87 Bn BSF for disciplinary purposes.Your Honour, the learned Defence Counsel instead of appreciating the attachment of the accused with 87 Bn BSF for fair play and justice had harped on delay in charge sheeting the accused which is bound to take place owing to procedural formalities." (Emphasis Supplied)The Court rejected the application under Rule 92 of the BSF Rules, 1969 submitted by the petitioner and proceeded to record the evidence of witnesses of defence.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 21 of 34After bidding goodbye to officers from his Battalion he went to Kote to deposit his revolver but Kote under officer was not present there.He went to the washer man's shop to collect his uniform and thereafter had dinner in the mess of STC.After having dinner he returned to his tent and started cleaning his revolver.Inspector Amrik Singh took his revolver from him by saying that he would clean and deposit it in the Kote and went out of the tent with his revolver.Ten fifteen minutes thereafter Inspector Amrik W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 22 of 34 Singh returned to the tent and informed him that he has not deposited his revolver in the Kote but handed over the same to HC Tanu Babu.He chided Inspector Amrik Singh for not having deposited his revolver in Kote and instead handing over the same HC Tanu Babu.He told Inspector Amrik Singh that in case HC Tanu Babu would commit any wrong act with his revolver he would be blamed for it as the revolver was licensed in his name.He asked Amrik Singh to go with him to HC Tanu Babu for collecting his revolver but he refused to do so and said that he has committed no mistake by handing his revolver to HC Tanu Babu.When he i.e. petitioner kept insisting that he should go with him to HC Tanu Babu Amrik Singh pushed him and said that he should go to sleep and he has done no mistake in handing his revolver to HC Tanu Babu.In the meantime SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Kumar came there and three of them (Amrik Singh, Harbans Singh and Ajit Kumar) started beating him.He received bruises on his face on account of being beaten by the said three persons.Amrik Singh, 4 SI Harbans Singh, SI Ajit Kumar, HC Ramat Subba, Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj, HC B.B. Chhetri and Subedar U.P. Rai have falsely implicated in the present case.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 22 of 34After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and written statement submitted by the petitioner, the opening and closing address of the prosecutor and the defending officer and summing up of the law officer, vide order dated August 9, 1982 the GFSC held that the petitioner is guilty of second, third and fourth charges framed against him.With respect to first charge, the GFSC held that the petitioner is not guilty of offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC but guilty of offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide punishable W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 23 of 34 under Section 308 IPC.The GFSC awarded a sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner.Vide order dated April 5, 1983 the High Court dismissed aforesaid petition on the ground that he has not exhausted alternative remedy available to him under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 to assail the legality of finding and sentence of GFSC before invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 to the confirming authority.Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Vide order dated July 16, 1992 this Court dismissed the aforesaid petition on the ground that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached the High Court of Calcutta to assail the finding and sentence of the GFSC.The petitioner challenged the order dated July 16, 1992 passed by this Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.Vide order dated August 3, 1993 the Supreme Court set aside the order dated July 16, 1992 passed by this Court and directed this Court to dispose of the matter on merits.On January 02, 2014, arguments were heard in the matter and same was reserved for judgment.Written submissions filed by the petitioner were taken on record.The submissions advanced by the petitioner can be broadly categorized into following two heads:-Such being the position, the Commandant of STC Ranidanga had the disciplinary powers of Commandant of petitioner on the date of incident(s) i.e. December 06, 1981 inasmuch as the petitioner was undergoing a course at STC Ranidanga on said day.Further, Rule 45 prescribes that a charge leveled against an accused shall be heard by his Commandant.In the instant case, S.S.Chahar who prepared the Record of Evidence in case of petitioner served as prosecutor in the GSFC.Under the second head (perversity of the finding(s) of the GFSC), following submissions were advanced by the petitioner:-Furthermore, HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, deposed that he did not raise any alarm or hue or cry when he was being beaten by the petitioner or when the petitioner fired a shot at him.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 27 of 34The conduct of HC Rahmat Subba of remaining silent at the time of the incident and not making a cry for help is most unnatural and raises a big question mark on the veracity of said witness.Lastly, various contradictions were pointed out in the deposition of HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, in order to demonstrate that HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, is not a reliable witness.(ii) The testimony of Doctor Md.(iii) SI Ajit Kumar PW-6, admitted in his statement before the GFSC that he had stated before the Recording Officer that Subedar Amrik Singh had taken the revolver of the petitioner from him on the pretext of cleaning the same.It was argued that aforesaid statement made by Ajit Kumar before the Recording Officer establishes the defence of the petitioner that Subedar Amrik Singh had taken the revolver from the petitioner on the pretext of cleaning and depositing the same in Kote.Instead of depositing it in Kote Subedar Amrik Singh handed over the revolver of the petitioner to HC Tanu Babu.When petitioner chided Subedar Amrik Singh for handing over his revolver to HC Tanu Babu he fought with him.(iv) The alleged manhandling of Subedar Amrik Singh by the petitioner happened in the tent pitched in STC Ranidanga where the officers undergoing Junior Leader's Course were staying.Meaning thereby, many W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 28 of 34 other students/officers must have been present in the tent when the petitioner allegedly manhandled the petitioner.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 31 of 34The witnesses of the prosecution have been extensively cross- examined by the petitioner but nothing tangible could be extracted therefrom.The witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and corroborated each other in material particulars.As per the petitioner, save and except Deputy Commandant S.S.Chehar PW-11, the Recording Officer, all other ten witnesses of the prosecution are lying and have colluded with each other to falsely implicate the petitioner.It is difficult to believe that as many as ten persons have ganged up against the petitioner, particularly when except Subedar Amrik Singh the petitioner has not alleged animus against any other witness of the prosecution.Furthermore, the incident relating to manhandling of Subedar Amrik Singh by the petitioner happened in the tent where as many as 20 persons undergoing Junior Leader's Course were staying.Meaning thereby, many persons would have witnessed the happening of incident in question.But no one from the tent came out in favour of the petitioner.Two persons from the tent viz. SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Lal spoke in favor of W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 32 of 34 Subedar Amrik Singh.This shows that in all probability it is Subedar Amrik Singh who was speaking the truth.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 32 of 34Furthermore, a chink has appeared in the defence taken by the petitioner.Whereas the petitioner has stated in the written statement submitted by him to GSFC that he did not attend evening roll-call on December 06, 1981 as he had gone to Kadamtala to meet the officers from his Battalion he has cross-examined SI Harbans Singh PW-7 to the effect that he did not attend evening roll-call on December 06, 1981 as he was unwell.The submissions advanced by the petitioner under second head requires this court to re-evaluate the evidence led by the prosecution.In view of facts that the witnesses of prosecution has withstood the test of cross-examination and corroborated each other in material particulars; the petitioner has not led any evidence in defence despite the fact that incident relating to manhandling of Subedar Amrik Singh had happened in presence of many persons and a chink has appeared in the defence of the petitioner; the finding(s) of the GFSC cannot be faulted.Considering the seriousness of the charges proved against the petitioner, the GFSC was justified in awarding the sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 33 of 34In view of above discussion, the present petition is hereby dismissed but without any orders as to costs.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (JAYANT NATH) JUDGE JANUARY 23, 2014 mamta W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 34 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 34 of 34

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

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

M.A. 16549-50/2021 (Exemptions)Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.a. On 24.04.1992, Odisha Mineral Development Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as OMDC) and Usha Rectifier Corporation India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as URCIL) later changed as UIL to form the Joint Venture Company (JVC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MoU) for the purpose of setting up a crushing and screening plan including mining, processing and marketing of iron ore in order to meet the growing demand of processed ore for Steel Industry.Accordingly, a Joint Venture Company in the name of East India Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as EIML) was formed on 18.08.1992 with URCIL and OMDC being its co-promoters.b. On 25.02.2005 Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwala, petitioner no.1 herein became the Director of M/s Selehium Trading Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as STPL) (petitioner no. 2 herein).M.C.2348/2020 Page 2 of 30 c. On 24.03.2005, Usha India Ltd ('UIL') one of the promoters of the Joint Venture Company (EIML) holding 23,99,940 shares in EIML had transferred these shares to STPL.M.C.2348/2020 Page 2 of 30e. The OMDC in its own 'Annual Report and Accounts' for the year ended on 31.03.2010 (Financial Year 2009-10) notified that it was converted to a Government Company effective from 19.03.2010 under Section 617 of the Companies Act pursuant to the restructuring scheme duly approved by the Ministry and Union Cabinet.It is further notified that the Ministry of Steel, Government of India vide its letter No. 8(14)2007-RMII Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 3 of 30 (Pt.File) (Vol III) dated 30.09.2009 communicated that the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.09.2009 had approved the 'Restructuring Scheme' of Bird Group of Companies including the OMDC.The said Restructuring Scheme had also received the approval of the Board as well as shareholders.M.C.2348/2020 Page 3 of 30g. The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Government of India vide its Office Memorandum No.1(86)/2010-RM II dated Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 4 of 30h. On 30.07.2014, a complaint was made by Shri Umesh Chandra the then Director, RINL holding additional charge of MD, OMDC to the CBI.i. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India published its Annual Report for 2015-16 and uploaded on its official website (steel.gov.in).M.C.2348/2020 Page 5 of 30l. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India published its Annual Report for 2016-17 and uploaded on its official website (steel.gov.in).In the said Annual Report, it has been Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 6 of 30m. The Petitioner No. 1 and another co-accused (Mr. Vinay Rai) filed an application dated 25.09.2017 seeking dropping of charges under the provisions of PC Act. The learned CBI Court vide Order dated 25.09.2017 issued notice in the said application to the Respondent CBI and vide order dated 07.02.2018 directed that the application dated 25.09.2017 of the Petitioner No. 1 for dropping of charges shall be taken into consideration while hearing arguments on charge.n. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India published its Annual Report for 2017-18 and uploaded on its official website (steel.gov.in).M.C.2348/2020 Page 7 of 30 o. The Under Secretary to Ministry of Steel, GoI had intimated under RTI reply vide its letter No. 8(4)/2019-BGC dated 06.08.2019 addressed to the co-accused (Mr. Champak Banerjee) that 'subsequent to the Cabinet approval in 2009, EIL become a Government Company and a majority shareholder in OMDC.M.C.2348/2020 Page 7 of 30The said application dated 19.10.2019 sought consideration of the certified copies of the following documents:i) Memorandum and Articles of Association of OMDC;ii) The Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings and other Properties) Act, 1890; Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 8 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 8 of 30iii) The RTI reply from GoI, Ministry of Steel vide communication dated 17.8.2010, the communication of Ministry of Heavy Industries and & Public Enterprises dated 22.8.2019 and Annual Report of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India for the year 2015-16;iv) The RoC documents of the year 2005 upto 2009;v) The RoC record along with the 92nd Annual Report and Accounts.Accordingly, the learned CBI Court vide Order dated 19.10.2019 issued notice of the said Application to Respondent State and directed that the reply be filed within 10 days.r. Thereafter, the Respondent CBI did not advance any arguments on the said Application dated 19.10.2019 despite availing several opportunities on 21.12.2019, 17.01.2020 and Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 9 of 30On being challenged, this Court vide order dated 17.02.2020 in appeal directed the Respondent CBI to supply copies of said documents to the Petitioners herein.t. On 12.03.2020, the Respondent CBI through its IO denied all the documents filed by the Petitioner No. 1 vide his Application dated 19.10.2019 without any reason.The said documents being denied by the Respondent CBI are public documents of impeccable quality and most of them have been issued by the Government of India itself, being the original author and creator of the said documents.i) The Annual Returns of OMDC duly certified by the ROC;ii) The relevant pages of the Balance Sheet / Annual Report of OMDC;iii) The letter No. OMDC/HO/PERS/RTI/2020-07(3) dated 06.07.2020 issued by OMDC;iv) The Office Memorandum dated 17.08.2010 issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi;M.C.2348/2020 Page 12 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 12 of 30v) The Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2011 issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi;vi) The letter No. 8(4)/2019-BGC dated 06.08.2019 issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi;vii) The relevant pages of the three years' Annual Reports of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India.M.C.2348/2020 Page 15 of 30 shares on 24.03.2005 was committed at Kolkata as the concerned meeting of the Board of Directors of EIML was held at Kolkata on the said date.The MoU which was signed at New Delhi gave the right to first refusal to the promoters with regard to the safe of shares in EIML as well as stipulated the need for prior consent of other promoters before sale.On 24.03.2005 UIL sold 23.99 lakh shares in EIML to the petitioner no.2 company of which Petitioner No. 1 was for Rs.52 lakhs through fraudulent means without offering it to OMDC and without prior consent of the OMDC.The said sale was approved in board meeting dated 23.05.2005 which was attended by the officials of OMDC who have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the present case.As the officers of OMDC neither objected to the persons nor protected the interest of OMDC.Applications are disposed of.M.C. 2348/2020 & Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 1 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 1 of 30Given the limited nature of the present petition impugning an interim order, the relevant and brief facts of the case, as narrated in the present petition, are given hereunder:j. On 21.11.2016, the Respondent CBI filed Final Report/ Charge Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 5 of 30 Sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned CBI Court allegedly disclosing the commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w 406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act').The Respondent CBI along with the Charge-sheet filed a long list of documents but deliberately did not file the aforesaid documents which categorically prove beyond doubt that the learned CBI Court is devoid of the jurisdiction to entertain the present case since the OMDC was admittedly not a Government Company on the date of alleged offence.p. On 19.10.2019, the Petitioner No.1 had filed an Application under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. before the learned CBI Court seeking to consideration of certain documents at the stage of charge which are necessary for determining the preliminary question of jurisdiction of the learned CBI Court.However, the learned CBI Court vide its order 12.3.2020 directed the IO/HIO to comply with the Order dated 17.02.2020 of this Court and supply the documents to the Petitioners/Accused Persons within two weeks.M.C.2348/2020 Page 10 of 30u. From March, 2020 onwards, in light of the current pandemic COVID-19, all the cases listed before the Courts were adjourned en-bloc.v. The General Manager of OMDC vide its Letter dated 06.07.2020 addressed to the co-accused (Mr. Champak Banerjee) communicated the Order passed in Appeal No. 3/2020 by the Managing Director of OMDC (being 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act).The said Order has very categorically clarified the status of OMDC at para number (C)(iv) of the Order sheet in very clear terms which is quoted below:"However, for the sake of clarity, it is clarified that OMDC was an 'Indian non-Government Company' upto 19.03.2010 and became a 'Government Company' w.e.f. 19.03.2010."M.C.2348/2020 Page 11 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 11 of 30w. In light of denial of the public documents by the Respondent CBI and the subsequent discovery of additional public documents, the Petitioners filed an Application dated 09.11.2020 (registered as IANo.7/2020) (annexed as Annexure P21) before the learned CBI Court seeking exercise of its powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the relevant officials for the production of the certain documents necessary for determining the preliminary question of jurisdiction of the learned CBI Court to entertain the present case.The said Application sought production of the following documents:However, the learned CBI Court vide its Order dated 11.11.2020 in IA No. 7/2020 dismissed the said Application of the Petitioners and directed them to positively address arguments on charge on the next date of hearing.Accordingly, present petition deserves to be allowed.M.C.2348/2020 Page 14 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 15 of 30The respondent CBI has filed reply to the present petition whereby submitted that the present petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.11.2020 of the ld.CBI Court whereby the application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of documents came to be dismissed with a finding that the said application was made with a view to delay the framing of charge.The court further held that most of the documents that were sought to be summoned were already on record and that documents which would constitute the defence of the accused should not be seen at the stage of charge.The gist of the prosecution case is that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Umesh Chandra on 30.07.2014, an FIR came to be filed on 08.03.2016 against the petitioners and other accused persons.As per the judgement in order for a document to be summoned the following criteria have to be satisfied:M.C.2348/2020 Page 22 of 30Thus in light of the above, it can be seen that the section 91, petition is an obvious attempt on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings without any basis and thereby delay justice being served.The objection of the CBI is not an issue of prejudice to the petitioner but rather a question of stage at which the purported defence of the accused can be raised and section 91 has been interpreted consistently not on the test of prejudice but only on the test of right.Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 2208 of 2007 Suvadip Mukherjee versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.Seeking quashing of order of framing charge under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with BGR Case No. 2472/06 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court moved the instant criminal revisional application.The affidavit of service is already on record.However, Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State are present in Court.He further submitted that the impugned order of framing charge without recording reason clearly demonstrate that such an order was passed by the Learned Magistrate mechanically and without any application of mind.Mr. Sekhar Basu, vehemently urged before this Court the impugned order of framing charge is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction.Mr. Basu further submitted that from the evidentiary materials collected by the police during the course of investigation, on the face of the same does not make out any prima facie case for which the impugned charge has been framed.He thus prays for quashing of the impugned order of framing charge.(ii) Krishan Lal & Ors.Union of India & Ors., reported in 1994 Cri.(iii) Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr.(iv) Mattulal Vs.(vi) The State of U.P. Vs.(vii) Sardar Singh Vs.(viii) Bharwad Bhikha Natha & Ors.(IX) Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs.The relevant allegations made in the FIR is quoted below; "On July 25, 2006 I compelled to leave my matrimonial home but subsequently I tried to resile the issues with my husband and his family members but my husband got infuriated and refused to compromise the matter.He threatened me with dire consequences and further assaulted and threatened me and my family members with danger to our life and limbs.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary perused.This is a first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.195/2019 registered at P.S. Kohefiza District Bhopal (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC.The allegation of prosecution is that on 22/03/2019 at about 9.30 pm, in front of Akhtar Apartment Khanugaon, Bhopal under Police Station Khohefiza, Bhopal the present applicant alongwith co-accused persons have reached on the spot and assaulted complainant Shoeb Mazhar because of some old rivalry.Co-accused Akbar has inflicted injury to complainant Shoeb Mazhar with a knife due to which he sustained injuries on his chest.At that time, co-accused Shahid has also inflicted injury to Shazeb on the left side of his back.The trial will take long time for its final disposal.It is further Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 07/05/2019 13:59:37 2 MCRC-15252-2019 submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant.The applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhopal and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.There is no allegation against the present applicant that he has inflicted any injury to the complainant.He is in custody since 26/3/2019/. The applicant is a young boy of 24 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicant seems to be acceptable.It is directed that applicant Shadab Ali shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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.The M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE rv Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 07/05/2019 13:59:37

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

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

Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :The informant Siddeshwar Singh (PW-1) is a resident of Payagpur, district Bahraich.Sometimes before the incident, two incidents of beating took place inside Chitrashala Cinema in district Bahraich.In one of them, which took place in January/February, 1978, at 3-4 p.m., Chhutkan alias Shailesh Kumar, appellant Ramesh and unknown associates of theirs assaulted some persons within the premises of Chitrasala Cinema.In connection with the incident, the police arrested accused Chhutkan.At that time, deceased Gayasuddin and Balaram Singh were present.When the police was arresting Chhuktan, he gave a threat that after being released on bail, he would kill Gayasuddin and Balaram Singh.On the date and time of the incident i.e. on 12-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m.. the informant was employed as an Assistant Manager in Chitrashala Talkies, district Bahraich.At the said time, appellant Ramesh Kumar along with co-accused Chhutkan alias Shailesh and Munnan, all armed with knives, with a view to kill Balaram Singh, Manager of Chitrashala Talkies and Gayasuddin entered inside the quarter of the latter.At that time, Balarm Singh was not there.They started assaulting Gayasuddin with knives.Hearing the cries, the informant, Om Prakash, Jitendra Singh, Arun Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) and Nizam P.W. 3 who were sleeping in the premises of Chitrashala talkies came.Thereupon, the appellant and others also belaboured them with knives.The appellant, after being given some beating, was apprehended on the spot with a knife, while Chhutkan alias Shailendra and Munnan ran away.This incident was seen by the informant and others in electric light.Thereafter, the informant sent Om Prakash and Gayasuddin (both of them were precariously injured) along with Jitendra Singh, Nizam and Arun Kumar, who were also injured, through Rajendra Kumar to District Hospital, Bahraich and he along with Hirdai Ram, Arjun Singh and the appellant, along with the knife, which he had seized from the appellant, proceeded to police station Kotwali-Nagar, district Bahraich to lodge the FIR.Ye Sab Log Chitrashala Cinema Ke Nazdeek Ke Hi Rehne Wale Hai.Is Marpeet Mein Ham Logon Ne Milkar Ramesh Ko Pakad Liya Hai."In English, it would read thus :--"Om Prakash, S/o Ram Badan Singh, R/o Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich stated on oath that at about 3,00 a.m., the previous night, when he was sleeping outside the cinema hall, three dacoits came and started assaulting them with knives.They said that handover whatever money you have otherwise you would be killed.I have recognized all three of them and they are Chhutkan, Munnan and Ramesh.I have no enmity with them.They had only come to loot cash.They reside in the vicinity of Chitrashala Talkies.from umbilicus.Pus seen."On internal examination, he found peritoneum stitched.In the opinion of Dr. Ahmad, the deceased died on account of septicemia as a result of the wound.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by S. I. Laik Ahmad (P.W. 7) of police station Kotwali-Nagar, Bahraich.His evidence shows that:--The FIR was lodged in his presence.He immediately took over the investigation.Thereafter he recorded the statement of the informant and inspected the knife, which had been used by the appellant Ramesh in the incident.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.1.Though this appeal, appellant Ramesh challenges the judgment and order dated 23-7-1980 passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1978, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) under Section 302/34, IPC to imprisonment for life; and(ii) under Section 324/34, IPC to imprisonment for two year's R. I.The sentences of the appellant on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently.The evidence of Head Constable Gaya Prasad Tripathi (P.W. 10) shows that on 12-6-1978, at 4.30 a.m. Sidheshwar Singh came to police station Kotwali-Nagar and lodged his written FIR.A perusal of the chik FIR shows that on the basis of the FIR, a case under Section 352/307, IPC was registered against the appellant, Chhutkan and Munnan.The evidence of Head Constable Gaya Prasad Tripathi shows that the informant had brought along with him appellant Ramesh and a blood stained knife, which he had used in the incident.His evidence further shows that he seized the knife under, a recovery memo and arrested the appellant Ramesh.The injuries of Om Prakash Singh, Gayasuddin, Jitendra Singh, Arun Kumar Singh and Nizam were medically examined on 12-6-1978 at 4.15 a.m., 4.30 a.m., 4.45 a.m., 5.00 a.m. and 5.15 a.m. respectively by Dr. V. K. Chopra (P.W. 9), at District Hospital, Bahraich, who found on their person the injuries enumerated hereinafter :--Om Prakash Singh :-- One incised wound;Gayasuddin :-- three incised wounds;Jitendra Singh :-- two incised wounds;Arun Kumar:-- One incised wound; and Nizam :-- two contusions and three incised wounds.It is pertinent to mention that since the condition of Om Prakash and Gayasuddin was critical, it was decided to have their dying declaration recorded.The evidence of Dr. R. K. Srivastava (P.W.13) shows that on 12-6-1978, he was posted as Medical Officer, at District Hospital Bahraich.On the said date, the Magistrate recorded the dying declarations of Gayasuddin and Om Prakash, at 7.00 a.m. and 7.27 a.m. respectively in his presence.His evidence shows that prior to the declarations being recorded, he examined them and certified that they were mentally fit to make declaration.It is pertinent to mention that Ext. ka-27 is the certificate of fitness in relation to Gayasuddin and Ext. ka-28 is that in relation to Om Prakash.Since the said declarations are crucial pieces of evidence, we propose extracting them in entirety.The dying declaration of Gayasuddin reads thus :--".... .Mein Ki Gayasuddin Putra Jalaluddin Aayu 33 Varsh Nivashi Chitrashala Cinema Bahraich Bahlak Bayan Kiya Ki Teen Dakait Dinank 11-6-1978 Ki Raat Ko Teen Baje Sinema Ke Andar Dakatti Ke Maksad Se Aaye Aur Ham Logon Par Hamla Kiya Aur Chaku Se Jagha Vah Jagha Mara.Ye Log Sinema Ghar Mein Daka Dalne Aaye The.In English, it would read thus :--"I, Gayasuddin, S/o Jalaluddin, aged 35 years, resident of Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich state on oath that three dacoits on 11-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m., entered into the cinema with a view to commit dacoity and attacked us with knives on different parts of body.Out of them, Ramesh was caught and I can recognize him but I cannot recognize the other two.Ramesh inflicted, a number of knife blows on me.There was no enmity between me and Ramesh prior to the incident."7-A. The dying declaration of Om Prakash reads thus :--".....Shri Om Prakash Putra Ram Badan Singh, Sakin Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich Ne Shapathpurvak Bayan Kiya Ki Kabreeb Teen Baje Pichli Raat Mein Haal Ke Bahar So Raha Tha Tab Daku Jitki Tadat Teen Thi Aaye Aur Ham Logon Par Chakuon Se Hamla Kama Sum Kar Diya Aur Kaha Ki Jo Paise Ho Dedo Varna Ham Jan Se Mar Denge.Maine Sabhi Ko Pehchana Hai.Unke Naam Chhutkan, Munnan Va Ramesh Hai.Hamri Koi Ranjish Unse Nahi Thi Sirf Paisa Loothne Aaye The.After giving some beating, we apprehended Ramesh on the spot."It is pertinent to mention that after the recording of their dying declarations, Gayasuddin and Om Prakash succumbed to their injuries.Consequently, the case was converted from Sections 452/307, IPC to one under Section 452/302 IPC.8-A. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Gyasuddin and Om Prakash was conducted on 15-6-1978 at 4.00 P. M. by Dr. Nirankar Singh (P.W. 4) and Dr. Z. U. Ahmad (P.W. 5) respectively.On the person of Gyasuddin, Dr. Nirankar Singh found the following injuries :--(i) Incised wound (stitched) 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x muscle deep placed transversely over sic chest upper part and shoulder;(ii) Incised wound (stitched) 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x skin deep front part of right shoulder just above injury No. 1 obliquely placed; and(iii) Incised punctured wound (stitched) 2 cm.x 1 cm.x chest cavity deep front of chest sic.5 cm.below left nipple placed transversely at 9th costal space.In the opinion of Dr. Singh, the deceased died as a result of injury to lung.On the person of Om Prakash Dr. Ahmad found the ante-mortem injuries enumerated hereinafter :"One operated gaping septic wound with visible stitch marks 10 cm.x 6 cm.x cavity deep on both side of flank 18 cm.from axxila and 13 cm.He recorded the statement of appellant Ramesh at 8.30 a.m. He reached District Hospital Bahraich, where he recorded the statements of Gayasuddin, Om Prakash, Jitendra Singh, Nizam and Arun Kumar, At 11.00 a.m. he reached the place of incident, where he recorded the statement of Hirday Ram alias Motu and prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the informant and others.He seized from the place of incident plain and blood stained earth in separate containers under a recovery memo.He did some other investigation also, but since in our view a reference, to it is not necessary for disposal of this appeal, we are not adverting to it.On 8-7-1978, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant Ramesh and Chhutkan.The case was committed to the Court of Session in the usual manner, where the appellant and co-accused Chhutkan were charged for offences punishable under Section 302/34, IPC and 324/34, IPC, to which charges they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, in all, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.Out of them, three, namely Sidheshwar Singh, Arun Kumar and Nizam P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.In defence three witnesses, namely, Dr. S. Prasad, Dr. S. K. Srivastava and Ratnakar Prasad D. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively were examined; the first who was posted as Superintendent, District Hospital, Bahraich to prove the injuries of the appellant; the second to prove that he had admitted the appellant in the Surgical Ward of District Hospital Bahraich; and the third to prove that the appellant was not arrested in the manner furnished by the prosecution but at about 4.00 a.m., on the date of the incident, two constables took him from the shop of Bindu Kumar, where he was lying down.It is pertinent to mention that Chhutkan died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, his appeal was ordered to abate in terms of Section 394, Cr. P. C.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal.In the instant case, to fix the involvement of the appellant in the crime there is not only the testimony of three eye-witnesses, two out of whom, namely, Arun Kumar (P. W. 2) and Nizam (P.W. 3) are injured witnesses but also there is evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act in the form of dying declarations of Gayasuddin and Om Prakash.In our judgment, the evidence of both these categories inspires confidence.We, now propose furnishing our reasons for reaching the aforesaid conclusion.We would first like to begin with the ocular account furnished by Sidheshwar (P.W. 1), Arun Kumar (P.W. 2) and Nizam (P.W. 3).Their evidence shows :-- On the date and time of the incident i.e. 12-6-1978, at about 3.00 a.m., they were sleeping in the premises of Chitrashala Talkies in District Bahraich.At that time, the appellant, co-accused Chhutkan and co-accused Munnan, armed with knives came.They entered inside the quarter of the deceased Gyasuddin and started assaulting him.Hearing the cries, they along with Jitendra Singh and Om Prakash, who were also sleeping in the premises of Chitrashala Talkies, rushed to the place of the incident, whereupon, two out of them, namely, Arun Kumar and Nizam as also Om Prakash and Jitendra Singh were assaulted by the appellant, co-accused Chhutkan and co-accused Munnan with knives.After precariously injuring, Gayasuddin and Om Prakash and injuring three others, namely, Arun Kumar, Nizam and Jitendra Singh, Chhutkan and Munnan ran away but appellant-Ramesh was apprehended on the spot along with a blood stained knife after being given some beating.This incident was seen in electric light.14-A. We have gone through the statement of the aforesaid three eye-witnesses and make no bones in observing that we find their evidence to be credible.In the first place, they have explained their presence at the place of the incident.Sidheshwar Singh has stated that at the time of the incident, he was employed as Assistant Manager in Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich and was sleeping in the premises of the said Cinema and Arun Kumar and Nizam have also stated that at the time of the incident they were sleeping in the premises of the said Cinema.Secondly, the manner of assault furnished by them is corroborated by the medical evidence.They stated that the appellant and the other two co-accused persons belaboured the victims with knives and as we have earlier seen all the victims sustained incised wounds.It is significant to point out that although they were extensively examined but nothing could be extracted therefrom which could create even an iota of doubt in our mind regarding their presence at the place of incident.Assurance to the claim of the said eye-witnesses of having seen the incident is lent by the circumstance that Sidheshwar (P.W. 1) within one and a half hour of the incident taking place, lodged the FIR (We have seen that the incident took place on 11-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m. and Sidheshwar lodged the FIR same morning at 4.30 a.m.).It is pertinent to mention that there is a categorical mention in the F, I. R. that not only he (Sidheshwar) but also Arun Kumar and Nizam saw the incident and also therein all the essential features of the prosecution case including the spot of arrest of the appellant Ramesh have been mentioned.In our view, the ocular account of Sidheshwar, Arun Kumar and Nizam is both individually and cumulatively sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.However, we are fortunate in this case in also having evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellant.This evidence is in the form of dying declarations of Gayasuddin and Om Prakash, which we have extracted in entirety earlier.Their perusal makes it manifest that both of them have categorically stated that appellant Ramesh along with others assaulted them with knives and he was apprehended on the spot.It is pertinent to mention that the said dying declarations were recorded by Tehsildar Magistrate, Salig Ram Nigam (P.W. 14), who prior to recording them, got the certificate of fitness from Dr. R. K. Srivastava (P. W. 13), who found them in a mentally fit condition to give the declarations.It is also pertinent to mention that neither Dr. Srivastava nor the Tehsildar Magistrate had any animus of grudge against the appellant and in the absence of the same, the former would not have given a false certificate in terms that the deceased persons were fit to make the declarations and the latter would not have recorded them.17-A. For the said reasons, we feel that these dying declarations also inspire confidence and are both individually and cumulatively sufficient to fix the involvement of the appellant in the incident.We make no bones in observing that the evidence of D. W. 3 (Ratnakar Prasad Sharma) does not inspire any confidence.His evidence shows that :-- His house is situated to the south of Chitrashala Talkies.at about 2-2.30 a.m., he heard cries coming from Chitrashala Talkies in terms chor-chor (thief thief).Fifteen to twenty minutes later, he went inside the premises of the talkies and found Gayasuddin, Om Prakash, Jitendra, Nizam and one other whose name he did not remember in an injured condition.A rickshaw came, on which the said persons were taken to hospital.After some time, he returned home.At about 4.00 a.m. two constables came and took Ramesh (appellant), who was lying in front of Bindu's shop.We have gone through the evidence of Ratnakar Prasad Sharma and find him to be a untrustworthy witness.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not inform any officer that two constables had taken away Ramesh (appellant) in his presence.It appears that for the first time in the trial Court he has come out with this story.That apart, his cross-examination shows that while he was standing on the roof of his house, in torch light he saw the constables taking away Ramesh.In our judgment, It is extremely improbable that at about 4.00 a.m. instead of sleeping he would have been standing on his roof.For the said reasons, his evidence does not inspire any confidence.We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment we do not advert to the two principal submissions canvassed by Mr. Prem Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.He firstly contended that appellant Ramesh was medically examined by Dr. S. Prasad (P. W. 1) at District Hospital, Bahraich on 1-7-1978 at 12.10 p.m. and was found to have suffered 17 injuries, which have not been explained by the prosecution.These injuries are :--(i) Soft scab 2 cm x 0.5 c.m.on the back top of the head;x 0.5 cm.on the outer surface right arm upper half;(iii) soft skin 1 cm.x 0.2 cm.on the right upper lip;(iv) Almost healed up incised wound 2 cm.x 1 cm.on the back and inner surface right forearm middle with bandage over it 2 meter dressing;(v) Depigmented area 4 cm.x 0.3 cm.on the back surface right forearm lower part;(vi) Depigmented area 4.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.on the back surface right forearm 4 cm.above the injury No. 5;(vii) Multiple depigmented area of various sizes on the back surface right wrist in an area of 4 cm.x 3 cm.;(viii) soft skin 1 cm.x 0.4 cm.on the back surface right hand surrounded by depigmented area of various sizes in an area of 3 cm.x 2 cm.;(ix) Almost healed up around 3 cm.x 1 cm.on the web in between the index finger and thumb left hand;(x) Two circular depigmented area of sizes 2 cm.x 2 cm.and 1 cm x 1 cm.on the back centre surface left elbow at a distance of 1.5 cm.from each other;(xi) Multiple contusion under surface of the left lower part elbow and left forearm and some swelling lower half of forearm tenderness over the swelling;(xii) Depigmented area of zigzag type and shape fine in no of varying size 1.5 cm.to 2.5 cm.over left side back below the scapula in an area of 15 cm.x 3 cm.;(xiii) Soft skin 1.5 cm.x 1 cm.on the right side back 3 cm.behind the post auxiliary fold at the same level;(xiv) Multiple fading contusions of various sizes on the over surface right thigh middle over aspect 8 cm.x 2 cm.(xv) Multiple fading contusions of various sizes on outer aspect right leg in an area of 5 cm.x 4 cm.;(xvi) Multiple fading contusions of various sizes on the outer and front aspect left thigh lower half in an area of 8 cm.x 2 cm; and (xvii) Diffusal swelling tenderness at the end of the index finger left hand.We have reflected over the submission of Mr. Prem Singh and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it.We find that in the instant case the injuries suffered by the appellant have been explained by the prosecution.It is pertinent to mention that in his dying declaration, Om Prakash has categorically mentioned that appellant Ramesh was apprehended after some beating was given to him.We also find that the said injuries have been explained by Sidheshwar (P. W. 1) in his statement in the trial Court.During the course of his cross-examination (in paragraph-23) he stated that appellant had received injuries on his hands and legs, which were caused to him while he was being apprehended.It is pertinent to mention that in his examination-in-chief, Dr. S. Prasad (D. W. 1), who medically examined the injuries of the appellant on 1-7-1978, at 12.10 p.m., stated that they were about three weeks old.Since the incident took place on 12-6-1978, at about 3.00 a.m., It appears that these injuries were caused to the appellant-Ramesh during the course of his arrest as is the prosecution case.For the said reasons, this submission fails.Secondly, Mr. Prem Singh urged that even if the prosecution story is accepted on its face value, no offence under Section 303/ 34, IPC would be made out against the appellant and only one under Section 304(II)/ 34, IPC would be made out against him.He urged that there is no evidence to show as to which of the three persons, including the appellant, were responsible for the solitary incised wound suffered by the deceased Om Prakash and injury No. 3 suffered by deceased Gyasuddin underneath, which autopsy surgeon found left pleura punctured and left lower lobe of left lung punctured and which proved to be fatal.We have reflected over the said submission and find no merit in it.It is true that neither the ocular account nor dying declarations make it manifest that as to who amongst the three assailants was responsible for the fatal injuries of the deceased persons but in our view in this case this would make no difference because there is sufficient evidence to show that the murder of Gyasuddin was committed by appellant Ramesh along with his two associates in furtherance of their common intention.The evidence is that accused persons nursed ill-will against Gyasuddin.On the night of 12-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m., they entered into the quarter of Gyasuddin and launched concerted assault with knife on his person; causing him three incised wounds, one of which, injury No. 3 proved fatal.It is true that Dr. Nirankar Singh (P.W. 4), who performed the autopsy on the corpse of Gyasuddin, in his examination-in-chief, did not state that the injuries suffered by Gyasuddin were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but in our view this would make no difference because the Supreme Court in the oft-quoted case of Brij Bhukhan v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1957 SC 474 : 1957 Cri LJ 591, in para 6 has laid down the ratio that if a bare perusal of the injuries makes it manifest that they are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then the absence of the medical evidence to the said effect would be no impediment in the way of Court in recording a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. In our judgement, a perusal of injury No. 3 suffered by Gyasuddin, coupled with the internal damage beneath it, makes it manifest that it was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature.Since the said injury was caused by appellant-Ramesh and his two associates in furtherance of their intention, an offence punishable under S. 302/ 34, IPC would be made out against them.For the aforesaid reasons, we confirm the conviction of the appellant Ramesh on both the counts namely, under Sections 302/34, IPC and 324/34, IPC and the sentences of imprisonment for life on the former count and two years' R. I. on the latter count awarded to him and dismiss this appeal.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

of the case, in short, are that one co- accused Dev Prakash @ Devu had given a complaint on 28.04.2010 to Station House Officer, Kampoo, District Gwalior (M.P.) that he along with the deceased Santosh Sharma were going to meet their friends.Near Nehru Park, Kampoo, Gwalior, some friends met Santosh Sharma and Dev Prakash @ Devu and therefore they started talking with them.Santosh found that some persons were quarrelling with his friends and therefore Santosh took the gun of co- accused Dev Prakash @ Devu and started assaulting the persons quarrelling with the base of the gun.It was also mentioned in the application that in the meantime a fire took place and Santosh himself sustained injuries and 2 CRR.779.2010 Pankaj Singh Rajput Vs State of Madhya Pradesh ultimately he died.Investigation was done and the charge-sheet was filed after recording the evidence of various persons.The police had filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 304 or 304/34 of IPC whereas the trial court has framed the charges of the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 of IPC.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that since there was no previous enmity of applicant Pankaj Singh Rajput he did not intend to kill the victim Santosh.It cannot be said that he did not intent to kill the victim Santosh.Intention of an accused may be developed at the time of incident.Trial Court has found his intention on two reasons.Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Pankaj Singh Rajput is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the court below for information.

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

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

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are:(a) P.W. 4 Shankari the young victim aged about 14 years, the daughter of P.W. 1 Ekambaram and P.W. 15 Parimala was doing her VIII Standard in S. S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram during the relevant period.On 11.2.98 at about 9.00 A.M., A-1 with an intention of marrying her, went to the School in M.O. 1 auto and informed her that her mother P.W. 15 was admitted in the hospital.She immediately informed her Class Teacher examined as P.W. 5 Rajeswari and proceeded with A-1 in the auto.She was brought to Kamatchiamman Temple by A-1 in the said auto and made her wait for 15 minutes.Thereafter, A-1 accompanied by A-2 took her on 11.2.98 at 1.00 P.M. to the house of A-2's grandmother P.W. 7 Logammal, which is situate at Kaliampoondi.P.W. 4 when questioned the same, both of them threatened him.Till the morning of 12.2.98, A-1, A-2 and P.W. 4 stayed in P.W. 7's house.On 12th morning A-3 came there and joined the other accused.Then, they took P.W. 4 to Vellore, and from there, A-1 and A-3 took P.W. 4 to Bangalore leaving A-2 at Vellore.On 13th, A-1, A-3 and P.W. 4 reached Bangalore and took her to the house of A-3's sister P.W. 9 Rajeswari situate at Pudhuvijayaraghavapuram.P.W. 4 was kept from 13.2.98 till 24.2.98 in P.W. 9's house.During the said period A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse on P.W. 4 on number of occasions.(b) At about 2 P.M. on 12.2.98, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.W. 16 Kandan, Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, on the strength of Ex.P. 1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 209/98 under 'girl missing'.P. 5 printed F.I.R. was sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court.P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and their statements were recorded.Subsequently, the case was altered to S. 366 of I.P.C. The alteration report was also sent to the concerned Court.On 24.3.98, P.W. 19, Pugazhendhi, Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station took up investigation.He received the information that A-1 and P.W. 4 were produced before the Court.P.W. 19 proceeded to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kancheepuram and made a request for sending A-1 and P.W. 4 for medical examination.On 25.3.98 P.W. 18 Dr. Parasakthi examined P.W. 4 victim girl and issued a medical certificate under Ex.On examination, the Doctor found the sexual offences committed.On 26.3.98 P.W. 20 Dr. Gururaj examined the accused and issued Exs.P. 14 and P15 certificates.He also examined P.W. 4 and issued Ex.P. 16 age certificate.On the basis of the statement of the victim, the case was altered to Ss 366(A) and 376 of I.P.C. On 14.4.98 P.W. 19 seized M.O. 1 auto under Ex.P. 11 mahazar in front of two witnesses.On the same day on information he arrested A-2 and A-3 and recorded their confessional statements in front of the witnesses.At about 7.45 P.M., M.Os. 2 and 3 (series), dresses and notebooks were recovered from A-2's tailoring shop under Ex.P. 12 mahazar.On the same day at about 8.00 P.M., on the basis of A-3's confessional statement, M.Os. 4 and 5 letters were recovered from A-3 under Ex.P. 13 mahazar.On 15.4.98 A-2 and A-3 were sent for remand.On 30.4.98, the case was handed over to P.W. 14 Sudarsan, Sub Inspector of Police, Siva Kanchi Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.P.W. 14 on 26.5.98 registered a transferred case in Crime No. 486/98 under Ss 366 and 376 IPC and prepared Ex.P. 4 printed F.I.R. and placed before P.W. 21 Rajkumar, Inspector of Police for investigation.P.W. 12 conducted further investigation, examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 11 and recorded their statements.On 2.4.99 he examined P.Ws. 8 and 16 and recorded their statements.He examined further witnesses and P.Ws. 18 and 20 Doctors and other witnesses also and recorded their statements.P.W. 4, a young girl of 14 years, who was studying VIII Standard in S. S.K.V. School at Kancheepuram, was kidnapped from her School on 11.2.98 at 9.00 A.M. on the misrepresentation made by A-1 that her mother was not doing well.She was taken in an auto to Kamatchiamman Temple where A-2 joined with them.She was then taken to Kaliampoondi, the place where the house of the grandmother of A-2 was situate.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants, who stood charged and tried for the offences under Ss 366 and 376 of I.P.C. in respect of A-1 and Ss 366, 366 r/w 109 and 376 r/w 109 of I.P.C. in respect of A-2 and A-3 have brought forth these two appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the lower Court.On completion of the investigation, the succeeding Officer of P.W. 21 filed a charge sheet against the accused under Ss 366 and 376 of I.P.C.In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 17 exhibits and 5 material objects.On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.On the side of the defence, one Suresh, a photographer was examined as D.W. 1 and 3 exhibits were marked.After hearing the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials, the trial Court found A-1 guilty under Ss 363 and 376(1) of I.P.C., while it found A-2 and A-3 guilty under S. 363 read with 109 of I.P.C. and sentenced A-1 to undergo 3 years R.I. under S. 363 IPC and 7 years R.I. under S. 376(1) IPC and A-2 and A-3 to undergo 3 years R.I. under S. 363 r/w 109 IPC.Thus, these two appeals have arisen.The learned Counsel advancing his arguments for the appellants in both the appeals interalia made the following submissions.P.W. 4 has not spoken anything regarding the marriage or the intention of the first accused to marry P.W. 4 against her will.The prosecution has not proved that the first accused informed the accused that her mother was admitted in the hospital or the victim was taken out from the School.The evidence of P.W. 20 Doctor and Ex.P. 16 age certificate would disclose that the age of the victim was more than 18 years, and thus, she was not a minor.A reading of Ex.D1 a letter, which was written by P.W. 4 to the Police Officers in respect of her age difference and the wrong entries in the school certificates would clearly reveal that it was one out of her own accord, and in that regard, no one of the accused had any role to play.The prosecution relied on a birth certificate wherein the name of the victim was not given, and they have also relied on a School Certificate.It is nowhere found in the evidence, who was the author of the school certificate and the age given therein, and hence, the age of the victim could not be decided from those documents adduced.As per the evidence of P.W. 18 Doctor who examined the victim and gave Ex.P. 10 wound certificate, there is nothing to indicate that she either sustained any injury in her body or in her private part.P.W. 4 has disclosed that the accused were known to her already.P.W. 19 was not empowered to investigate the case, which was out of his jurisdiction.All the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, and thus, what is available for the prosecution was the testimonies of the interested witnesses.It is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly, but, the same was not explained by the prosecution in any manner.From the available evidence, it would be clear that P.W. 4 out of love affair left from her house and not by compulsion of anybody.Under such circumstances, the lower Court should have outrightly rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted them, and hence, in view of the submissions made, the appellants/accused are entitled for an acquittal in the hands of this Court.They stayed there till next day morning namely 12.2.98, where A-3 also joined with them.From there A-1 and A-3 took her to Bangalore, leaving A-2, and all of them stayed in the house of P.W. 9, the sister of A-3 till 24.2.98, and the sexual assault was committed by A-1 on her on number of occasions.P.W. 1 has categorically given evidence in respect of all the above facts.Despite the cross examination in full, her evidence remained unshaken.P.W. 5, the Class Teacher of P.W. 4 has been examined as to the fact that P.W. 4 got permission from her to leave from the class room on the reason that her mother was suddenly hospitalised.Near Kamatchiamman Temple, she was made to wait for sometime, where A-2 has also joined.From that place, they have taken her to P.W. 7's house at Kaliampoondi.Admittedly, P.W. 7 was the grandmother of A-2, and hence, no one could expect her to speak anything about her grandson.P.W. 7 has turned hostile.From the evidence of P.W. 4, it would be clear that on 11.2.98 from 1.00 P.M. till next morning, they were staying in P.W. 7's house.On 12.2.98 A-3 has joined them and A-1 to A-3 have taken P.W. 4 to Vellore.From Vellore, A-1 and A-3 have taken her to Bangalore by Bus, leaving A-2 at Vellore.Her evidence as spoken to above would clearly reveal that A-1 with the full assistance and abetment of A-2 and A-3 have kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship and had taken her to different places.It is pertinent to note that on 12.2.98 itself, a complaint was lodged at 2.00 P.M. by P.W. 1, on the strength of which, a case was registered by P.W. 16 Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station as one for girl missing.The printed F.I.R. was immediately despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court.Then, the statements of witnesses were recorded.Subsequently the case was altered to S. 366 of I.P.C. After A-1 and P.W. 4 surrendered before the Court, they were subjected to medical examination.P.W. 18 Doctor Parasakthi examined P.W. 4, the victim girl and has issued Ex.P. 10 medical certificate opining that her vagina admitted two fingers without pain and the hymen was absent.On 26.3.98 P.W. 20 Dr. Gururaj examined the accused and issued Exs.P14 and P15 certificates.The medical evidence adduced through the Doctors and the medical certificates would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.W. 4, the victim.The contention of the appellants' side that all the independent witnesses have turned hostile is of no consequence, since the evidence of the young victim is trustworthy and the same inspires the confidence of the Court, and apart from that, it is fully supported by the other evidence narrated above.The main contention that was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that in order to prove the age of the victim, the lower Court has relied on three documents namely Exs.P. 3 is the school certificate, while Ex.Added further the learned Counsel that P.W. 20 Doctor has given Ex.P. 16 certificate and has found through radiology test that she was 18 years old, and hence, she was not a minor.This contention has got to be thoroughly discountenanced.In the instant case, the school certificate of the victim has been filed along with the birth certificate.In the school certificate, the name of the girl along with the date of birth is given.P.W. 1 the father and P.W. 15 the mother of P.W. 4 both have been examined.There is no material available to indicate that A-1 at the time of kidnapping her committed the offences with an intention of marrying her, and hence, the lower court has found A-1 guilty under S. 376(1) of I.P.C. and rightly too.The lower Court was also right in finding A-1 guilty under S. 363 of IPC and A-2 and A-3 guilty under S. 363 read with 109 of IPC.The Court does not find nothing to interfere in the conviction recorded by the lower Court.Coming to the question of punishment, the trial Court has awarded 3 years R.I. to A-1 under S. 363 of I.P.C. and 7 years R.I. under S. 376(1) of I.P.C. The Court is unable to find anything to interfere in the sentence imposed on the first accused.So far as the sentence imposed on A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the lower Court has awarded 3 years R.I. under S. 363 read with 109 IPC.With the above modification, the criminal appeal in C.A. No. 986/02 is dismissed.

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

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

The facts giving rise to the present case, in short, are thus -One Vilas Mahadeo Patil - the complainant, is the resident of village Nerle.His daughter Aparna - the deceased was studying in 10th Standard.Accused No. 1 was earlier married but had no child from his first wife and hence he and his parents intended to perform his second marriage and, therefore, proposal of marriage to Aparna was accepted and accused No. 1 was married to deceased Aparna.After the marriage, they were living together at their home happily till Diwali.Thereafter when the complainant and his brother used to visit the house of the accused, they noticed that Aparna was not living with proper manner but was not ready to talk anything.Four months prior to the incident, when Aparna had gone to her parental home, she complained that all accused are giving ill-treatment to her, such as beating and abusing due to the reason that first wife of accused No. 1 had delivered a child.Aparna also informed her parents that accused was telling her that she was no more required.Even on the occasion of second Diwali when deceased Aparna was taken to her parents home, she complained that the accused was not allowing her to eat food at proper time and abusing her.On 5.12.1997 at 9.30 p.m. Ashok Patil told the complainant that he received a message through someone from Tasgaon that Aparna suffered an attack.Thereafter jeep was called by the complainant and in that jeep the complainant, his wife, his brother, Ashok Patil, other relatives and neighbour went to the house of the accused at about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 midnight.All the accused persons were present in the house.On enquiry, they informed that Aparna had died and cremation had taken place.when accused were asked as to why the complainant and the relatives were not informed, they were told that persons were sent with messages but they could not contact them and therefore they could not attend the funeral.The complainant and others returned to their village.Thereafter, after consulting the relatives, the complainant went to Kasegaon Police Station for lodging the complaint, however, as the incident had taken place at Tasgaon, the complainant went to Tasgaon police station and at least the complaint was lodged against the accused persons on 7.12.1997 and crime was registered at Crime No. 279 of 1997 under Section 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. on 7.12.1997 at 6.00 a.m. On 7.12.1997 investigation commenced in which course panchnama of the spot i.e. house of the accused was prepared.Statements of witnesses were recorded and accused persons were put under arrest.JUDGMENT Kakade, J.Originally, all the 5 accused persons were prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, Section 302 read with 34 and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were found guilty of commission of the offence under Section 498-A, Section 302 read with Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereas accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. but were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one year for offence of murder, whereas they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for six months for offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to surfer R.I. for one year ad to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and in default to suffer R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and, therefore, accused Nos. 1 & 2 have filed one appeal, whereas remaining accused persons have filed separate appeal who have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A with 34 of the I.P.C.Clothes of the accused No. 1 were also seized under panchnama.Bones from the spot of cremation were sent to the Expert and on completion of the investigation chargesheet came to be filed against the accused under law.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the impugned offences to which they pleaded not guilty.Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability.Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned Judge came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 & 2 were guilty of commission of the offence under Section 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereas the accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were guilty only of commission of the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 and proceeded to pass order of sentence against them in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We have heard Mr. Sudatta Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. for the State at length.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.At the outset, it must be noted that prosecution has relied upon the testimony of 14 witnesses, out of which two are police personnel.The remaining witnesses are either panch witnesses or neighbours of accused persons who are examined either on the point of harassment of Aparna or on the point of their attendance of funeral of Aparna when they came to know about her death on the fateful day.Apart from this evidence, the evidence of PW-11 Vilas Patil - the complainant and father of Aparna, PW-12 Prabhawati Patil is worthy to note which is relied upon by the learned Trial Judge.At this Juncture itself, we must note that all the material witnesses except parents of Aparna have chosen not to support the prosecution case and, therefore, they were declared hostile by the learned Trial Judge in the course of the trial.The learned Trial Judge, as can be seen from the judgment, has thought it fit to rely upon the testimonies of hostile witnesses in order to come to the conclusion that guilt of the accused persons for the impugned offence is established, especially when it is corroborated by the testimonies of parents of deceased Aparna, duly supported by circumstantial evidence.Therefore, we thought it fit to critically peruse the testimonies of 10 hostile witnesses.Panch witnesses are declared hostile and, therefore, the panchnama remained unproved though referred to by the investigating officer.So far as other hostile witnesses are concerned, it is seen that majority of those are examined by the prosecution to propound its theory that Aparna was under harassment from the accused persons and she died on the fateful day under the suspicious circumstances to the knowledge of those witnesses who also attended her cremation rites.However, it is to be noted that perusal of the testimony does not support the prosecution case about the alleged harassment or circumstances giving rise to the suspicion against the accused when it is alleged that accused persons killed her during the night.We have critically perused the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge and must not that he has relied more on surmises and conjectures than on hard proof of facts, which cannot be allowed in law.In the result, we have no option but to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.For the reasons recorded above, we hold that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants for offences with which they were charged and, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.In the result, both appeals are hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 10.6.1999 passed by the 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangli passed in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1998 is hereby set aside.

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

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

P.W.-3 is a Doctor.P.W.- 7 is the sister of victim's mother.She came to the saloon of Lalan for getting the hairs of Arifa being cut but she was told to go back.The accused further said to P.W.- 7 that he will keep Arifa after hair cutting of her to house.After half an hour Arifa came back home crying and on being asked Arifa told about the commission of offence.She found Arifa was naked and holding the Jangia in her hand.According to her statement, Arifa told her "Khala, Lalan tar Sona diye amar prosraber dware, paikhanar dware gunto ganta merechhe".P.W.- 8 also found on examination of the vagina of Arifa that it had become reddish.She successfully answered the cross-examination.P.W.- 9 is another Doctor.P.W.- 13 is an A.S.I. of Police.P.W.- 14 is another Medical Officer.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRA No. 745 of 2008 Lalan Seikh --Appellant/AccusedThis appeal arose out of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia, in Sessions Trial No. 4 of August, 2008 arising out of Sessions Case No. 55 of August, 2008, convicting the appellant under section 354 of IPC and sentencing him accordingly.In the background of this appeal, the fact in a nutshell is as follows : A FIR was lodged to the effect that complainant's daughter Arifa Khatun, aged about 9 years and a student of class-V came to the house of her maternal uncle in village Patharghata within P.S. Tehatta in summer vacation.During her stay at the matrimonial home, she had been to the wayside saloon of accused Lalan Sheikh on 15.5.2008 at about 2-00 p.m. for cutting her hair.At that time accused Lalan Sheikh forcibly raped her.She raised hue and cry.Neighbouring people assembled there and then the accused fled away from the spot.The victim girl felt ill.The victim girl was first taken to Tehatta Sub-divisional Hospital and therefrom she was referred to District Hospital at Shaktinagar.After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet.Police got the statement of the victim girl recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. Further allegation was that the accused inserted some cut hair into her vagina and pushed his finger into the vagina on the pretext of taking out the cut hair therefrom.It was further alleged that the accused tried to insert his penis into her rectum but failed.It was further alleged that the accused tried to insert his penis into her vagina but failed.After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under sections 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code.After hearing of both sides, the learned Trial Court framed charge under sections 376(2)(f)/511 and also 377/511 of IPC against the accused.The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To contest this case the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses while none was examined on the side of the accused.However, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination and the replies given by the accused person at the time of cross- examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. is denial of offence with a plea of innocence.On trial the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant by the impugned judgment.- Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section"Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.-- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one- half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."Amongst others learned Counsel for the appellant argued mainly on the following points :P.W.-1 scribed the complaint as per the instruction of Lalan Sheikh.He examined on 15.5.2008 one Arifa Khatun, aged about 10 years.The girl complained of severe pain in her private parts.According to the version, the Doctor recorded the history of "physical assault and sexual abuse".He did not examine the private parts of the child.She was referred to Saktinagar District Hospital at Krishnagar.P.W.-4 is the father of victim.He proved the Birth Certificate of his daughter showing that she was 10 (ten) years old.He learned from his sisters-in-law Alekjan, Bulbuli and Selena that his daughter was sent to the saloon of one Lalan Sheikh, but there she was subjected to rape.She took her daughter to the Hospital and then at Saktinagar on referral.He lodged the complaint to the police.It was suggested to him that they are supporters of CPI(M) party while the accused is the supporter of BJP and that is why out of political rivalry he was falsely implicated.P.W.- 5 is a teenager girl.She was examined but knows nothing about incident.P.W.- 6 was declared hostile.He examined the victim.He found her hymen was ruptured but there was no injury in her private part.He stated that such rupture of hymen may be caused if the index finger is forcefully introduced into the vagina.He also examined the accused Lalan Sheikh and opined that he was capable of sexual intercourse.P.W.- 10 is the mother of the victim.After getting information she went to Patharghata.She enquired everything from her daughter and learnt the incident.She accompanied her daughter at Krishnagar Sadar Hospital.P.W.- 11 is another sister of victim's mother.The victim girl after returning from saloon of Lalan Sheikh reported everything to all of them.P.W.- 12 is a Home Guard who escorted the victim girl to the S.D. Hospital there.He examined the victim.He found no injury in the vulva and vagina.Vulva and vagina were found intact.Because of strain of the patient her digital examination into the internal parts could not be made.Further he stated that comment regarding rupture of hymen was not possible because the patient refused her vagina examination.No injury also could be detected over anal orifice.P.W.- 15 is the I/O. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet.The accused was asked pinpointed questions over the incriminating material available in evidence against him but he simply denied all the questions.The translated version of the 164 statement is reproduced below."On last Thursday I had been to the wayside saloon at Patharghata for cutting my hairs.I was accompanied by my aunt (Masi).My Masi came back home after dropping me in the saloon.Thereafter when my cutting of hair was over, barber Lalan Sk. asked me to lie.I did not agree.Then Barber Lalan Sk. asked me to daub oil in the hairs of my head.I again came back to the saloon of Lalan Sk.after daubing oil in the hairs of my head.Then Lalan asked me to be nude.Then Lalan put cut hairs on my vagina.Lalan moved his finger inside my vagina.Then Lalan was going to push his penis into my rectum.But despite such attempt, Lalan failed to do it.Lalan removed my panty.He forcibly closed the gate of the shop.Afterwards Lalan of his own opened the gate.Then Lalan was going to insert his Sona (penis) into my vagina (the urinating private organ) but failed.The record does not show that de facto complainant cherished any grudge or animosity against the present appellant.Rather he used to call accused 'Mite'.Doctors' evidence more or less support the story of attempt of rape.The victim suffered enormous pain in her private parts.This fact points towards the possibility of commission of attempt to rape by the accused person.The other relation witness more or less supported the prosecution story.The evidence of the prosecutrix has to be sifted to separate the grain from the chaff because the theory of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not applicable.The elegance of the evidence of the victim girl inspires confidence.Rather consistency of her version makes her sterling witness.The accused was known to the father of the victim girl.So, too the victim.The accused was aged about 26 years whereas the victim was 10 years.

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

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

Allegation against the applicant in short is that the applicant along with the other co-accused caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix with bad intention and quarreled with the brother of the prosecutrix.This led in filing of FIR against the applicant and other co-accused.Heard both the parties.It is directed that applicant-Salman shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum o f Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (3) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 25/07/2019 16:30:54

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.Rule returnable forthwith.Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shrivstava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of plot No. 64 situated at Mount Road Extension, Nagpur.In the said premises, husband of petitioner No. 3 late Shri Vimal Chandra Grover established a hotel, which is known as 'Hotel Upvan'.At that time, petitioner No. 4 was residing in U.S.A. Hence, petitioner No. 3 decided to permit petitioner No. 1 to run the said hotel.The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1, who helped petitioner No. 1 in running the hotel business.3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that in the year 2007, a dispute arose between petitioners in relation to running of the said hotel business.It was submitted that on 23-1-2007, petitioner No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 36/2007 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the Small Cause Court, Nagpur for declaration and permanent injunction.The petitioner No. 1 also obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction for protecting her possession of the property.Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that looking to the nature of disputes and unnecessarily lodging of reports/complaints against each other by the petitioners, family friends and well wishers of the petitioners persuaded the petitioners to settle their disputes.Accordingly a compromise petition was prepared and filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur.Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar and made the same request of quashing of criminal proceedings since petitioners have amicably settled disputes amongst themselves and want to have good and cordial relations in future.Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, contended that crimes registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaints lodged by them against each other are non-compound-able and, therefore, in view of bar of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer made by the petitioners does not deserve to be granted.We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant.As per prosecution story, the applicant followed the prosecutrix repeatedly with a clear indication of his interest/ liking her and on the alleged date of incident 22.01.2018, the applicant riding the Activa two wheeler hit on her leg while she was walking, due to which, she had suffered swelling on her feet and wrist.Accordingly, the case has been registered against the applicant.The family of the applicant and other neighbours had suffered many times, due to nuisance caused by him, which having adverse effect amongst the ladies and children of the area.Therefore, the FIR was lodged against him at Police Station- Chimanganj Mandi THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the order impugned and opposed the bail application.Having perused the case-diary, submission advanced, but without commenting on merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rohit Arya) Judge Kafeel Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 2018.04.13 17:49:33 +05'30'

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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 is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the false allegations made in the FIR dated 11.10.2013 lodged by opposite party no. 2 with the allegation that the applicant tried to outrage the modesty of her and her sister who were in the way.The applicant has also beaten both the sisters and snatched the gold chain and ear-rings and also threatened them of dire consequences.It is further stated that a criminal case (Case Crime No. 143 of 2013) under sections 147, 148, 148, 325, 504, 427 IPC is already pending against the applicant and his family members on the basis of an FIR lodged by the father of opposite party no. 2 and as such the applicant cannot think to commit another offence against opposite party no. 2 and her sister.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Extinction of one's Liberty amounts to crucifixion of one's soul.Because of this feeling a noble soul had demanded "Give me liberty or give me death".It is a cherished ideal that echoes the inner desire of every human soul.No one would like to barter it for the entire wealth of the world.The cause of liberty is treated as the cause of the creator.One's freedom, may be that of an accused or a convict can be curtailed in accordance with the terms of procedure established by 'law' but how long that curtailment should continue as far as an accused is concerned is the seminal question that arises for consideration in this application for obtaining concession of bail - third attempt by the petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 21/97 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147 and 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').The singular contention is that the delay in disposal of the trial in S. T. No. 86/97 entitles the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, more so, when this Court had issued directions for disposal of the trial by specified period and had granted him leave to renew the prayer for bail in case the trial is not completed within the stipulated time.The essential facts:The petitioner along with 7 others has been arraigned as accused in respect of offences punishable as mentioned above and is facing trial in S. T No. 86/97 pending in the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna.The petitioner had approached this Court in Misc.This Court while declining to admit the petitioner to bail passed a direction to the learned trial Judge to expedite the trial.This Court also recorded the assurance of the learned Government Advocate who had stated that the prosecution would produce the witnesses on the dates fixed for hearing and would not seek unnecessary adjournments.As the date was fixed beyond the time stipulated by this Court, the petitioner had approached this Court for being released on bail on the ground there has not been progress in the trial.It is relevant to state here though in the petition certain other grounds have been taken with regard to the merit of the case, the main thrust of submission relates to delay in trial.The petitioner at that stage filed an application for clubbing of his case with the counter case.Resultantly, the application for bail stands rejected.

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

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

The core facts in which the aggrieved parties had moved the HighCourt may now be noticed:The appellants – Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela, whoare related to each other, are the fathers of one Dipesh (born 1998) andAbhishek (born 1999).The aforesaid two children were admitted in Class VIand V respectively in a Gurukul located in an Ashram of Sant ShreeAsharamji situated at Motela.They were residing in the Gurukul of theAshram.On 03.07.2008 both the children had gone to the dining hall of theGurukul at about 8.00 PM to have their dinner.At the time of taking theattendance of the students after dinner, the watchman, one Shri NareshDangar, could not find the children and therefore had informed the saidfact to Gruhapati Shri Pankajbhai Saksena.On receipt of the saidinformation the aforesaid person, i.e. Pankajbhai Saksena contacted theappellant – Prafulhai J. Vaghela on telephone to convey the informationthat the children were not to be found in the Gurukul.Both the appellants– Shantibhai B. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela immediately came to theGurukul and after meeting Pankajbhai Saksena and some other persons workingin the Gurukul, the appellants went in search of the missing children.However, they could not be recovered till about 12.30 AM.At thesuggestion of Shri Pankajbhai Saksena that the children may have gone tosleep in some other place the search for the children was abandoned andresumed at about 6.00 AM of the following morning, i.e., 04.07.2008.Though the search had continued throughout the day the children could notbe located.The appellants insisted that the Ashram should inform thepolice about the disappearance of the two children.On 05.07.2008 at about 6.30 PM the dead bodiesof the children were found from the bed of the river Sabarmati which waslocated by the side of the Ashram.The dead bodies were promptly sent forpost-mortem examination and, thereafter, were handed over to the respectivefamilies for cremation.Rest of the skin of face || |available part of front of neck, || |lower part of thighs and legs are || |discoloured brownish black while || |available part of back of scalp || |neck chest abdomen gluteal region || |and upper part of front and back || |of thighs are less discolored.|| |Marbeling is present on both the || |lower limbs specially on anterior || |aspects.Skin is easily peeled off|| |at places, scalp, hair easily || |peeled off maggots of size 0.2 to || |0.5 cms.crowling all over the || |body.External genetelia distended|| |due to decomposition.Chest and || |abdominal cavity are exposed, both|| |sides of ribs and vertebral column|| |are seen externally.Sternum, both|| |clavicles and costal cartilages || |found missing.Mass of tissue line|| |attached with neck contain || |trachea, oesophagus part of both || |lungs heart covered with peri || |cardium and part of stomach.Rest || |of abdominal organs are missing.|| |Both the upper limbs are missing || |with scapulae.Skin and soft || |tissue in lower part of right leg || |missing under line bones exposed.|| |Distal part of right foot || |including toes missing, || |metatarsals are exposed.No discharge || |noted from ear, nose and mouth.|| |Both the ears are eaten up in || |pinna region, margins irregular, || |pale and without vital reaction.|| | ||(14) Condition of skin – blood |Nibbling due to animals found in ||stain etc. If probability of |both pinna right lower limbs, both||drowning then imprints of biting |feet chest abdomen.Marbelling is || |present on chest shoulder and || |thighs more on anterior aspects.|| |Maggots of size 0.2 to 0.5 cms.|| |Crawling all over the body at || |places.Abdomen and external || |genetalia distended due to || |decomposition gases.Anal canal || |rectum part of sigmoid colon is || |prolapsed out of anus due to || |decompositions toes of right foot || |except greater toe are missing || |degloving of skin of both hands || |found present due to || |decomposition.|| | ||(13) Appearance of dead body- |Facial features are blotted and ||normal or swollen, condition of |distorted.Eyes open eye ball ||eyes, condition of tongue, face, |soften decomposed and protruded ||type of discharges from ears or |out from its sockets.|semi-opened, tongue protruded out || |from oral cavity.White frothy || |fluid is coming from nose and || |mouth.Both the ears are eaten in || |pinna region by animals.|| | ||(14) Condition of skin – blood |Both ears in pinna region and toes||stain etc. If probability of |of right foot except greater toe ||drowning then imprints of biting |eaten by animals.||by aquatic animal (cutis Anserina)| ||if any, record be made regarding | ||wrinkles on skin.|| | ||.................... | | (3) Internal examination|. . . . .| ||(20) .. . . | ||(c) Larynx, trachea and thyroid |c) No injury found in soft tissue||bone |and muscles of neck.Hyoid bone || |and thyroid cartilage intact few || |food particles and mud appreciated|| |in trechia |At times the drowning medium (water) may not contain any diatoms.Food particles and mud were found in trachea of both the deceased.Animal bites were present on the bodies of both the deceased particularly in the region of the ears and toes in the case of deceased Abhishek and additionally in the feet, chest and abdomen of deceased Dipesh.No shaving of scalp hairs was found in either case and also no injuries over the neck to draw blood were detected.The disappearance of organs from the body of the deceased - Dipesh may have been due to wild animals pulling or carrying the same away.“When drowning takes place, diatoms enter into the lung cavity of a person through the aspirated water and this water exerts a pressure on lung cavity and rupturing of the lung alveoli takes place.Through these entrances diatoms can enter into heart, liver, kidney, brain and bone marrow............Analysis of diatoms present in the lungs, liver, spleen, blood and bone marrow has for many years been undertaken as a confirmatory test in possible drowning cases.However, the diatom test has been controversial since numerous cases of false negative and false positive results have been documented..........”With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1806-1807 of 2012(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4453-4454 of 2011) J U D G M E N TRANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.The present appeals seek to challenge a judgment dated 10.01.2011passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing CriminalMiscellaneous Application No. 13519 of 2009 filed by the accused(respondents herein) seeking quashing of the criminal case registeredagainst them under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.By its aforesaidorder the High Court has also dismissed Special Criminal Application No.770 of 2009 filed by the appellants, Shantibhai J. Vaghela and PrafulbhaiJ. Vaghela, seeking investigation of the aforesaid case against the accusedby the Central Bureau of Investigation.It appears that there was a public out cry over the incident and theState Government by Notification dated 21.07.2008 appointed a Commission ofInquiry consisting of a retired Judge of the High Court of Gujarat.Itappears that an elaborate inquiry/investigation of the incident was carriedout, initially, by the Sabarmati Police Station of Ahmedabad city and,thereafter, by the CID Crime Branch under the direct supervision of DeputyInspector General of Police.In the course of the inquiry, statements ofthe several inmates of the Ashram were recorded.In the course of the aforesaid inquiry/investigation summonsunder Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued toJournalists of different newspapers as well as the electronic media togather information with regard to the incident in question.Similarly, apress note was also issued in the newspapers asking for information inrespect of the incident.However, there was no response to the summonsissued or the press note published by the investigating agency.While theaforesaid inquiry/investigation was continuing, the appellants -Shantibhai J. Vagehla and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela instituted Special CriminalApplication No.770 of 2009 in the High Court.In the said applicationdetails of the incident, as noticed above, were mentioned by the appellantswho had sought an order directing the Superintendent of Police, CBI,Gandhinagar (impleaded as respondent No.2) to register the criminaloffence(s) as may be disclosed by the statements made in the applicationfiled before the High Court and for further directions to carry out aproper investigation in respect of the incident of the mysterious death ofthe two children.During the pendency of the aforesaid Special Criminal ApplicationNo.770 of 2009, FIR dated 07.11.2009 was formally lodged by one Shri H.B.Rajput, Inspector, CID Crime, Gandhinagar in the Gandhinagar Police Stationin respect of the incident alleging commission of offences under Section304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Act. Seven inmates of the Ashram were named as theaccused who were suspected to be involved with the offences alleged.The FIR lodged against the seven inmates of the Ashram, in so far asthe offence under Section 304 IPC is concerned, came to be challengedbefore the High Court by the accused named therein.Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No. 13519 of 2009 filed by the aforesaid accused was heardalong with Special Criminal Application No. 770 of 2009 filed by appellants– Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela.Both the applicationswere disposed of by the High Court by the impugned order dated 10.01.2011.As already noticed, the High Court, on the basis of the conclusion that nooffence against the accused under Section 304 IPC was made out, has quashedthe FIR in so far as the aforesaid provision of the Penal Code isconcerned.The High Courtby the aforementioned order also disposed of Special Criminal ApplicationNo.770 of 2009 filed by the two appellants as having become infructuous.Aggrieved by the said aforesaid order dated 10.01.2011 the State of Gujaratand the parents of the deceased children – Shantibhai J. Vaghela andPrafulbhai J. Vaghela have instituted the present appeals.The skin and soft ||blackening of some parts after |tissue are missing at lower part ||death if any) if swelling of any |of frontal neck front and sides of||part then examination of fluid in |chest and abdomen, lower part of ||it & condition of the skin.|right leg, distal part of both the|| |feet.Distal || |part of left foot including toes || |missing metatarsals exposed the || |missing tissues of the body is || |attached with the changes of post || |mortem phenomena.Margins of || |missing tissues are pale, || |irregular without vital reactions || |and nibbling due to animals || |appreciated.|| | ||(13) Appearance of dead body- |Facial features are bloated and ||normal or swollen, condition of |distorted.Eyes open, eye balls ||eyes, condition of tongue, face, |softened decomposed and protruded.||type of discharges from ears or |Mouth is open tongue protruded ||nostrils (if any).|outside oral cavity.Margins are ||by aquatic animal (cutis Anserina)|pale, irregular and without vital ||if any, record be made regarding |reactions.Foul smelling gas ||body & thighs or some growth, |coming from the body brown black ||blackening of some parts after |discoloration of skin found on ||death if any) if swelling of any |face, chest, abdomen, both upper ||part then examination of fluid in |limbs and lower part of both the ||it & condition of the skin.|thighs and both legs while upper || |part of thighs back of chest, || |gluteal region is less || |discolouration.Skin is early || |peeled off at places scalp hair || |early peeled off.The aforesaid FIR was filedafter more than one year of the incident and after holding of a detailedinquiry/investigation into the incident.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Then both mother and son duo lunged forward to attack Jaikunwarbai but she fled from her house and then both the assailants also went away.The information of the incident was given to Mohan, brother of Jaikunwarbai who was working in the field.This witness in her cross-examination states that she is married and her husband's village is Khoria - Ema and she had come to her parental house on the occasion of Diwali.She states that after arriving at her parental house, she used to stay for about 8 days.(Delivered at Indore on this 7th day of July, 2020) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.The present appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence pronounced by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No.10/2006 vide judgement dated 28.12.2006, whereby each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-The prosecution story in short was that on 27.11.2005, Sub- Inspector A. K. Singh (PW-11) of Police Station Barodia, District Shajapur received a telephonic message from Kumer Singh, Sarpanch of Village Lasudiya-Jagmal that a murder had been committed in the village.A. K. Singh (PW-11) arrived at the spot.The witness Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), who is daughter of the deceased Tejubai and who was a married lady, narrated the incident to him and as per her statements on the morning of 27.11.2005, appellant Shaitanbai who lives in neighbourhood and who is aunt of Jaikunwarbai came rushing to the house of Jaikunwarbai who was sitting with her mother Tejubai.Shaitanbai started abusing Tejubai saying that son of Tejubai namely, Mohan had quarrelled with Radheshyam, son of Shaitanbai.At that moment, Jagdish, another son of Shaitanbai also came and started using filthy and abusive language.Tejubai told them not to abuse but Shaitanbai wielding sharp edged weapon daranta and Jagdish wielding a knife entered the house of Tejubai.Shaitanbai inflicted daranta blow on the chest of Tejubai, who started bleeding and fell on the floor.Babitabai, daughter of Tejuabai then came to rescue but Jagdish stabbed Babitabai with knife and Babitabai also fell upon Tejubai.Mohan came to spot and immediately went to inform Kumer Singh, Sarpanch who in turn made 3 telephone call to Sub-Inspector A. K. Singh.The Sub-Inspector, after recording Dehati Nalishi, drew Panchnama, spot-map and recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested both the assailants/appellants and on the basis of their memorandum, seized daranta from Shaitanbai and a knife from Jagdish.The blood stained soil was collected from the spot and blood stained clothes of the appellants were also seized.Both these items were sent to FSL.However, FSL report could not be obtained till the conclusion of the trial and pronouncement of judgement.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the Trial Court read over the charges under Sections 302/34 and 450/34 of IPC to the appellants.Both of them abjured their guilt and have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity.Learned Trial Court went on to examine prosecution witnesses and in all, 11 witnesses were examined and no defence evidence was led and after conclusion of trial, both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.In the appeal, it has been mentioned that due to prior enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated, that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story.The statements of witnesses are self-contradictory and there are many important omissions and contradictions which have been overlooked, that medical report also does not corroborate statements of witnesses, that compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has not been made and the prosecution was unable to prove spot of the incident and on these grounds, acquittal has been sought.The question for consideration before this Court is whether in view of the grounds taken by the appellants, conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted?The prosecution has examined eye-witnesses namely, Smt. Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), Dulesingh (PW-2), Shankarlal (PW-3), Sitaram (PW-4) and Smt. Ghisibai (PW-6).However, barring Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), all other eye-witnesses have turned hostile.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) being the daughter of deceased Tejubai is the interested witness.Hence, her statements need to be appreciated with circumspection.This witness states that about 2 months prior to her deposition at about 8.00 AM in the morning, the witness was at her home and at that time her mother Tejubai, sister-in-law Babitabai, Sandeep, Rachna and Deepak were all present.She states that about a month back her brother Mohan had a quarrel with Radheysham (s/o accused Shaitanbai).She states that Shaitanbai who is her Badi Maa (wife of elder brother of witness's father) came to her house and started abusing Tejubai.At that point of time, Jagdish, son of Shaitanbai also came wielding knife whereas Shaitanbai was wielding daranta.She states that Shaitanbai inserted daranta in the stomach of Tejubai, the witness's mother, then Jagdish also stabbed Babitabai on her chest.Both of them fell down and then her brother Mohan came to the spot and went away to inform Sarpanch.She further states that police came and drew spot map, police seized blood stained soil and ordinary soil and exhibited documents on which she appended her thumb impression.She reiterates that incident occurred due to previous incident of assault.Between Mohan, son of deceased Tejubai and Radheshyam.In her cross- examination, she has been asked question relating to the earlier incident.She states that at the time of earlier incident, also she was in 5 her parental house and the dispute occurred because the irrigation pipe going to her parental agriculture field was severed.Reverting back to the incident which culminated in death of her mother and sister-in-law, she states in para-9 that incident of stabbing took place inside the house.She states that for quite sometime Shaitanbai, wielding daranta in her hand was shouting and abusing Tejubai and due to such shouts the neighbours had gathered and that the incident of stabbing happened when Shaitanbai and Jagdish both entered the house.At first her mother was dealt daranta blow and on hearing her cries, Babitabai came rushing but she was stabbed by Jagdish and when this incident occurred the witness was nearby at a distance not more than one hand.The witness states that there are 3 rooms in house and the incident happened in the first room.Dulesingh (PW-2), Shankarlal (PW-3), Sitaram (PW-4) and Ghisibai (PW-6) have turned hostile.However, they have supported the prosecution story in as much as they stated that they had heard and seen the quarrel taking place.Dulesingh (PW-2) states that while he was going from his house to the tube well and passed by the house of the deceased he heard children crying and then he asked a villager namely, Narayan as to what has happened then Narayan told him that Tejubai has been done to death by Jagdish.He states that Jaikunwarbai told this witness to send Jaikunwarbai uncle from agriculture field.This witness has been declared hostile and denies that he himself had seen stabbing incident.However, this witness admits that quarrel between two families had taken place about 8 to 10 days earlier.Thus, this witness has stated to have heard shouts at the time of incident.Shankarlal (PW-3) also states that he had seen quarrel between the two ladies and that Shaitanbai was having a daranta in her hand and Jagdish was having a knife and both of them have entered the house of the deceased.He is also the witness of Exhibit-P/3 Safina form Exhibit- P/3 as also Exhibit-P/4 and Exhibit-P/6 both Naksha Panchnama of Tejubai and Babitabai.However, in para-11 he admits the suggestion that he had not seen both women quarreling and that when he arrived the incident had already taken place.Thus, there is variations in the cross-examination of this witness from that of examination in chief.Sitaram (PW-4) states that he had seen Shaitanbai abusing wife of Dungaji when he was going to fetch water.However, he denies to have seen the act of stabbing.He is declared hostile but only supports the prosecution story to the extent that Shaitanbai was abusing Tejubai and Babitabai and when he came back he saw Tejubai and Babitabai dead.These statements have not been challenged by the prosecution.Ghisibai (PW-6) has also stated that she saw both the ladies talking with each other when the witnesses had gone out to tie her goat at the well.She further states that when she came back she saw Tejubai and Babitabai both dead near the door of their house and Jaikunwarbai was telling that her mother and sister-in-law have been killed.She has been declared hostile but she denies to have seen the whole incident herself.In her cross-examination, she admits that she did not hear the abuses.However, in her statements she has stated that she had seen both the ladies talking to each other and then Babitabai and Tejubai lying dead has not been challenged in the cross-examination.Thus, it emerges that Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) is the only witness who states that the whole incident occurred between her own eyes.Other eye witnesses support the prosecution story only to the extent that they have seen them quarreling and further that they had seen two ladies namely; Tejubai and Babitabai lying dead but they do not state 7 that they saw the incident of stab injury.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has been tried to be shown as unreliable.She in para-14 admits that walls of the room where the incident took place were splattered with human blood due to the incident.However, in the spot map Exhibit-P/25, there is no mention of any blood on the walls.This discrepancy has been properly dealt with by the Trial Court in para-14 of its judgment.It has been mentioned that although the blood may not have been found on the walls but there was blood lying on the floor of the room which was collected by Investigating Officer and the same has been supported by other witnesses which shows that the incident occurred in the room of the house.It is quite clear that the witnesses referred to earlier have stated that they saw both the ladies inside the room.In Exhibit-P/25, which is spot map, spot 'A' has been shown as the place where the body of Tejubai was lying and spot 'B' is the place where the body of Babita was lying and both the places have been shown to be inside the room.The second aspect on which Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has been challenged is that in para-6 she states that on the day of incident no food was cooked but Dr. Z. Iqbal (PW-7) who conducted the post- mortem has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had found semi- digested food in the small intestines of both the ladies which shows that they had taken meals sometimes earlier.Regarding this discrepancy, it emerges that the incident occurred between 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM which means that both the ladies may have eaten their breakfast sometimes earlier and when the incident occurred the menfolk of the house had gone to their agricultural field.In the villages people generally tend to consume breakfast early 8 because the menfolk have to go to their agricultural fields early in the morning.It may be that both the ladies partook of their breakfast which may have been the previous night's left over meal.If the prosecution wanted to implant the witnesses, it could very well have implanted Mohan the son of Tejubai as an eye-witness.However, Mohan (PW-1) has stated that at the time of incident he was in his agricultural field and at that time Dulesingh came and apprised him about the incident.This witness states that he came running to his house and found his wife Babitabai and mother Tejubai soaked in blood and both had died.His sister Jaikunwarbai was present in the house and other villagers as well who had assembled.Jaikunwarbai told him that at first Shaitanbai struck daranta blow on Tejubai and when Babitabai came to rescue, accused Jagdish inflicted knife injury on her chest.The witness states that he then rushed to inform Sarpanch Kumer Singh and told him to intimate the police station.Regarding the cause of the incident, this witness states that about 15 days before the incident, there was a quarrel between the witness and Radheshyam, who is cousin of the witness and elder brother of accused Jadgish and the quarrel was regarding irrigating the agricultural field.Radheshyam had lodged a report against the witness and the witness has been released on bail.This witness has been asked as to whether he saw accused Shaitanbai and Jagdish himself.He replies in affirmative that he had seen both the accused fleeing from the spot of the incident and Shaitanbai was wielding daranta in her hand and Jadgish was wielding a knife.Although, Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) also states in para-9 that 9 Mohan had arrived at the scene when Shaitanbai was abusing.However, immediately thereafter, she makes a statement that Mohan arrived at the scene when the whole incident had occurred and then she had narrated the incident to Mohan.Thus, there appears an attempt on the part of Mohan to be an eye-witness who at first is supported by Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) also but she immediately makes a statement to the effect that Mohan came after the incident.It has been found that Mohan (PW-1) has earlier stated in examination-in- chief that Dulesingh had informed him that his wife and mother had already been attacked by accused persons.The witness Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has also stated in her statement that Mohan came after the incident.From the evidence of Mohan (PW-1), it becomes clear that reason for Shaitanbai to quarrel with Tejubai was because of the previous fight between her son Radheshyam and witness Mohan in which Radheshyam lodged a report against him.Regarding proximity of both houses of Shaitanbai and the witness, the has witness stated in cross-examination that there is only one wall which exists between two houses.He has been asked as to whether Jaikunwarbai comes to her parents house very often.This witness in para-9 makes exaggerated statement that he knew that murder is going to take place and therefore, he had brought her sister.However, such exaggerated statements can simply be ignored as overzealous person's statement.The parts of the statements of this witness which are reliable are that there was a earlier quarrel between him and Radheshyam, brother of Jadgish and son of Shaitanbai and on the date of the incident, on receiving information, he rushed to the spot, saw his wife and mother already dead and 10 Jaikunwarbai narrated the sequence of events to him and then he rushed to inform Kumer Singh, Sarpanch.Statement of Mohan that Jaikunwarbai told him that both the ladies were done to death by Shaitanbai and Jadgish are relevant statements under Section 7 of the Evidence Act and would be read against both the accused persons.Kumer Singh (PW-5) states that Mohan came to his house in the morning of 27.11.2005 and told him that her mother and wife had been murdered by Jagdish and her mother Shaitanbai.He has also told him that Shaitanbai was wielding daranta and Jadgish was wielding knife.This witness states that he immediately rushed to the spot with Mohan and saw both the ladies lying there dead thereafter, he went to his house and called up police at Dupada Chowki and also called at police station Mohan Barodia and told that two murders have taken place.Thus, as per this witness, the information was not only narrated to the police chowki but also to police station at Mohan Barodia.As per this witness, at first, police from Dupada Chowki had arrived at the spot and 45 minutes later, police from Mohan Barodia came.He was asked as to why he did not immediately inform the police station even before arriving at the spot.This witness states that he considered it appropriate to inform the police only after arriving at the spot.In his police statement (Exhibit-D/2), there is no mention of this witness being told by Mohan that Shaitanbai was wielding daranta and Jagdish a knife.The reliable part of the evidence of this witness is that Mohan informed him in person about the incident and then this witness came to the spot and from the spot, he called up at police chowki and also at police station.However, what we see in this case is that lodging of report, initiation of investigation was also done by police at police station Mohan Barodia.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) in para-13 11 has stated that at first police from police chowki had arrived at but no incident was narrated to them however, she denies that incident was not narrated as it was being considered at that time name of which accused should be taken.Despite the fact that there are some minor inconsistencies in the statement of Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), she is a reliable eye-witness, who was present in the house when the incident occurred.It is found proved that Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) was in the house when the incident had taken place and incident occurred before her own eyes.Her presence at the time of the incident has been affirmed by other witnesses namely, Ghisibai (PW-6), Dulesingh (PW-2) and Sitaram (PW-4).Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has stated that after witnessing the incident, as accused lunged towards her, she rushed out of the house and hence was saved.It has already been found proved that Tejubai and Babitabai were killed inside their house.It has further been found proved from the statements of other witnesses and her neighbours that Shaitanbai was seen talking/quarreling with Tejubai prior to the incident.The onus was upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain how both the ladies were killed.The Investigating Officer A. K. Singh (PW-11) states that on the basis of memorandum of Jagdish, a knife was recovered from Jagdish and on the basis of memorandum of Shaitanbai (Exhibit- P/10), a daranta was recovered from her.However, these weapons have not been produced before the Court.These articles and the FSL report have not even been produced from the FSL and thus, very vital piece of evidence has been missing in this matter.Learned Trial Court has put the whole blame on the 12 Investigating Officer and has even suggested departmental action against him.However, perusal of order-sheets does not show any endeavour on the part of the Presiding Officer directing availability of FSL report and the articles.The Presiding Officer very well knew that he was dealing with a very serious case involving double murder.However, order-sheets did not display any concern on the part of the Presiding Officer regarding non-availability of FSL report.Such indifference and apathy on the part of the Presiding Officer is reprehensible and the Presiding Officer deserves to account for such lapse.Although, vital piece of evidence, which is FSL report is not available, it has been found proved that Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) is a reliable eye-witness and also that Shaitanbai had come to the house of Tejubai and was quarreling with her.It has further been found proved that bodies of both ladies were found in the house of Tejubai.This proves that the assailants had attacked Tejubai and Babitabai.There are no injuries on the person of both the accused.The fact that incident occurred inside the house of Tejubai does away with defence of provocation given to the assailants by the deceased ladies.Thus, assailants could not claim the benefit of first Exception of Section 300 of IPC.They have not discharged the onus on them under Section 106 of the EvidenceFrom the evidence of Dr. Z. Iqbal (PW-7), it is clear that only one injury on each of the deceased was found.The witness states that in the post-mortem report of Tejubai, there was only one incised wound on her chest, size - 1 x x 6 cms on the left side between 5 th and 6th ribs.The death had occurred due to excessive bleeding resulting stoppage of breathing.Regarding Babitabai, this witness 13 states that he had found one injury on the right side of her chest, sizeThe witness states that both the injuries could have been caused by a knife.In the cross- examination, this witness states that injuries caused were not of such nature which could have caused immediate death and if both had been given treatment, their death could have been prevented.Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed that the death had occurred due to non-availability of medical treatment and the doctor himself states that the injuries were of such nature as would have not caused instant death.A comment needs to be made regarding the submissions of Dr. Z. Iqbal (PW-7) when he says that timely medical intervention would have prevented death.It is seen that after the incident of stabbing occurred, death had taken place within a span of half an hour.By the time, Mohan rushed to the spot, both ladies were already dead.The incident had occurred at about 7.30 AM.Mohan (PW-1) in para-14 of his cross-examination states that he had come out of his house at 7.00 AM and was sitting in his field (goha) for 10 to 15 minutes when he received the information and as he reached the spot, both ladies were dead.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) also states that immediately on being attacked, both ladies had fallen down at the spot only.This also shows that blow was also severe that the deceased ladies could not even make an attempt to run.The State had gone in appeal seeking enhancement.The order-sheets do not display endeavour on the part of the Presiding Officer directing availability of FSL report and the seized articles.Held, such indifference and apathy on the part of the Presiding Officer is reprehensible and the Presiding Officer deserves to account for such lapse.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

DATE OF RESERVING: 21.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/11/2018ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)1. Rule.Rule, returnable forthwith.With the consent of ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 ::: APL.802.17 2learned counsel for respective parties, the Application is taken up forfinal hearing, at the stage of admission itself.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::By means of this Application filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks quashing of the FirstInformation Report in Crime No.144/2017 dated 05.10.2017 registeredat the instance of non-applicant no. 2 with Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur PoliceStation, for the offence punishable u/s.376 of the IPC.3. Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted thatduring the pendency of investigation, the parties have amicably settledtheir differences amongst themselves by way of mutual understandingand pursuant to the same, they requested that the instant Applicationfor quashing of FIR, be allowed.The non-applicant no.2, who is the original complainant,has filed an affidavit dated 1 st November 2018, stating that during thependency of the Application, she has discussed the matter with herfamily members and has decided to withdraw the allegations and FIR,in order to settle the matter amicably with the applicant, considering ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 ::: APL.802.17 3the age, image of family, career and life.It is further stated that shewould withdraw all the allegations made in the FIR which was anoutcome of anger and emotions so also statements recorded by thepolice and the written submissions filed by her before this Court againstthe applicant.According to non-applicant no.2 the said affidavit hasbeen made by her on her freewill and without any duress or undueinfluence.Thus, the non-applicant no.2 has requested to quash theaforementioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::The applicant as well as non-applicant no.2 were personallypresent before this Court.The non-applicant no.2 had filed the FIRalleging that the applicant had established physical relationship withher under the pretext of promising to marry.We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 ::: APL.802.17 4 High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court.Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court.There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatchet.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::Paragraph Nos. 29.2 and 29.6 are couched in the following terms :"29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:(i) ends of justice, or::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::Keeping in mind the above-referred guidelines issued bythe Hon'ble Apex Court, and in view of the fact that the matter issettled amicably between the parties, pursuing the proceedings againstthe applicant would be an abuse of process of law and no fruitfulpurpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab(2008) 4 SCC 582, it is held that no purpose would be served bykeeping the FIR alive.In order to secure the ends of justice, it would bejust and proper to allow the application herein.The Application isallowed by quashing FIR No.144/2017 dated 5.10.2017 registered atBajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur for offence punishable u/s. 376 ofIPC.However, in our considered opinion, as the police and courtmachinery was used by the parties to settle their private dispute, as acorrollary of differences of opinion, it would be appropriate to saddlethe applicant with the costs of Rs.25,000/-.(rupees twenty fivethousand) which shall be paid to an old-Age home i.e. "Matru SevaSangh Panchvati Vriddhashram" Umred Road, Bada Tajbagh Road, TajBagh, Nagpur.The applicant shall pay the said costs and produce thereceipt within a period of four weeks from today, failing which theApplication shall stand dismissed automatically without furtherreference to the Court and the order of quashing of FIR and furtherproceedings arising therefrom shall be treated as non-est.With the above directions, the Application stands disposedof.Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1993 passed by Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi where through the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) was found guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 .In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year.(2) Brief facts which led to the present appeal are as under : that Public Witness -7 Ram Bharose alongwith Public Witness 9 Ram Vilas went to their hut (jhuggi) situated in Block No. 11 near a dirty drain in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on 22nd July, 1989 at 4:30 P.M. to collect there from fruits in a rickshaw belonging to one Public Witness 8 Arun Paswan.Public Witness 8 Arun Paswan stopped his rickshaw at a distance of 15-16 paces away from the above said hut.Whereafter injured Public Witness 7 Ram Bharose and Public Witness 8 Ram Vilas covered that distance on foot.The appellant at that time was lying on a cot opposite to the entrance of the hut of the complainant Ram Vilas whereby he virtually blocked the passage leading to the said hut, complainant Ram Bharose requested the appellant to remove his cot in order to enable him to take out the fruits from his hut.The appellant however, did not accede to the request of the complainant Ram Bharose and instead started abusing him.Whereupon Public Witness 7 Ram Bharose requested him not to do so.It led to a flaming row.The appellant took out a dagger and stabbed the injured Ram Bharose on the left side of his abdomen.The injured bled as a corollary whereof.Ram Vilas Public Witness 9 came to his rescue.He raised an alarm.He took the injured to the hospital in a three wheeler rickshaw.The appellant after having caused afore-mentioned injury fled from the spot alongwith the dagger.(3) The appellant was arrested by the police on 23rd July, 1989 in a case Fir 424/89 under section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant made a disclosure statement in the said Fir that the dagger which was recovered from his possession was also used by him in causing injury to Public Witness 7 Ram Bharose.(4) PW9 Ram Vilas informed the police with regard to the above said incident.A copy whereof was handed over to Asi Shanti Prasad.He alongwith Constable Jag Saran arrived at the place of occurrence.They came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital.Shri Shanti Prasad thereafter left for the Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital.However, he recorded the statement of Sh.After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.(5) Learned lower court after the appraisal of the evidence oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.Thus the appellant was convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 alluded to above.(6) Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order the appellant has approached this court through the present appeal.No blood was found on the dagger.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.531 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506 (1) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.531 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, ifhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 not already filed.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order tta To1.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Police Station, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.tta Crl.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 03.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Criminal revision is, thus, disposed of.

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

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